Only 8 days left until election day in the United States, and some of us will be very happy when the posturing, spinning, campaigning, and criticizing will be over.
The Church has taken quite a bit of heat in some quarters regarding its stance relative to Proposition 8 in California. I know and support the call from the Church for members to help pass the proposition. I also know several faithful members who take exception to the Church making such a call. (Of course, a few other faithful members may take exception to characterizing those exception-taking members as “faithful.” So be it; that’s a nit I am not willing or worthy to pick.)
What I take exception with is the troublesome efforts of one Nadine Hansen, an attorney from Cedar City, Utah, who created the website Mormonsfor8.com. The domain registration for Mormonsfor8 is “private,” meaning that Hansen has sought to protect her identity through the registration. She has, however, allowed her responsibility for the website to be spotlighted in dozens of newspaper articles, such as this one.
Even though the website and Hansen profess “neutrality” in the struggles for and against Proposition 8, it is somewhat telling that the she operates no balancing website called “Catholicsfor8” or “Mormonsagainst8.” The only demographic and position targeted by the site is Mormons, and only if they have donated to the campaign for a proposition with which she disagrees.
Hardly seems neutral to me.
Hansen is no stranger to this topic, however. She long ago took a position in this area. She recounts some of her efforts in her 2008 Sunstone Symposium presentation.
So what do I find troubling about the Mormonsfor8 website? Simply that it targets individuals and invites others to identify individuals’ religious affiliation. What does such an affiliation have to do with the efforts around Proposition 8? Should it matter of a proponent of the proposition was Baptist? Should it matter if an opponent was tall? Or a lawyer? Or a journalist? Would there be an outcry if someone created a website called “Blacksfor8” or “Gaysagainst8”? If there would be, why is there no outcry over a site designed to identify all the donors in favor of Proposition 8 who are Mormon?
Apparently the effort is appreciated for exactly what it is by some people, however. In a recent post on The Daily Kos one correspondent provided a link to Mormonsfor8 and suggested that people “gather dirt” on all the Mormon donors so that it could be used against those people and against the Proposition 8 proponents. There is at least anecdotal evidence that has been coming in to FAIR that some people are doing just that—using the information on Mormonsfor8 to identify the donors, contact them, and intimidate or threaten them. Even some death threats have been proffered.
If Hansen had any real concern for individuals, she should take down her site, and do it right away, before the election and before some idiot uses her information to actually harm those who don’t agree with Hansen’s moral stance.
I should also note that I find it interesting that an attorney—an officer of the court—would initiate and operate a website which can only have, as its implicit purpose, the targeting of a specific religious group and the suppression of donations by potential future donors from that group. I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that religious affiliation is a private matter and “outting” that affiliation may have legal consequences.
Anyway, the next 8 days should be interesting, to say the least.
-Allen
As an active, faithful, believing Latter-day Saint who has concerns about Prop 8 (and would probably vote “no” on it if I still lived in California), I wholeheartedly agree with Allen’s take on this issue.
Targeting individuals for harassment based on their religious faith and political views is beyond the pale. Ms. Hansen should be ashamed of herself.
Well said Allen. I think it has been very important for so many Latter-day Saints to take a stand on this particular issue.
Only the stock market has sunk lower than the American political process that spawns this kind of activity.
Allen,
This does seem like take off the gloves type tactics, but you seem to miss the more direct instance of blackmail.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/politics/local_elections&id=6469466
I must admit this probably does not have the teeth that the other has given most pro gay marriage people have little to worry about in this day in age about their position being made public. Even so this seems a lot slimier to me than just publishing names.
Jim Abbott (in the story you cited) did exactly the right thing—he made this attempt public.
But I still don’t consider this attempt anything close to publishing the names of private donors and their religious affiliation. Did Jim Abbott’s religion have anything to do with his decision? Maybe; maybe not. The point is that it shouldn’t matter.
Yet, it apparently does matter if the donor is a Mormon.
-Allen
I think the most atrocious thing about this issue is that the idea that you can intimidate people away from opposing you politically or socially is the very definition of terrorism. And they think they’re advocating democracy.
Obviously the people who have contributed are ashamed of their choice, since they do not want to be public. I would think that boldly proclaiming your loyalty to your church and priesthood leadership would be a source of pride…
I’m a frequent commenter on the Mormonwebinternacle. I sent a friend a check to include in his donation, simply because I prefer to donate to causes anonymously and that apparently wasn’t an option in this case. My friend, though, doesn’t mind being public.
phouchg seems to think that that anonymous donorship is a matter of shame, but he’s employing empty rhetoric. I know several people who anonymously donate thousands of dollars a year to various causes, mainly so that they do not get added to the “list” of people to call next time.
I’d like to ask the stupid question here. On the surface I don’t like this effort to single donors out by their religion. If it could be shown that the preponderance of donations are coming from Utah Mormons (which it does not appear that way), there might be an argument here. Or if it could be shown that overwhelmingly the number of donations from Mormons exceeded that of any other demographic by substantial margins, then I think there might be a point there also. On to the question:
How is she able to single out contributors by religion, is that information gathered with the donation?
Phouchg,
I must have missed the place where donors said they don’t want their participation to be public. Most people donating money are presumably also doing the other things the Yes (?) on 8 group has been asking, including going door-to-door and holding signs about. Hardly an anonymous endeavor.
