Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Common misconception made by people who are ignorant of the what the first amendment means.

When he complains about the money spent, he is not "directly denying" your right to express your opinion. He is simply expressing his opinion that the LDS church and Utah Mormons should stay out of CA politics.

Is there a law somewere that says if I live in Utah I can through money at a laws being passed in CA?

Would you say the same for people that through money that were for Gay marriage and lived in GA or ID or some other 3rd state? I don'tsee you doing that here. It does seem you are trying to deny us our first amendment rights of freedom of speech. Were did any LDS break the law. If no law was broken why are you complaining?

Does not CA have civil unions? What rights are being denied?

[Daniel2]

I understood perfectly what you meant. I was reminding you of who has actually been oppressed and persecuted.

Actually, Deborah, it sounds like you may have assumed something about what "I" meant. I intentionally didn't specify any specific "oppression," with the explicit purpose of leaving the interpretation of that concept to the reader. For those that sympathize with the plight of Mormons, in this case, they'd likely interpret it as you did. For those that sympathize with the plight of LGBT couples, they'd likely interpret it differently.

Again--that was part of my point. Either way the reader interprets it, I believe the attention that Dallin Oak's comments garnered is a positive step.

Darin

[Daniel2]

Does not CA have civil unions? What rights are being denied?

Equal application of the law, with regards to the ability to legally designate their union as a civil marriage. In addition to the conceptual difference, this restriction has the effect of preventing religious liberty by prohibiting the government from fully recognizing ALL religion's views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples (such as Unitarian Universalists, who can and do use the term "marriage" with regards to same-sex weddings). Substituting the designation of "civil union" for "civil marriage" also creates a "separate-but-attempting-to-be-equal" category that really isn't "equal" at all, given that there are over 1,000 Federal benefits that "married" couples qualify for, but which are not available to "civilly united" couples.

I'm both saddened and amazed at the ongoing, willful ignorance that continually begs this relatively simple question.

Darin

[ttribe]

Equal application of the law, with regards to the ability to legally designate their union as a civil marriage. In addition to the conceptual difference, this restriction has the effect of preventing religious liberty by prohibiting the government from fully recognizing ALL religion's views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples (such as Unitarian Universalists, who can and do use the term "marriage" with regards to same-sex weddings). Substituting the designation of "civil union" for "civil marriage" also creates a "separate-but-attempting-to-be-equal" category that really isn't "equal" at all, given that there are over 1,000 Federal benefits that "married" couples qualify for, but which are not available to "civilly united" couples.

I'm both saddened and amazed at the ongoing, willful ignorance that continually begs this relatively simple question.

Darin

Since neither Ray nor Jaybear seem interested, perhaps you will address the issue: Post Link

[Jaybear]

Is there a law somewere that says if I live in Utah I can through money at a laws being passed in CA?

Would you say the same for people that through money that were for Gay marriage and lived in GA or ID or some other 3rd state? I don'tsee you doing that here. It does seem you are trying to deny us our first amendment rights of freedom of speech. Were did any LDS break the law. If no law was broken why are you complaining?

Its remarkable that you seem to take offense, no matter what I say.

Please read my post above, where I said: "Protected speech: Utah Mormons contributing money to the passage of Prop 8."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Equal application of the law, with regards to the ability to legally designate their union as a civil marriage. In addition to the conceptual difference, this restriction has the effect of preventing religious liberty by prohibiting the government from fully recognizing ALL religion's views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples (such as Unitarian Universalists, who can and do use the term "marriage" with regards to same-sex weddings). Substituting the designation of "civil union" for "civil marriage" also creates a "separate-but-attempting-to-be-equal" category that really isn't "equal" at all, given that there are over 1,000 Federal benefits that "married" couples qualify for, but which are not available to "civilly united" couples.

I'm both saddened and amazed at the ongoing, willful ignorance that continually begs this relatively simple question.

Darin

I asked the question in all seriousness. I don't live in CA and I am not Gay.

I still say that all who want to be married can be even now under that traditional definition. What I see though is that certain people in the community wan't the redefinition of a word so they can feel inculed or get rights that they think they are being denied.

