Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

FAIR Answers—back to home page

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendment, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nov. 5, 2008

∗       ∗       ∗

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8

Summary: The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates.

Overview

The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. See Heritage.org and TraditionalValues.org for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

Further information

• LDS Newsroom, Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction (Nov. 21, 2008)
• LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview (Nov. 21, 2008)
• Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government, BYU Devotional (Oct. 2008)—A good explanation of why this matters to the Church. (Currently available as video only)
• LDS Newsroom, Church Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8 (May 26, 2009).

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Laura Compton, "Edits to Boyd K. Packer's Talk," mormonsformarriage.com (blog post) (8 October 2010; 16h38)

The text of Proposition 8

The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

It reads in part:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

It also declares:

All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort

How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?

The California Supreme Court, in the case of In Re Marriage Cases, on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

• For a detailed response, see: Mormonism and politics/Church involvement

How were members informed?

Initial letter to members

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

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, 2008, 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.

Satellite broadcast

The Church followed up the letter with a satellite broadcast to members on October 8, 2008. During the broadcast, members were told:

"We invite you tonight to consider the following as your time and circumstances allow. For those with young families, substantial involvement may be out of the question, even though it may matter most to you. For others, however, we hope what we are inviting you to consider tonight will inspire you to respond with your time and your energy."

Among the suggestions made during the broadcast for member involvement was a request from Elder Russell M. Ballard for young people to make use of the latest communication technology to support Proposition 8:

“How do we go about that? You are critical in this effort because so many of you are connected. You are engaged in conversations through the use of technologies that were the dreams of science fiction in my day. As most of you know, we encourage members to join in the conversation. Many of you will text message, blog, make phone calls, walk your neighborhoods, and just talk to friends, associates and neighbors. These methods of engaging will be major elements of informing people of the issues and of the coalition’s position. As you do this, please do so in a sensitive manner. Our approach must always be with respect for others and their positions and opinions.”

Establishment of call centers

Among the plans mentioned by Church leaders during the satellite broadcast was the establishment of call centers. These call centers were set up in individual members' homes within the state of California. Members were to come with their mobile phones, work from coordinated lists, and then make calls. The first pass was to simply poll the people and ascertain where they stood on the issue, and if they were not familiar with it, introduce it to them. There were no "pitch" efforts involved, only education and polling.

Once the polling process was done, the day(s) before the actual election California members gathered together and went through the list of those polled and made calls to remind those considered "yes" or "probably yes" to get out and vote. The day of the election member began calling in the morning and went to the actual polling locations to check the list of voters. Those who were on the previously compiled list of "yes" and "probably yes" who had not voted were called again. In some areas, callers asked voters who planned to vote "yes" if they knew where their polling place was and in some cases even asked them if they needed a ride to the polls.

These phone banks were not set up to "push" the passage of the proposition, but were instead designed only to be sure that those who favored the proposition had every chance and reminder to get out and vote on the day of the election. At no time was there a pressure sale to the voters. When explaining the amendment, members were instructed to state that the proposition was for a constitutional amendment that added the following 14 words to the California constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". If someone asked what that meant, the caller explained that it meant marriage as it has been traditionally defined would be the only form of union recognized as marriage in California, meaning that marriage was only between individuals of the opposite sex.

Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?

Church members were not told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter and the satellite broadcast, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is their choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

• For a detailed response, see: Independent thought and Obedience to Church leaders

How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

• Monetary donations
• Going door-to-door to poll voters
• Phoning voters to remind them to vote
• Sign-waving on street corners
• Hanging voting reminders on doors

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

The "No on 8" response

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics...."and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

—"Same-Sex Setback," Rolling Stone (Dec. 11, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5) The Church did not oppose such matters, writing:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

Rather than acknowledge this fundamental aspect of the issue, Proposition 8 was portrayed by its opponents as removing marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in LDS Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election

There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.

—Editorial, Legislating Immorality, National Review Online (Nov. 24, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

• Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is not recorded by the state. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" Hansen gave a speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

• Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the Daily Kos linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious."

The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.

The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

—Jonah Goldberg, An ugly attack on Mormons, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 2, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8 (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies

The ads

The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release)

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

With regard to schools, we see this statement from the "No on 8" side weeks after the election:

Thankfully there are some great organizations out there to help schools create a safer, more inclusive environment. GLSEN works with school communities to create safe learning environments through policy advocacy and trainings for school administrators, teachers and students. Groundspark, creator of a number of educational films on preventing school bias and celebrating family diversity, will soon premier "Straightlaced," a new film encouraging teens to question their assumptions about gender roles and homophobia. Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and (in the Bay Area) Our Family Coalition help families and youth navigate the school system and advocate for all families.

So there's one thing both the proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 were right about—Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the schools. And it had everything to do with the schools.

—Isobel White, Prop. 8 and our schools—time to tell it like it is., Huffington Post, (Dec. 12, 2008)

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened
• Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods

Claims by the "No on 8" campaign

The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign:

• "Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
• Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign

The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

• A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims."

• A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card.

Where did the money come from?

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

	In-State Donations	Out-of-State Donations	Total Donations
For Proposition 8	$25,388,955	$10,733,582	$36,122,538
Against Proposition 8	$26,464,589	$11,968,285	$38,432,873
Totals	$51,853,544	$22,701,867	$74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of LDS-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of LDS Church involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a onetime Mormon, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to LDS involvement as an effort to "level the financial playing field."

The vote

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the 52% to 48% margin (7,001,084 to 6,401,482) by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

Voter demographics

• Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
• Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
• LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
• The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition. Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
• The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
• The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

Post-election questions and myths

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

• Questions
  • Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?
  • Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?
  • Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?
  • Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?
  • But what about the companies that the Church owns?
  • Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?
  • Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?
  • Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?
  • Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?
  • How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?
• Myths
  • Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8
  • Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian
  • The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers
  • The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign
  • The Church was later found guilty of 'election fraud' and fined as a result

Post-election events

In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.

—Hendrik Hertzberg, (Proposition) Eight is enough, The New Yorker (Nov. 24, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.

—Editorial, Legislating Immorality, National Review Online (Nov. 24, 2008)

∗       ∗       ∗

The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.

—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple

∗       ∗       ∗

Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormons need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?

—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.

∗       ∗       ∗

There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

• Threats from "No on 8" supporters
• Church response
• Negative reactions
  • Accusations of hatred and bigotry
  • Protests at LDS places of worship
  • Protests at other Christian places of worship
  • Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters
  • Harassment
  • Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?
  • Terrorist tactics
  • Hacking of Church related web site
  • Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status
  • Blacklists and boycotts
  • Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS
  • Intimidation of gays and lesbians
  • Absence of support from political leaders
• Positive effects
  • Expressions of support from other Christians
  • Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8

Videos

Yes on 8 ads

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth
• Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools
• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened

No on 8 ads

• advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8
• Parents
• Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8
• Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools, Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
• California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8
• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8

Press conferences

• Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

External links

Proposition 8 related

• Paul Bishop, In the Face of Hatred, Meridian Magazine, November 12, 2008.

Church involvement in politics

• Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign (November 1999): 52.off-site
• Hugh Nibley, "Beyond Politics," Brigham Young University Studies 15 no. 1 (1974), 1–21.

Warning: Due to the nature of the subject, some external links may lead to sites which contain explicit language

Notes