In any event, I’m rarely happy not to live in California, but I’m super-happy right now that I don’t. (That will, of course, presumably change come November 5th or so.) In any event, though, the tactics of some people supporting both sides of the issue are embarrasingly bad. I hope not everybody in California (on either side of the debate) has not been as uncivil as the newsmakers have been.
Phouchg, do your ward members know that you’ve been submitting their names to Mormonsfor8.com (see http://www.asoftanswer.com/2008/10/21/targeting-mormons-on-proposition-8/)?
If not, why not? Surely you’re not ashamed of your conduct?
Sorry, I had a few more questions
What is the point? If this was strictly an attempt to discourage future donations, than Mrs. Hansen’s conduct is truly poor taste.
Does the Recorders office measure these stats, if so then isn’t this just a matter of public record, or could this be legally construed as harassment seeing that she has in fact singled particular groups out?
I suppose that means Ms Hansen is ashamed of her conduct since she chose to register her web site privately. Hmmm?
Phouchg
Obviously you are ashamed of your comment as you have not made your full name, location and religion public. Oh wait, you aren’t? Maybe the donors have more complex motives.
I think public knowledge of donors is great. And if you want to vet the donors – be my guest. A judge in Utah just got called on her donations to the Obama campaign. It keeps people honest.
The problem is the call to focus on the “Mormon” donors. The focus is such that it is intended to intimidate people. I may be happy to contribute to a certain campaign but I don’t want that donation to turn people from listening to the teachings of the LDS church.
The call for targeting “mormons” combined with the attacks of “hate monger”, “bigot”, etc, unfairly tar the organization of the church.
By using “mormon” and not “Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint”, or “LDS Church Member”, the person is excluded, made different, and made ok to attack, especially combined with the derrogatory terms, the target is made to be less than a full human being. It is clearly a religious attack.
Can you imagine if a similar list were being propogated for other religions? jewsfor8.org?
Also, is there any permissible and meaningful reason to single out “mormon” donors? I asked the author of the post on the daily kos calling for this, and he had no answer. Do you?
Cowboy,
I may be wrong on this, but I really doubt that the Recorder’s office would collect information on the religion of donor’s. That would seem to me to be a violation of the separation of church and state. A religion has the right, probably even a duty to speak out on moral issues in the public arena. But I do not think that government officials collect information regarding religion. With the likely exception of when a relion steps out on more than moral issues, for example appearing to support a political candidate, then I believe the IRS could take action.
Edwin:
It would seem unusual that the Recorders office would gather information like this, though admittedly I have no experience with this sort of thing. If not, then how has this website been able to segregate the rosters? This really concerns me. If the Recorders office does gather the info, then I still see this effort as offensive – particularly because there is no comparative analysis, ie legitimacy/justification – but I they will no doubt argue that the information was a matter of public record.
The recorders office does not collect any information about a donor’s religion. Hansen asks people to point out if they recognize a donor’s name and know the person is Mormon. In other words, she want’s people to “out” others regarding information that person chose not to make public. And she only does it with Mormons.
I presume she would be aghast if someone started a “Gaysagainst8” website that asked people to “out” those donors who were gay, and then published their names and contact information.
Way over the line.
-Allen
The donation form I got from church had a place for me to put my ward and stake, along with my name, employer, city and ZIP code. The form also said that if I donated more than $100 my information would be publicly reported. If we’re all filling this stuff out on the forms and it’s getting reported by the Secretary of State, what’s the problem with somebody else reporting it as well? It didn’t keep me from donating, and it looks like lots of other people have donated as well.
Allen – If that is the method it would be interesting get an attorney’s take on the matter, other than Hansen. If this did carry over to something like “gaysagainst8” and someone was misrepresented as homosexual, through public cherry picking like you described, I can imagine there could be some serious libel implications. I wonder how cherry picking religion would be characterized, benign?
Over a month ago I e-mailed mormonsfor8.org. When I was e-mailed back the intent that was explained to me was to determine the percentage of donation that was coming from Mormons.
In the e-mail I was quoted that it was over 40% if memory serves. Since then I have seen articles that put it over 50%.
I was also asked in this e-mail if I would help gather info on Mormon donors. I declined. I did not feel informing on other was in good taste.
But Cowboy I think you bring up a good point. “Or if it could be shown that overwhelmingly the number of donations from Mormons exceeded that of any other demographic by substantial margins, then I think there might be a point there also.”
I do not think there is anything wrong with pointing out the amount of involvement is church members. I am not prepared to verify the numbers that are in my memory, but it would seem that this is likely to exceed overwhelmingly than any other demiographic.
I presume she would be aghast if someone started a “Gaysagainst8″ website that asked people to “out” those donors who were gay, and then published their names and contact information.
I’m not the slightest bit ashamed to have others know I’ve donated via Equality California to the “No on 8” effort. If someone wants to set up a website identifying me as an ex-LDS who has donated to oppose the initiative, that’s great! If someone wants to set up a website identifying me as a gay man who has donated to oppose the initiative, that’s great too! In fact, twenty years from now, the last thing I would want is for my children or grandchildren to not see that I donated, and ask, “Dad/Grandpa, you knew how horribly wrong Proposition 8 was! Why didn’t you do something to help fight against it?”
In fact, twenty years from now, the last thing I would want is for my children or grandchildren to not see that I donated, and ask, “Dad/Grandpa, you knew how horribly wrong Proposition 8 was! Why didn’t you do something to help fight against it?”
If your implication is that someday *my* children will be asking me that, I would ask you in return what leads you to believe that my children’s opinion on the matter will differ from mine.