So tell me what rights are being denied under "civil unions" vs so called "same sex marriage".

It seems your only beef is that it isn't called a marriage. I don't understand how that can possible add to what you have? Help me here understand it.

This is what I am asking. You didn't give me one right that was being denied so far. Doesn't this get to the heart of the issue here? If you got the exact same "rights" as some one that is married vs a civil union, would you have a problem with that? I wouldn't and don't. I think that same sex marriage is impossible because marriage is defined as a between a man and a woman. But I am not trying to argue the latter point.

Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Its remarkable that you seem to take offense, no matter what I say.

Please read my post above, where I said: "Protected speech: Utah Mormons contributing money to the passage of Prop 8."

I have n't taken offense Jaybear. Beleive it or not most of the things your say don't affect me emotionally.

I just merely pointed out your inconsitant thinking and the outcome of such thinking. If there is no law that says that I, living in Utah, cannot give money to a law that might get passed in CA. I don't understand what your issue is. If there were such a law I can see your point. IOW I am trying to figure out why you are upset that people in UT donated money to fight for traditional marriage in CA.

Are you just as upset at people in GA or ID or some other 3rd state gave money to help pass pro gay marriage legislation? Or ist just the LDS church and people in Utah?

[Zakuska]

Equal application of the law, with regards to the ability to legally designate their union as a civil marriage. In addition to the conceptual difference, this restriction has the effect of preventing religious liberty by prohibiting the government from fully recognizing ALL religion's views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples (such as Unitarian Universalists, who can and do use the term "marriage" with regards to same-sex weddings). Substituting the designation of "civil union" for "civil marriage" also creates a "separate-but-attempting-to-be-equal" category that really isn't "equal" at all, given that there are over 1,000 Federal benefits that "married" couples qualify for, but which are not available to "civilly united" couples.

I'm both saddened and amazed at the ongoing, willful ignorance that continually begs this relatively simple question.

Darin

Now you are conflating two different things Darin. I wish people would quit playing ping pong and stay in California when talking about Prop 8. What the LGBT community needs to fight for is the equal rigths claus for "same sex unions" under federal law as exists in California law. (IE granting same sex Unions equal previledges under federal law as Hetero Marriage) I don't have a probelm with that in the least. Just don't call it marriage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Now you are conflating two different things Darin. I wish people would quit playing ping pong and stay in California when talking about Prop 8. What the LGBT community needs to fight for is the equal rigths claus for "same sex unions" under federal law as exists in California law. (IE granting same sex Unions equal previledges under federal law as Hetero Marriage) I don't have a probelm with that in the least. Just don't call it marriage.

If CA did have a proposition for that I wouldn't care, shoot I would even donate moeny for that. It just seems from what I am getting from Darrin is he is upset because he can't call it a marriage legally. That is what all of this hubbub is about as I see it.

[Zakuska]

If CA did have a proposition for that I wouldn't care, shoot I would even donate moeny for that. It just seems from what I am getting from Darrin is he is upset because he can't call it a marriage legally. That is what all of this hubbub is about as I see it.

No need to vote for or donate money because they already have provisions in the law that do just that. Now the LGBT need to take it to a federal level rather than wasting their money locally fighting for the definition of a word and the prestige that comes with it. If this was truley about rights as they claim they would have done that a looooong time age.

[Daniel2]

I asked the question in all seriousness. I don't live in CA and I am not Gay.

I still say that all who want to be married can be even now under that traditional definition. What I see though is that certain people in the community wan't the redefinition of a word so they can feel inculed or get rights that they think they are being denied.

So tell me what rights are being denied under "civil unions" vs so called "same sex marriage".

It seems your only beef is that it isn't called a marriage. I don't understand how that can possible add to what you have? Help me here understand it.

This is what I am asking. You didn't give me one right that was being denied so far. Doesn't this get to the heart of the issue here? If you got the exact same "rights" as some one that is married vs a civil union, would you have a problem with that? I wouldn't and don't. I think that same sex marriage is impossible because marriage is defined as a between a man and a woman. But I am not trying to argue the latter point.

