|
|
| (13 révisions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées) |
| Ligne 1 : |
Ligne 1 : |
| − | {{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}
| + | Moved to [[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Initiation of the practice]] |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | :''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 amendments, 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
| |
| − | | |
| − | =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. {{ref|pew1}} 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. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 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: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse 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: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 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, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction] (Nov. 21, 2008)
| |
| − | *[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview] (Nov. 21, 2008)
| |
| − | | |
| − | =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.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | =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"{{ref|proclamation}}.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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=
| |
| − | {{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF 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.{{ref|sosd1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.{{ref|state1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''For more information:'''
| |
| − | *[[Church involvement in politics]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|How were members informed?}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|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, 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 more information:'''
| |
| − | *[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
| |
| − | <!-- [[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.2.jpg|right|thumb|100px|"Yes on 8" sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: graphic obscene hand gesture has been pixelated).]] -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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." {{ref|sltrib.11-21}} 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=
| |
| − | 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 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, Proposition 8 was portrayed 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
| |
| − | *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.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}} Hansen gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcL9R94MGMk 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." {{ref|beliefnet1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
| |
| − | 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. {{ref|thurston1}} 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. {{ref|ostler1}} 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 [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 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!"
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
| |
| − | *[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *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 was 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." {{ref|faith1}} After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the [http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/faith-ringgold-school-kindergarten-pledge-card/ 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 travel expenses for a single general authority. 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | <table border="1" align="center">
| |
| − | <tr>
| |
| − | <td> </td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
| |
| − | </tr>
| |
| − | <tr>
| |
| − | <td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
| |
| − | </tr>
| |
| − | <tr>
| |
| − | <td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
| |
| − | </tr>
| |
| − | <tr>
| |
| − | <td>'''Totals'''</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
| |
| − | <td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
| |
| − | </tr>
| |
| − | <tr>
| |
| − | <td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
| |
| − | </tr>
| |
| − | </table>
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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."{{ref|bast1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | =The vote=
| |
| − | | |
| − | The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|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. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} 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. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} 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.{{ref|ladailynews1}} 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 after the passage of Proposition 8=
| |
| − | A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
| |
| − | The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=02001-03000&file=2300 "secret ballot"] in a manner that they can vote free from intimidation. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their voting record. Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
| |
| − | The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Church did, however, make two in-kind donations with the equivalent values of [http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051 $2,078.97] (October 25, 2008) and $2,864.21 (November 1, 2008). The term "in-kind" represents donations that are made to the Church in some form other than cash (For example, the payment of tithing using stock constitutes a in-kind donation). In this case, the in-kind donations were to cover out-of-pocket expenses such as airfare and lodging that were incurred by several Church leaders who travelled to California in support of the proposition. The Church declared these donations, as required by law, and they are part of the public record.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
| |
| − | [[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
| |
| − | From the Internal Revenue Service:
| |
| − | :''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
| |
| − | Some companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.
| |
| − | | |
| − | There is no evidence that any Church owned for-profit companies made contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign or any supporting organization.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
| |
| − | California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
| |
| − | Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
| |
| − | The question is not relevant, since the Church as an ''organization'' did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.”
| |
| − | | |
| − | Members contribute to humanitarian efforts sponsored by the church based on their specific abilities. For example, [http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7416-1-4005-1,00.html fast offerings] are donations to a fund for assisting local and other members who are financially struggling. These funds represent a generous offering of the value of 2 meals abstained from on the first Sunday of each month. The combination of personal sacrifice (fasting) and financial sacrifice make such contributions particularly meaningful for both the donor and the recipient.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Church also manages a significant humanitarian effort known as "[http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html LDS Humanitarian Services]". This organization provides relief and assistance for disasters and other urgent humanitarian needs. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that individual members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8. According to a [http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/2006WelfareFactSheet.pdf 2007 report] from the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, external humanitarian efforts exceeded $1 billion in cash and material contributions from 1985 until 2007. This does not include contributions of many millions more as part of the Church Welfare program.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Other humanitarian efforts include:
| |
| − | * [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=46398d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 Perpetual Education Fund]
| |
| − | * [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,2022-1,00.html Deseret Industries]
| |
| − | * [http://providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html Employment Services]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Many Latter-day Saints make significant contributions to humanitarian efforts outside of LDS sponsored channels. For example, in 2007, high profile Latter-day Saints [http://specials.slate.com/slate60/2007/ John and Karen Huntsman] donated more than $672 million for charitable causes not associated with the LDS Church. [http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/ssi/vol11.html Utah] in general was ranked #2 of all 50 states in charitable contributions in 2007.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
| |
| − | Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It should be noted that the Latter-day saints believe that family is central to the plan of God for the eternal destiny of His children and has been instituted by divine design for the betterment of society. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles warned "that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" (see the [http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html Proclamation)]. For these reasons, many Latter-day Saints and their leaders believe that Proposition 8, whose original title was "The California Marriage Protection Act" was a cause of great significance and worthy of their most noble efforts.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
| |
| − | [[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
| |
| − | The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.
| |
| − | | |
| − | LDS opposition to the use of the term "marriage" for same-sex unions derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =Post-election events=
| |
| − | Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Threats from "No on 8" supporters}}
| |
| − | *"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
| |
| − | *"While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
| |
| − | *"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
| |
| − | *""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" {{ref|wnd1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT'' [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] ''organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Church response}}
| |
| − | The Church issued the following statement:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.''