After all, it’s not like they’ll be learning in school about how gay marriage is a good thing.
Right?
JimD wrote:
“Phouchg, do your ward members know that you’ve been submitting their names to Mormonsfor8.com (see http://www.asoftanswer.com/2008/10/21/targeting-mormons-on-proposition-8/)?”
Only my wife knows. I don’t see anybody else in the ward in which I reside. I have been on independent study for the past 3 years.
“If not, why not? Surely you’re not ashamed of your conduct?”
Why not? Again, I haven’t associated with anybody in the ward for the past 3 years. They know my address and phone number if they want to associate with me. Nobody has said “boo” to me in 3 years.
And no, I am not ashamed of my conduct.
There are other reasons besides shame for not wanting your name and religious affiliation published.
Invoke Godwin’s law here.
What everyone should take is that anything you do with your real name can be linked back to you and everything about you. If you don’t want that, donate anonymously. Or through another person.
I lost some of my taste for public advocacy when my wife and I got death threats from a candidate’s spouse over a LTE I wrote regarding a civic matter several years ago. I use the same screen name in Bloggernacle circles. Several people know who I am in real life. But if I’m not a public figure, I don’t deserve to have people on either side of the issue delving into every other thing in my life.
I prefer my anonymity now. I donate to causes, only if I can be anonymous. God can judge me; I’ll let the nutjobs on both sides of the Prop 8 issue not worry about who I am.
(I have family members who take pride in being outed on Mormonsfor8 — like it shows publicly how righteous they are.)
JayS wrote:
“Obviously you are ashamed of your comment as you have not made your full name, location and religion public. Oh wait, you aren’t? Maybe the donors have more complex motives.”
A person with reasonable Google-fu skillz and way too much time on their hands could determine that information as I have been active on various LDS boards and blogs for the past 10 years.
And only the donors know what motives are in their heart when they make their donation. Complex? Perhaps. Wanting to score celestial brownie points? Possibly.
“I think public knowledge of donors is great…”
I do too.
“The problem is the call to focus on the “Mormon” donors.”
The site is focused on Mormon donors to a certain political fund. It would be silly to go to mormonsfor8.com and ask for information about Lutherans on the list.
“Can you imagine if a similar list were being propogated for other religions? jewsfor8.org?”
It’s a free country and there’s lots of internet to go around. If they wanted to do so, that is their concern.
“Also, is there any permissible and meaningful reason to single out “mormon” donors? I asked the author of the post on the daily kos calling for this, and he had no answer. Do you?”
I consider this merely a statistical and demographic exercise. I do not advocate taking any action against any donor to any political cause.
BTW, I am a libertarian Republican who voted for McCain/Palin as well as no on Prop 8when I early voted on Saturday. I think the people on Daily Kos are a bunch of liberal whiners and I think what they called for was over the top.
Anonymous wrote:
” If you don’t want that, donate anonymously. Or through another person.”
It appears several bishops in the stake in which I reside did not show on the list, but their wives did. Plausible deniability and all that…
JimD, I wasn’t implying anything at all about your children or grandchildren. I know nothing about them, and almost nothing about how you might be raising them. I wouldn’t presume to guess what your children might ask you.
I’ll say this, though. If you’re truly worried that your children will somehow be “corrupted” by what they learn in school, then perhaps your focus should be on your own ability, as a parent, to lead and guide your children as you see fit. I truly believe that skilled parents can guide their children, in spite of anything those children hear from outside sources.
Phouchg – it appears that your excuse “I consider this merely a statistical and demographic exercise.” is disengenous given your other responses, including your subsequent response asserting “plausible deniability”.
Additionally, your qualification “I consider this merely a statistical and demographic exercise” makes this appear to be a scholarly or scientific endeavor. What statistics do you hope to obtain? and what do you hope to learn about demography, or the demographics of a particular community? And why is publication of the source data the primary concern? As one who has been supremely interested in statistics since blundering into an econometric analysis class in college, I would like to hear your response.
Additionally, you failed to answer why it was permissible to single out “Mormons” for public scrutiny based solely on their religion.
“The site is focused on Mormon donors to a certain political fund. It would be silly to go to mormonsfor8.com and ask for information about Lutherans on the list.”
This is silly. So, naming a site is sufficient basis for obtaining information about a topic. If i name a website spendinghabitsofPhouchg.org, would that be sufficient basis to publish the details of your spending habits?
As to the creation of other websites, I imagine it would be legal to do so. jewsfor8.org is available. Why don’t you do it. As proponents of No on 8 must admit, there is often a difference between the ethical/moral choice and the legal choice.
I don’t really care about your views of “the other side”. This isn’t an us vs them debate.
I won’t ask for why it is acceptable to single out “mormons” for publicity based solely upon their religion, because I think I know that answer.
I will still continue to ask if there is any purposeful or meaningful reason in singling out “Mormons” in this manner?
Let’s not fuzzy up the matter by creating strawmen about donor names being made public. That is available information. This is about proselyting people to inform on each other. That is how she is getting this information…as she states on her website. If it was from information submitted on forms all of the names in my ward would have Nadine’s version of a yellow star next to their name but evidently Nadine hasn’t rounded up a snitch for that ward yet. It makes my skin crawl.