Thanks.

In 1997, the federal government issued a report through it

[Jaybear]

I have n't taken offense Jaybear. Beleive it or not most of the things your say don't affect me emotionally.

I just merely pointed out your inconsitant thinking and the outcome of such thinking. If there is no law that says that I, living in Utah, cannot give money to a law that might get passed in CA. I don't understand what your issue is. If there were such a law I can see your point. IOW I am trying to figure out why you are upset that people in UT donated money to fight for traditional marriage in CA.

CFR. You have accused me of inconsistent thinking by attribution to me opinions I have not expressed If I have said anything inconsistent please present the two conflicting posts side by side.

I am telling you, this is all in your active imagination.

Are you just as upset at people in GA or ID or some other 3rd state gave money to help pass pro gay marriage legislation? Or ist just the LDS church and people in Utah?

Here is where you are not paying attention. I have never once said that people in Utah should not be allowed to donate money to support Prop 8. In fact, I said the opposite. I will say it a third time. Utah mormons should have the right to donate money to support anti gay legislation anywhere in the world.

I have also said on many occasion, that the LDS Church has every right to ask that its members donate thier time and money to the passage of Prop 8.

[Zakuska]

Here is where you are not paying attention. I have never once said that people in Utah should not be allowed to donate money to support Prop 8. In fact, I said the opposite. I will say it a third time. Utah mormons should have the right to donate money to support anti gay legislation anywhere in the world.

And here is where you arnt paying attention. Ray did.

[juliann]

In politics, the only line that exists is where you engage in illegal behavior. As far as I am aware, the El Coyote boycott/protests, never crossed that line.

As for your sister Majorie, she was foolish if she did not realize that donating money to Prop 8 would offend a significant component of her customer base. Client relations are the lifeblood of a small business.

She is not the first, nor will she be the last person to lose a job, because they did something that offended the customer base.

For some reason that truly puzzles me, Mormons don't seem to truly grasp how important this issue is for the gay community. To me and you, its academic, to them, it is truly personal.

Of course we realize how important it is. DUH? Believe it or not....that is what made it so difficult for many people. The purpose was not to inflict hurt, it was to preserve something that is truly personal and important. I think the lack of understanding is coming from the other direction. And one does not need to engage in criminal behavior to intimidate voters, I don't know who you think you are fooling with that one.

You continue to add new rules to control the definition of voter intimidation. Your attempt to force differentiation between voting and contributing is clever but empty. Winning votes depends on money, getting to the polls is only the last step in today's political process. And I don't think anyone but you is trying to pretend that the intimidation is not directed toward the next proposition.

As for the thuggery at El Coyote, what a joke. They pick the easiest target possible. They didn't stand in front of big businesses or black owned establishments. It was cowardly and you can bet it will not play any better than the videos of them shoving an old woman for the next election. Although the dishonesty is annoying I don't think too many Mormons expect good press or acceptance. I don't think anyone expects that SSM will not eventually win....although most expected it to win the last time. But the gays do need good will and the polls started going against them when the videos of the violence was belatedly picked up by local news. It will be interesting to see how the many ugly photo ops they provided will be used in the next election.

[Calm]

Of course we realize how important it is. DUH? Believe it or not....that is what made it so difficult for many people. The purpose was not to inflict hurt, it was to preserve something that is truly personal and important. I think the lack of understanding is coming from the other direction.

Considering how often the question "how does two gay people getting married possibly affect you?" is made, I would agree.

[Bsix]

Could you imagine the complete and total meltdown the media and the gay community would have if a gang of Mormons identified a gay, female employee who had donated to a Stop Prop 8 organization...went to her place of employment...confronted her...demanded that she be fired...threatened a boycott of the business who' owner had nothing to do with her donation...and shook she and the owner down for donations to the LDS Church?

Does anyone really believe that the majority of the media and the publich would not see that such behavior as an act of intimidation?