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Negative reactions==
| |
| − | [[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''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
| |
| − | | |
| − | There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender) groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The first call that we know of by an GLBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the GLBT community and the other GLBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Accusations of hatred and bigotry}}
| |
| − | The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." The accusation is that LDS are attempting to ''remove'' the rights associated with marriage. However, passing Prop. 8 didn't remove any of the rights that were already granted to same-sex couples under domestic partnership laws in California. They have all of the same rights, privileges and protections that they had before. What is disputed is the use of the word "marriage" to describe these unions.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The words "hatred" and "bigot" are emotionally charged and intended to produce a specific effect. Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.'' {{ref|ball1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
| |
| − | A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:
| |
| − | *'''Los Angeles Temple''' (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
| |
| − | *'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
| |
| − | *'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
| |
| − | *'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
| |
| − | *'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
| |
| − | *'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
| |
| − | *'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
| |
| − | *'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
| |
| − | *'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
| |
| − | *'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
| |
| − | Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
| |
| − | *'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}
| |
| − | *'''Mount Hope Church''' (Lansing, Michigan) A "gay anarchist group" disrupted services at the Mt. Hope Church. According to the Rev. John Elieff, they "disrupted the service by bursting into the sanctuary, throwing fliers, hanging a banner from the balcony and pulling fire alarms." {{ref|mthopechurch1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
| |
| − | Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
| |
| − | :—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
| |
| − | | |
| − | The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
| |
| − | *'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
| |
| − | *'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
| |
| − | *'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
| |
| − | *'''Farmington, Utah.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'Nobody's born a bigot' on a meetinghouse.{{ref|abc41}}
| |
| − | *'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
| |
| − | *'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}
| |
| − | *'''Ukiah, California''' A LDS chapel was spray painted with the words ""separate church and state Prop. 8 cult." {{ref|ukiah1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Harassment}}
| |
| − | *'''Palm Springs, CA''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.
| |
| − | *'''Los Angeles.''' Racial epithets were used against Blacks who were driving through Westwood, near UCLA. They were "accosted in their cars and, in addition to being denounced, were warned, 'You better watch your back.'" {{ref|sowell1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?}}
| |
| − | *San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty at protest: "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."{{ref|sowell2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Apparently, this supervisor believes that freedom to express one's religious beliefs is something which only exists if he and others choose to grant it. One wonders what "lessons" the Mormons have forgotten—the lessons of state persecution, disenfranchisement, or mob rule? It is unfortunate that elected officials in San Francisco can make such statements without repercussions. If a supervisor said something similar about homosexuals, would his job be safe?
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Terrorist tactics}}
| |
| − | On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *'''Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples.''' An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
| |
| − | *'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Hacking of Church related web site}}
| |
| − | *The web site which hosts ''Meridian Magazine'' was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status}}
| |
| − | The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign. {{ref|calhate1}} First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."
| |
| − | | |
| − | :"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Blacklists}}
| |
| − | Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[http://antigayblacklist.com/ AntiGayBlacklist.com]
| |
| − | *"Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).
| |
| − | * Alison Stateman, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)
| |
| − | *A woman working in Silicon Valley whose name was on the blacklist said the someone contacted her employer and tried to have her fired from her job. {{ref|fired1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."{{ref|kabc1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”], Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). {{ref|leatherbys1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *Calls for resignation of Mark Paredes, national director of Latino outreach for the American Jewish Congress (Paredes is LDS).{{ref|jewish1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8}}
| |
| − | The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:
| |
| − | | |
| − | *A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. {{ref|mercnews1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Absence of support from political leaders}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}} A [http://familyleader.info/petitions/petition_5.php petition was initiated] requesting that Governor Schwarzenegger "respect the voter's will." {{ref|petition1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | By November 19th, California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said that she "appalled" at the "hostility that has been directed at African-Americans since the passage of Proposition 8." Ironically, Ms. Bass made no mention at all of the Latter-day Saints being the main target of the protests. {{ref|bass1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Positive effects==
| |
| − | {{Heading2|Expressions of support from other Christians}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | *[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
| |
| − | *[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
| |
| − | *[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8}}
| |
| − | *The Anti-Defamation League made the following statement:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :''Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans. To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us.'' {{ref|antidefamation1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | =Myths=
| |
| − | Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
| |
| − | {{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
| |
| − | No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the initiation of polygamy, over the move West, over the repeal of polygamy, over the [[Blacks and the priesthood|priesthood ban]], over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
| |
| − | Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to [[Latter-day Saints aren't Christians|classify us as non-Christian]], however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ. Likewise, we welcomed the opportunity to cooperate with Muslims, Jews, and others who share our values and concerns for society.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
| |
| − | NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
| |
| − | Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | =Endnotes=
| |
| − | {{ExplicitLanguage}}
| |
| − | #{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
| |
| − | #{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Church involvement
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
| |
| − | #{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
| |
| − | #{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | How were members informed?
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom
| |
| − | #{{note|sltrib.11-21}}Peggy Fletcher Stack, [http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church], ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 21, 2008)
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Identifying Mormon donors
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
| |
| − | #{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|faith1}}Michelle Maskaly , [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners], ''Fox News'' (Nov. 1, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|bast1}}John Wildermuth, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort]," ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 16, 2008).
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Demographics
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Discipline
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Tax exempt status
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Threats from No on 8
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
| |
| − | #{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Church response
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Accusations of hatred and bigotry
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | | |
| − | Protests
| |
| − | | |
| − | -->
| |
| − | #{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
| |