Jay, there seems to be no appeal to snitching about Mormons who donate to No on Prop 8 so you may to amend your question about a reason for singling out Mormons. It is only Mormons who donate to Yes on Prop 8 who need to be identified 🙂
Jay S, it’s appropriate to determine which (and what percentage of) donors are LDS, because those persons are responding to the political directive of a single individual, who leads a single organization. In essence, these contributions represent a single “force” in the election. People have a right to be informed, and to decide how large an influence they want that force to have on the larger electorate.
Juliann, suppose a single LDS woman donates in support of Prop 8, who is a licensed therapist in California, working with youth who have considered and/or attempted suicide (knowing the single biggest reported reason for suicide among young people). Doesn’t that make your skin crawl, just a tiny bit, knowing that her donation helps to further the social ostracism that creates her clients (and her personal income)?
Suppose the same woman also saw the breakup of her sister’s marriage, after her gay brother-in-law (who was faithful in the marriage, and had only tried to do what LDS leaders had told him to do in order to “overcome” homosexuality) finally came out of the closet. Doesn’t that make your skin crawl, just a tiny bit, knowing that her donation helps to continue disastrous attempts by gay men to marry straight LDS women?
Nick, it is possible to see and understand more than one position on this and choose to disagree or agree with one or parts of all of them. That is what our political process is supposed to be about…not recruiting neighbors and friends to snitch on each other. We all know what images that brings up and it isn’t relevant to your strawman diversions.
Nick, what force directs the Utah donor who gave one million to the No side? And how much money do you think came from Utah in total for and against the proposition?
“Jay S, it’s appropriate to determine which (and what percentage of) donors are LDS, because those persons are responding to the political directive of a single individual, who leads a single organization. In essence, these contributions represent a single “force” in the election. People have a right to be informed, and to decide how large an influence they want that force to have on the larger electorate.”
Nick, as a current or past member of the LDS church, I am sure that you know that the “directive[s]” of the church are anything but universally adhered to. That aside, this list doesn’t address the percentage of donors who are LDS. I would venture to guess that it gets nowhere close. The accuracy of the data on who is a member of the LDS church is extremely inaccurate, relying on strategically placed individuals.
This list doesn’t address those members of the church who are inactive, or only nominally members of the church, who chose to give, but are identified as such. I can’t imagine Brother X, who won’t open the screen door is a “unified force” with President Monson. Nor does the list identify, as Julieann pointed out, those members of the LDS church who have donated to the No on 8 campaign.
If what you said was the true, a better way would be to conduct a scientific survey, using established and verifiable methodology. But you and I know this isn’t the true reason.
In conversing with the author of a post on the Daily Kos, calling for “investigation” of “Mormon” donors “by any means”, he confessed that the whole purpose is to increase scrutiny on the donors, and intimidate them and future donors into reducing contributions, or otherwise distracting the opposition.
My question, is that why, in this day and age, are “Mormons” legitimate targets based solely on their religion? When we try the substitution test, the argument fails. Catholics, who have a similar organization, and the Knights of Columbus, similarly situated have not had calls to dig up the dirt “by any means”. jewsfor8.org? Wouldn’t be tolerated.
Nick, don’t blow smoke at me. I can only try and appreciate your situation. It appears you have had a very involved and often painful history, which continues through strained familial relations. I am not arrogant enough to even begin to address your situation, other than to hope that you are able to place your burden upon the Lord, and trust in him, and let him carry your burden.
I have my suspicions as to why targeting “mormons” is acceptable, none of which are especially encouraging. But I am really trying to find out if there are reasons for doing so that don’t involve religious bigotry and persecution.
We all know what images that brings up and it isn’t relevant to your strawman diversions.
No “strawman” here, Juliann. I was referring to a very specific, non-hypothetical donor, who is on public record as giving $2,300.00 to the “Yes on 8” campaign.
Nick, what force directs the Utah donor who gave one million to the No side?
Well, according to Bruce Bastian (the man you refer to), he was directed by the following:
“You can’t change people’s minds. They have to change them for themselves,” he said. “If people are shown the truth and have fear taken out of the equation, I believe they will stand up for what’s good and fair. . . . I know there are people waiting in the wings and I wanted to nudge them, to inspire them,” he said.
Bastian is also on record as follows:
“The LDS Church has no business stepping their big nose in something that’s a legal matter, not a religious matter,” Bastian said. “Constitutions are meant to protect minorities – not to take rights away from people.”
You also asked:
And how much money do you think came from Utah in total for and against the proposition?
Juliann, if you’d like to know these figures, do a Google search for “Los Angeles Times” and “Follow the Donors.” You’ll find a very handy search engine, where you can enter “UT” for the state and get every Utah donor’s amount and position.
“…And how much money do you think came from Utah in total for and against the proposition?”
A cursory glance of the spreadsheet at mormonsfor8.com shows at least $250,000 for Yes On 8 that is attributed to LDS contributors from Utah.
Hope tithing revenues don’t fall… 😉
I am sure that you know that the “directive[s]” of the church are anything but universally adhered to.
While that may be true, I am sure you know that many LDS are obeying Monson on this topic, making substantial family sacrifices. I am sure you also know that many LDS are also taking the position that any LDS member who opposes Proposition 8 is “not following the prophet,” and consequently, unfaithful/disobedient/wicked.
That aside, this list doesn’t address the percentage of donors who are LDS. I would venture to guess that it gets nowhere close. The accuracy of the data on who is a member of the LDS church is extremely inaccurate, relying on strategically placed individuals.