Regards,

Six

[juliann]

Equal application of the law, with regards to the ability to legally designate their union as a civil marriage. In addition to the conceptual difference, this restriction has the effect of preventing religious liberty by prohibiting the government from fully recognizing ALL religion's views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples (such as Unitarian Universalists, who can and do use the term "marriage" with regards to same-sex weddings). Substituting the designation of "civil union" for "civil marriage" also creates a "separate-but-attempting-to-be-equal" category that really isn't "equal" at all, given that there are over 1,000 Federal benefits that "married" couples qualify for, but which are not available to "civilly united" couples.

I'm both saddened and amazed at the ongoing, willful ignorance that continually begs this relatively simple question.

Darin

And you know that this has nothing to do with state propositions. CA can't give anyone federal benefits no matter what they call them. CA does, however, grant all state benefits equally to all partners which is all it or any other state can do. So your beef is with Obama and the feds...not the Mormons and Prop 8. You continue to hide this no matter how many times it is restated and I don't think that is a wise tactic as more people become educated on the distinctions.

[Daniel2]

And you know that this has nothing to do with state propositions. CA can't give anyone federal benefits no matter what they call them. CA does, however, grant all state benefits equally to all partners which is all it or any other state can do. So your beef is with Obama and the feds...not the Mormons and Prop 8. You continue to hide this no matter how many times it is restated and I don't think that is a wise tactic as more people become educated on the distinctions.

Juliann,

I disagree that "this has nothing to do with state propositions." "The Respect for Marriage Act" will be a bill that addresses inequality at the Federal Level by reversing the federal government's current inability to recognize state-sanctioned marriages, and it's already in the works. While repeal of the poorly-named "Defense of Marriage Act" is necessary for such to occur, but legal recognition of LGBT couples' marriages at the state level is still a matter of equal application of the law in accordance with Constitutional Principles. Such was my first point when mentioning the importance of the designation "civil marriage" as opposed to "civil unions."

My view,

Darin

[Bsix]

Since this is the officially sanctioned gay-topic thread...I have a few questions. Gay activists contend that same sex marriage is needed to normalize acceptance of gays and contribute to lowering the suicide rate among gays.

I have heard it claimed that gays commit suicide at a greater rate than heterosexual peers. What are the reliable studies that bear this out?

Do Mormon gays commit suicide at greater rates than do their straight fellow members?

I have heard that the gay suicide rate is going up. This seems odd to me since homosexuality seems to be more accepted than ever before. Wouldn't we expect the suicide rate to go down as acceptance goes up?

I have heard it said that suicide rates in countries where homoosexuality is socially accepted is still higher than the heterosexual population. Any stats or thoughts on that?

Is it possible that homosexuality is an abnormal sexual condition and that there may be emotional dysfunctions associated with it that lead to higher suicide rates? (In other words, external intolerance may not be the primary contributing factor in gay suicides.) Any stats of thoughts on this aspect of the topic.

All of this is relevent to Mormonism because the Church is attacked for contributing to gay suicides by virtue of its position on the sinfulness of homosexual sex.

Regards,

Six

[Jaybear]

And here is where you arnt paying attention. Ray did.

?????

I know that Ray say that. I am not Ray.

My point is that I never said it.

Juliann: You continue to add new rules to control the definition of voter intimidation. Your attempt to force differentiation between voting and contributing is clever but empty. Winning votes depends on money, getting to the polls is only the last step in today's political process. And I don't think anyone but you is trying to pretend that the intimidation is not directed toward the next proposition.

I know fully well that boycotts and protests are intended to both disuade and persuade business owners from making political contribution, now and in the future.

I know that money influence election, as does the LDS Church, as it was after all exhorting its members to donate money to secure the passage of Prop 8.

I know that one of the intended effect of the boycotts is to discourage business owners from contributing money to the anti-gay coalition, next time it comes around.

Boycotts and protests are an important tools in the political process, and are protected free speech.

Voter suppression is illegal. Despite your suggesion otherwise, boycotts and protests are not, by definition, voter suppression.

As for the thuggery at El Coyote, what a joke. They pick the easiest target possible. They didn't stand in front of big businesses or black owned establishments.