It’s certainly true that the list in question is not a complete assessment. While it may “get nowhere close,” it is in all likelihood a low estimate, rather than an exagerration. How many individuals on the list have you seen identified as LDS, who you know are not LDS?
Nor does the list identify, as Julieann pointed out, those members of the LDS church who have donated to the No on 8 campaign.
That is true, but none of those individuals are acting under the direction of the president of the LDS church, are they?
If what you said was the true, a better way would be to conduct a scientific survey, using established and verifiable methodology.
Yes, but that would not be a practical approach, based on the amount of time between Monson’s letter and the election. The website, of course, makes no claim that it is a “scientific survey,” and openly admits the nature of its data collection, with its inherent weaknesses.
But you and I know this isn’t the true reason.
With all due respect, you have no way of knowing what I do, or do not, know. The above statement amounts to calling me a liar, and does not contribute to our discussion in any useful way.
In conversing with the author of a post on the Daily Kos…
I do not know of any cooperation between mormonsfor8.com and the Daily Kos. While I have no objection to mormonsfor8.com, I find the tone of the Daily Kos’ “call to action” distasteful. The two are distinct entities, taking widely differing actions, so far as I can tell.
I have my suspicions as to why targeting “mormons” is acceptable, none of which are especially encouraging. But I am really trying to find out if there are reasons for doing so that don’t involve religious bigotry and persecution.
Jay, I can’t guarantee the motives of each and every person who chooses to publicize the mammoth contribution of LDS members (as opposed to “Mormons”) to the “Yes on 8” campaign. I wouldn’t doubt that some are indeed acting on, or taking advantage of, religious bigotry. Similarly, I’m sure that you would never be foolhardy enough to declare that none of the LDS contributors to “Yes on 8” are acting out of bigotry and a self-rationalized desire to persecute gays and lesbians. I believe it’s quite safe to say there are people who hate all LDS members, and that there are LDS members who hate all gays and lesbians (in the name of deity, no less).
Let me put it this way, Jay. Suppose for a moment that Pat Robertson (of “700 Club” fame), who believes that Mormonism is a satanic cult, announced on his television show that all his followers should “do all that they can” to contribute their “time and means” to support a political initiative to end the legal recognition of marriages which are solemnized in LDS temples. Suppose he repeatedly proclaimed his “love” for the LDS members, but insisted that his initiative was necessary to protect good christians everywhere. If Pat Robertson’s followers then contributed an immense amount of cash and volunteer time to support that initiative, wouldn’t you feel that it was fair for people to know who was a large “driving force” behind an initiative that interfered with your decisions? Would it make you a “religious bigot” if you pointed that fact out? More pointedly, would the fact that some people think Pat Robertson is a freak be enough to make you refrain from demonstrating that the initiative was largely pushed by him, via his followers?
In other words, Nick, the million dollar donor is reacting to the Mormon church. So we can consider the church to be his “force” as well. You do not even know how much money has come out of Utah while you opine on the “force” of the Mormon church. It is far less than the million dollar donor to No on Prop 8. Given the anti-Mormon rhetoric, I find it amusing that the biggest money coming from Utah is from the opposition not “the church”.
The LDS church, as an organization, hasn’t donated anything, Juliann. For that matter, the very men who’ve directed you to “do all that you can” with your “time and means” haven’t contributed themselves to either side of the Prop 8 campaign (or if they have done so, their donations totalled less than $100 so as not to trigger the mandatory public reporting).
If you think that Bruce Bastian’s million was “far more” than the LDS member donations to support Prop 8, you’re quite mistaken.
You don’t get to play it both ways, Nick. You yourself described the church and people in it as a faceless monolith walking in lockstep. So in speaking to you it is, indeed, the church…or force if you prefer. And there are NOT more Utah member donations to Prop 8 than against Prop 8 (changing what I said will not help you here). You need to become more aware of the facts before you speak.
I’m a Portuguese LDS so my opinion is obviously pro-LDS but I think I’m neutral about American Politics.
In Europe, we used to think EUA was the example of a free country. In the last years I think we are changing our opinion about the EUA. A good example is EUA allowing a site that asks people to identify a donor’s religion.
This thing reminds me two events in our history:
1) The Nazi party identified all the Jews before the holocaust. When they sent the Jews to the so called “death trains” the Nazi had a full lists of names of the people that should enter the train.
2) In the Portugal dictatorial time (1933-1974) the government opposition was eliminated by the Politics Police called PIDE. Many people disappeared or were killed. Most of them were identified by friends, neighbours and relatives as being government opposites.
I wonder if the Nazi or the PIDE police had internet if they wouldn’t create similar sites like the “mormonfor8.com”
“And there are NOT more Utah member donations to Prop 8 than against Prop 8.”
Cite? Or is this from the “Pulling facts out of thin air” Department?
Actually, I take that back. I just checked the following:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop-8,0,2463893.htmlstory
This site allows searching the Secretary of State’s database for all donations for yes and no on Prop 8. It is searchable by state. I typed “UT” in the state field and the page returned 580 donations. 456 support Prop 8, 124 oppose.
“And there are NOT more Utah member donations to Prop 8 than against Prop 8.”
78% of the Utah donations are for YES on 8.
Nice try. Come back and play again soon.
Phouchg, 78% of the donors are for Yes on 8. But if I have not erred in copying the LA Times info into an Excel spreadsheet, the total of Utah donations currently stands at $1,520,750. Of that, only $471,100–a hair over 30%–is going to the Yes on 8 campaign. The remaining $1,049,650–just under 70%–went to No on 8.
Nick,
You are right, there are likely some members who are contributing to Yes on 8 out of fear and bigotry. I have no way of assessing the actual number, and unless you have been hiding this rabbit in your hat, neither do you. As you correctly reminded me, you and I cannot know what is anothers heart.
The thing is, that you have defended the gathering of donors information and singling out their identity by religious affiliation. I have yet to hear a reason for doing this that stands up to a simple logical examination. You say their isn’t enough time for a survey, this is nonsense. A complete survey, yes, in that you can’t ask every member, but you could do what statisticians do all the time, conduct a random sampling. My point was not to argue that this is what should be done, but why it doesn’t make sense to call mormonsfor8 a statistical exercise. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt at a public shaming.
As to your Pat Robertson example, i don’t think it is applicable, given the nature of the issues, but let me add a few other facts to make it more comparable. Pat Robertson doesn’t have a church similar to the LDS church. So lets call it Jehovah’s Witnesses who are in support of the ban. But to make it similar, we need to have this ban supported by the Catholic church, Seventh Day Adventists, and various evangelical groups. And the group that is singled out for identification is Scientologists. Scientologists only that is. Would this be appropriate? What if the focus was to identify jews?
you want to publicize the position of the church, go ahead.I don’t think it is inappropriate to publicize the comments of LDS Church leaders calling for support of Prop 8. I don’t think this is religious bigotry. Singling out supporters of a bill based solely on their membership of a church, as reported by others, is clearly inappropriate, and serves no legitimate purpose that I can see.
You want to screen donors to Yes on 8, go ahead. How does their religion play into it, unless their is something uniquely negative or disqualifying about it.
Again Nick, I plead with you to tell me a reason for the identifying and singling out of donors to Yes on 8 based solely on the status as a Member of the LDS church that does not involve religious prejudice or bigotry?
Nick,
I would not be at all surprised to learn that some Mormons are supporting Proposition 8 “out of bigotry and a self-rationalized desire to persecute gays and lesbians,” as you suggest.
However, I am not convinced that the majority are so motivated.
Most of us, I believe, just want to be left alone. We are seriously worried about overreaching by the judiciary. We see Same-Sex Marriage as an attempt to use the coercive power of the state to force social change.
What is most distressing to me about the SSM debate has been the refusal of our opponents even to acknowledge such concerns, much less address them. Instead, they resort to name-calling: the supporters of Proposition 8 must be bigots, homophobes, and haters.
The legal acceptance of SSM could lead to severe restrictions on the free exercise of religion. To cite just three likely outcomes, LDS Family Services could lose its license to process adoptions, BYU could lose its accreditation, and the LDS Church itself could lose its tax-exempt status.
Typically, the proponents of SSM do not bother to deny that these things are likely to happen. Most do not even address the issues at all. (Occasionally, an especially ardent supporter of SSM will say that he would approve of such outcomes.)
If the proponents of SSM want to discuss my concerns, I am willing to listen. If they want to question my motives, or call me names, I am not interested.
What is most distressing to me about the SSM debate has been the refusal of our opponents even to acknowledge such concerns, much less address them.
P.K., it’s difficult to seriously address the concerns you express, when the majority of those who hold such concerns refuse to hear it. For the majority of faithful LDS, the fact that a member of the First Presidency or the Twelve says “churches will lose their tax exemption” is not only prima facie evidence that the statement is true, but immediately casts any disagreement, no matter how reasoned, as “satanic sophistry.” The same is true for many other christians, without the intervention of a prophet or apostle–the fact that their minister/pastor/etc. says “church social service organizations will lose their licenses to handle adoptions” is enough to make that an absolute fact in their minds, no matter how many legal experts tell them that the Catholic Charities case was about the use of government funding under anti-discrimination laws, and had nothing at all to do with marriage equality. The moment someone opens their mouth to contradict these ecclesiastical declarations that person instantly becomes “untrustworthy,” a “liar,” and a “minion of the devil.”
The legal acceptance of SSM could lead to severe restrictions on the free exercise of religion.
Many things “could” happen. The Moon could suddenly plunge into the Atlantic Ocean. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen in the next billion years.
To cite just three likely outcomes, LDS Family Services could lose its license to process adoptions, BYU could lose its accreditation, and the LDS Church itself could lose its tax-exempt status.
Numerous legal experts and other commentators have already addressed these as inaccurate predictions, P.K. LDSFS doesn’t accept government funding, and thus is able to pursue it’s church-mandated policy of only facilitating adoptions wherein the potential parents are temple-sealed, recommend-holding Latter-day Saints. (Yes, that means a civilly-married LDS couple who has not yet been sealed can NOT get an adoption via LDSFS.) Likewise, BYU long ago made a conscious decision not to accept direct government funding (individual student grants are an entirely different matter, not affecting accreditation), in order to avoid such mandates as co-ed dorms. BYU has not faced any negative fallout for this, let alone lost its accreditation. Many religious groups in the United States hold views and policies which are repugnant to the majority of society and to anti-discrimination laws, yet they do not lose their tax-exempt status, because we have the First Amendment to the Constitution. I’ve just given you very clear, simple refutations to the three concerns you cited. Unfortunately, faithful LDS readers are quite unlikely to seriously consider these refutations, because I’m “not following the prophet,” “an apostate,” “gay,” etc. The status labels thus placed on me automatically “cancel out” anything I could tell you on the subject, no matter how true my statements are.