Thuggery is illegal. Boycotts and protests are not thuggery. However protests can become emotional, and emotion can lead to violence and thuggery. It wrong, but it does happen.

As for El Coyote, do you not agree that it was foolish for Zak's sister not to expect that her clientele would take offense to her donation. You seem to understand how important the issue is for gays. Did she not grasp how it important the issue was, or did she just not care?

[PacMan]

Juliann,

I disagree that "this has nothing to do with state propositions." "The Respect for Marriage Act" will be a bill that addresses inequality at the Federal Level by reversing the federal government's current inability to recognize state-sanctioned marriages, and it's already in the works. While repeal of the poorly-named "Defense of Marriage Act" is necessary for such to occur, but legal recognition of LGBT couples' marriages at the state level is still a matter of equal application of the law in accordance with Constitutional Principles. Such was my first point when mentioning the importance of the designation "civil marriage" as opposed to "civil unions."

My view,

Darin

Darin,

1. You're right...the two are very connected. What's really scary is how the full-faith and credit clause will be construed. Does one state have the right to force another state to recognize or do something it doesn't want to do? The federalism issues are very, very provocative.

2. I fully agree that there should be NO difference between a civil marriage and a civil unions. That is a travesty of justice. I just disagree with how it's trying to be resolved.

3. Would you agree (in trying to find some ground of commonality) that marriage over the years has been defined as the union of a man and a woman, and that the concept of "gay-marriage" is a relatively new phenomenon? I can fully respect someone's desire to expand a definition, but I hope we can agree on certain facts. Else, as Dworkin has said, we will forever argue the conceptions of different concepts.

[Bsix]

So...if for the purposes of our secular government we recognized that opposite gender and same gender marriages are fundamentally unique and disctinct from each other...and created two unique and completely equal civil unions...one called marriage (heterosexual) and one called (anything other than marriage)...would that be acceptable to the gay rights movement? Would that settle the matter?

Regards,

Six

[Zakuska]

Boycotts and protests are an important tools in the political process, and are protected free speech.

Voter suppression is illegal. Despite your suggesion otherwise, boycotts and protests are not, by definition, voter suppression.

Thuggery is illegal. Boycotts and protests are not thuggery. However protests can become emotional, and emotion can lead to violence and thuggery. It wrong, but it does happen.

As for El Coyote, do you not agree that it was foolish for Zak's sister not to expect that her clientele would take offense to her donation. You seem to understand how important the issue is for gays. Did she not grasp how it important the issue was, or did she just not care?

Or perhaps she felt her duty to participate in a democratic election out weighed what her clientele might think either way. We're talking $100 here.

The LGBT showed their yellow underbellies by picking off the straglers like a pack of wild Hyenas instead of going after such heavy hitters as Corel Corporation which donated $1 million dollars for and $1 million dollars against. Now there is where the boycotts and demonstrations should really be focused, not at 60 year old women and their restuarants.

[USU78]

Now you are conflating two different things Darin. I wish people would quit playing ping pong and stay in California when talking about Prop 8. What the LGBT community needs to fight for is the equal rigths claus for "same sex unions" under federal law as exists in California law. (IE granting same sex Unions equal previledges under federal law as Hetero Marriage) I don't have a probelm with that in the least. Just don't call it marriage.

I have a very big problem with it.

Two things I hold sacrosanct: the sexualization of youth and the sanctity of the Temple.

Gay marriage, in any form, attacks both.

"Marriage in all but name" is but one battle in the war. Here's another:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html

[jwhitlock]

You are right, the saints have suffered unjustly and it appears they will continue to do so as they stand more and more for what is right before God. In our politically correct and humanistic society the church and others who stand on principle will continue to be oppressed.

And that's the whole point, isn't it. One needs only to look again at the pictures of gay protesters outside the temple holding up hate signs.

Most of them were not even that imaginative concerning their anti-Mormon hate slogans. Not much depth, there.

Of course, Darin's portrayal of gays as the "real" victims simply takes ones breath away. It's absolutely stunning in the level of spin involved. But if you yell something false long and loud enough, you'll get at least some of the populace - and not usually the cream of the crop - to believe you.