Typically, the proponents of SSM do not bother to deny that these things are likely to happen. Most do not even address the issues at all.
That’s simply not true. Take some time with Google, and see for yourself.
(Occasionally, an especially ardent supporter of SSM will say that he would approve of such outcomes.)
Yes, well there are nutjobs in every crowd, aren’t there?
BTW, P.K., if the supporters of Prop 8 had chosen to leave marriage equality alone, and instead push an initiative guaranteeing the freedom of religious groups to oppose, refuse to perform, and/or not accept (for ecclesiastical purposes) marriages between persons of the same sex, I would vote for such an initiative in a heartbeat. In fact, the vast majority of gay men and lesbians I know would fully support such an initiative. Most of us are really quite concerned about everyone’s civil rights, precisely because we know what it’s like to have ours denied over the years.
BTW, P.K., if the supporters of Prop 8 had chosen to leave marriage equality alone, and instead push an initiative guaranteeing the freedom of religious groups to oppose, refuse to perform, and/or not accept (for ecclesiastical purposes) marriages between persons of the same sex, I would vote for such an initiative in a heartbeat.
Nick, I believe that is true of you. I even believe it to be true of most gay rights activists in 2008.
I have no assurance that this will be true of gay rights activists in 2058. Progressive causes have a way of morphing their objectives once their official raison d’etre has been obtained. The abolitionists didn’t pack up and go home in 1865. The sufferagettes didn’t cease their activities in 1920. Why should I think that the gay rights activists will be satisfied with the legalization of gay marriage in 2008?
As Carolyn Deveritch aptly puts it, “[the] ‘but it hasn’t happened!’ argument is the equivalent of me saying I shouldn’t bother wearing a seatbelt because I haven’t gotten into an accident yet.”
Cesar – I don’t know how relevant your concerns are to the immediate issue. However, I think they are insightful even still, if this activity were tolerated could it lead to other clandestine forms of profiling. While the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon, and one difficult to regulate due to it’s global reach, I think it is due for some oversight and regulation. I still can’t say who should have this job though.
PK wrote:
“…LDS Family Services could lose its license to process adoptions…”
why? Lutheran Social Services of New England hasn’t lost its license to process adoptions in Massachusetts:
http://www.adoptlss.org/mass.html
why? Lutheran Social Services of New England hasn’t lost its license to process adoptions in Massachusetts
And you can guarantee that that will never happen . . . how, exactly?
Nick,
I appreciate your response. However, you seem to have misunderstood the points I was trying to raise. (No doubt I expressed them badly.)
I said nothing about government funding; I referred to government licensing. Most states require adoption agencies to be licensed. A state may require that licensed agencies adhere to a nondiscrimination policy. As things currently stand, LDSFS can claim that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it offers its adoption services to married couples. Would that defense work if SSM were legal?
The issue I raised is not government funding but accreditation. Already, accrediting agencies are adopting nondiscrimination requirements that include sexual orientation. BYU can claim that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it requires that students refrain from extramarital sexual activity. Would that defense work if SSM were legal?
Moreover, there is the university’s tax-exempt status to consider. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption over its policies on interracial dating. If SSM is declared legal, it is not hard to imagine that the IRS would rule that BYU’s policies toward homosexual practices do not “serve a public purpose” and are “contrary to established public policy.”
Alas, the Constitution seems to mean only what judges say it means.
Even if the proponents of SSM were to grant that the First Amendment protects the rights of a religious groups to “discriminate” against homosexuals, that would not settle the issue. The argument would then shift to the question of what is a “religious group.” Certainly the LDS Church is a religious group; but is LDS Family Services? LDSFS offers services similar to those offered by non-religiou organizations. There are those who would argue that LDSFS should be held to the same standards.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. In 2004, the Supreme Court of California (in Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc., v. Superior Court of Sacramento County) ruled that Catholic Charities is not a church or a “religious employer” under California law. This despite the acknowledgement by the court that Catholic Charities of California acts as “organ of the Roman Catholic Church.”
The following comment I think is representative of the concerns held by a number of those concerned about the broadening definition of marriage:
“why? Lutheran Social Services of New England hasn’t lost its license to process adoptions in Massachusetts
And you can guarantee that that will never happen . . . how, exactly?”
The concern is that while certain impositions are not implied with defining marriage more broadly at this juncture, at some point in the future homosexual culture will be imposed upon us at a later date because of this. I think we need to distinguish between the State and Society. The State implications are based upon “slippery-slope” reasoning, which is generally ill advised. For those wishing to make case for Prop 8, I would be interested in understanding what direct threats SSM would pose to the public. It is true that broadening the def. of marriage would legitimize the State’s obligations toward equality where the matter is concerned. This will invariably trickle down into our School systems – but to the point of advocacy, I don’t think, except in isolated cases which would occur one way or the other. Rather I would expect that Schools would generally take the PC approach by protecting the status where discrimination occurs, and in all other instances take the “don’t go there” approach. With regards to private institutions, hate groups are still permitted to formally organize so long as they operate within certain parameters. Currently there are no legitimate efforts threatening a Church’s private rights to object to SSM in either their sermonizing or refusal to administer, and I see no real evidence that this would change.
I think we need to address society as well, but this is already to long, sorry (for the length).
As things currently stand, LDSFS can claim that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it offers its adoption services to married couples. Would that defense work if SSM were legal?
Yes, because even now, LDSFS “discriminates” against everyone other than temple-sealed, current-temple-recommend-holding, opposite-sex Latter-day Saint couples, and there is no indication whatsoever that LDSFS has been faced with a potential loss of license in any state. A church can engage in that sort of “discrimination,” due to their protections under the First Amendment. Similarly, LDSFS can restrict their hiring to temple-recommend-holding Latter-day Saints, because the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that a religious body is not subject to laws against religious discrimination, when it comes to their own employees. This is the same reason that even non-LDS professors at BYU can be held, as a condition of their employment, to “temple worthiness” standards of behavior.
Already, accrediting agencies are adopting nondiscrimination requirements that include sexual orientation. BYU can claim that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it requires that students refrain from extramarital sexual activity. Would that defense work if SSM were legal?
Again, as a church-owned, church-operated entity, BYU can require behavioral standards that otherwise might violate anti-discrimination laws. Keep in mind, of course, that accreditation is not a government function, but an organizational function. Thus far, accrediting organizations have warned BYU about “academic freedom” issues, but certainly have not challenged BYU’s accreditation on the basis of prescribed sexual mores. If such organizations wanted to make sexual orientation an issue for accreditation, they could do so even without legal marriage equality. Legal recognition of marriage equality has no bearing on the question of accreditation, one way or another.
Moreover, there is the university’s tax-exempt status to consider. Bob Jones University lost its tax exemption over its policies on interracial dating. If SSM is declared legal, it is not hard to imagine that the IRS would rule that BYU’s policies toward homosexual practices do not “serve a public purpose” and are “contrary to established public policy.”
That’s an interesting question, P.K. I wonder if anyone argued, in 1967, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia would lead to christian universities losing their tax exemption (which is the argument you make here regarding marriage equality and BYU). When BJU lost it’s tax-exempt status on the basis, it was on the basis that racial discrimination was not a policy that should be supported by taxpayer (via tax exempt status). Did anyone, at that time, say that it was all because those “evil activist judges” had opened the way for African Americans to marry whites, back in 1967? Such arguments would be met with scorn, I’m sure. Most would say that the loss of BJU’s tax-exempt status had to do with anti-discrimination policies/laws, and nothing at all to do with the ramifications of Loving v. Virginia. Again, anti-discrimination laws already exist. If the IRS wanted to revoke BYU’s tax-exempt status on the basis of discrimination against gays and lesbians, it could do so right now, with or without marriage equality.
In 2004, the Supreme Court of California (in Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc., v. Superior Court of Sacramento County) ruled that Catholic Charities is not a church or a “religious employer” under California law. This despite the acknowledgement by the court that Catholic Charities of California acts as “organ of the Roman Catholic Church.”
Again, very interesting, but entirely dependent on anti-discrimination laws, rather than anything at all to do with who can legally marry.
This is a recurrent theme on the part of many Proposition 8 supporters, P.K. The Prop 8 folks keep trying to say that existing anti-discrimination decisions are the fallout of marriage equality, when that’s simply not the case. At best, it’s a highly strained argument that depends on multiple leaps of logic. At worst, it’s a deliberately deceptive scare tactic.
Nick,
let me re-introduce you into the legal concept of “protected class”. I am sure you learned about these before, but your argument shows a distinct lack of consideration of this argument.
Certain categories and/or labels are placed into a special category known as a protected class. Thus anti-discrimination laws doesn’t mean you can’t discriminate. Rather, it means that you cannot treat people differently based solely on their status in that category or label. Thus you cannot exclude a person simply because they are Black, because they are Icelandic. Some categories have slightly different restrictions, such as you can not have separate bathrooms for Canadians, but you can provide separate bathrooms for females.
Thus there have been anti-discrimination laws around, but these didn’t apply to the behavior which is prohibited by the church.
Loving v. Virginia declared race based marriage statutes as unconstitutional. Race is a protected class, upon which discrimination is not possible. If gender based or sexual orientation based marriages statutes are unconstitutional, and these categories are protected classes, won’t we have the same result.
Lets say in a few years Jennifer, a faithful episcopalian, comes up from California to attend school at BYU. She gets married at home over the summer, but when she and her spouse But when they apply for married student housing they aren’t eligble, and in fact it is determined they shouldn’t be admitted. Why, Jennifer and Shauna, a loving couple, aren’t considered “married” within the guidelines espoused under the BYU honor code. They have an ecclesiastical endorsement from their home bishop. What then?
Nick,
You wrote,
A church may discriminate; but as I previously pointed out, the California Supreme Court has already ruled that Catholic Charities of Sacramento is not a church. Would LDSFS qualify as a church? How about BYU?
Accreditation may not be a government function, but certain accrediting agencies are “recognized” by the U. S. Department of Education. Such agencies, as you suggest, could make sexual orientation an issue even without SSM. However, currently BYU can argue that its policies are in accordance with state and federal law. That defense goes out the window if SSM becomes legal.
Consider the Nondiscrimination Statement of the BYU Law School:
BYU’s claim that it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation may come as a surprise to some. BYU justifies this statement two ways. First, they claim that the school’s rules apply to conduct not sexual orientation:
This defense may not hold up under legal challenge. Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas seems to suggest that it would not.
The second line of defense relies on the legal definition of marriage:
So long as SSM is not legal, BYU need not treat homosexual couples the same as other married couples.
No, that is not my argument at all. Instead, I am arguing that existing anti-discrimination laws may be twisted and stretched to cover situations they were never intended to cover—much as the California Court twisted and stretched the definition of marriage.