Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Jaybear]

Apparently You havent even read his discourse.

Yes. I read his discourse. In fact, I cited to it. He analogized the aftermath with voter intimidation. I was addressing the analogy he made, not the one you want to make.

If you doubt the nature of the analogy, please note the quote cited by Ray:

In an interview posted on the LDS Church's Web site after the speech, Oaks called his analogy a "good one," but acknowledged that intimidation of Mormons in the wake of Prop 8 has not been "as serious as what happened in the South."

Did you miss that fact that Blacks where fired from their jobs, and even evicted for trying to vote?

In addition, employers fired blacks who tried to register and landlords evicted them from their homes.[18]

Actually, I missed the part where Mormons were fired for voting for Prop 8. I recall that a director of a theater in Sacramento resigned, to stave of threats of boycott because he had contributed money to eliminate gay rights. More importantly. The director was not criticized because he was Mormon. He was criticized because he donated 5K to prop 8. The result would have been the same were he baptist, catholic, or even an athiest. Hardly an apt analogy.

Can you name a single Mormon that was fired for being Mormon in the wake of Prop 8?

Can you name one that was evicted? Murdered?

[gtaggart]

Analogies are supposed to clarify a point. Frankly, I don't know what point he was trying to make.

The analogy was a poor one, on so many levels.

First, he was comparing voter intimidation (preventing votes) with backlash that occurred after the votes had been counted. As far as I am aware, unlike what was happening in the deep south, there was not a single instance of a Mormon being prevented from voting.

Second, he was equating the LDS Church which sought to deny gay rights, with blacks who were seeking to secure civil rights. The better analogy would have been to the backlash suffered by those groups that opposed civil rights.

Third, the "backlash" was for the most part expressed by protests, boycotts and letters, all of which are protected free speech. Those opposed to civil rights in the south were not boycotting black owned businesses, and marching in the street.

First he was comparing the "effects" of intimidation, not the intimidation itself.

Second, he was talking about voter intimidation--and in the larger context of his speech, banning religious speech from the public square--not actual voting itself. Surely you would agree that not all voter intimidation takes place at the polling booth, or in fact, necessarily before a vote. And whether or not you agree, the voting booth is not the only place we "vote." Every time we speak our minds, contact our Senator, write a letter to the editor, we are in a sense voting, adding to the political dialogue. If intimidation silences that voice, the dialogue is less robust and therefore cheapened.

Third, that behavior is legal doesn't mean it's not intimidating, but in any case, you've already conceded your third point when you wrote, "for the most part." And I suspect you misspoke when you wrote "Those opposed to civil rights in the south were not [just] boycotting black owned businesses, and marching in the street." (I inserted the word "just.") And of course they weren't "just" doing that. And again, nobody but Elder Oaks's critics has said that. Elder Oaks's never compared "treatment" only "effects."

Read his talk again, Jaybear. I'm sure you can figure out his point.

By the way, Elder Oaks specifically said--in the very paragraph containing the "offensive" sentence--that the intimidation was not anti-religious in general or directed only at Mormons in particular; rather, they were "anti-democratic."

And with this, I'm through with this thread. Have fun.

[Calm]

The point that much of the intimidation occurred after the vote so the analogy is inappropriate seems to me off base due to the stated intent of gay activists to bring the issue back to the table as quickly as possible. Those who were harassed and threatened this time will certainly remember next time the ballot approaches as will those who just observed or heard it reported and wonder if it might happen to them this time around as well.

[jwhitlock]

What do you want to "eradicate". Other people's rights?

What on earth does this have to do with your ill-founded comment about eradicating persecution complexes?

Or is this just a throw-away statement?

[jwhitlock]

Our local news stations are of course covering this and emphasizing the comparison to a prior time in history. I'm wondering why it is a certain group has ownership of a certain type of persecution. In other words how is comparing persecution for support of a political issue to a prior time in history somehow not appropriate simply because of who was involved? The point is we are seeing the same thing, perhaps on a lesser scale now but one that can escalate.

I hope we have more and more powerful and no-holds-barred talks from GA's. Although it will invite further protest, but how entertaining to watch the small minded flailing their arms and legs in excitement, demonstrating by their very actions the hypocrisy of their words.

Absolutely.

Of course, having been entertained myself by watching our critics get lathered up over something I said, I predict that they will find our "being entertained" even more reason to get torqued off at us.

Flailing does catch the gist of what they're all about. Good description.

[Daniel Peterson]

Analogies are supposed to clarify a point. Frankly, I don't know what point he was trying to make.

Your law degree, I believe, is from a good school. I'm pretty confident that, if you gave this any real effort, you'd be able to grasp it.

The analogy was a poor one, on so many levels.

But, methinks, a good one on the level that counted.

If the analogy were perfect, it wouldn't be an analogy between two different things but, rather, a declaration of identity between "them."

the LDS Church . . . sought to deny gay rights

Some folks struggle to understand the logical fallacy of "begging the question." I propose the statement above as an excellent illustration of the fallacy.

[Nofear]

Some folks struggle to understand the logical fallacy of "begging the question." I propose the statement above as an excellent illustration of the fallacy.

But, but it's not as flashy to say, "The LDS Church opposed efforts by us to create new rights for homosexuals."

[Ray Agostini]

What on earth does this have to do with your ill-founded comment about eradicating persecution complexes?

Or is this just a throw-away statement?

It is amazing that Oaks spends so much time early in his speech defending "religious freedom", then refers to the "alleged 'civil' right' " of others (the quotation marks around "civil right" is his). Let me make that clear:

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict

with the newly alleged

[Jaybear]

Some folks struggle to understand the logical fallacy of "begging the question." I propose the statement above as an excellent illustration of the fallacy.

Wrong. I was not presenting an argument. I was stating a fact.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court is the final authoritative body that identifies and defines rights protected under the CA constitution.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court ruled that under the CA constitution, gays had a the right to marry. That right is a civil right.

Fact: Prop 8 changed the CA Constitution to eliminate that civil right.

[Pahoran]

Sorry Ray, but you've gone just too far this time.

It is amazing that Oaks spends so much time early in his speech defending "religious freedom", then refers to the "alleged 'civil' right' " of others (the quotation marks around "civil right" is his). Let me make that clear:

Yes, "gay marriage" is only an alleged civil right, not an actual one. So?

So, it was "not about civil rights", but his earlier comment says it all, "alleged 'civil' right". You are not going to win kudos by trying to suppress the civil rights of others (not "alleged civil rights", real civil rights) by appealing at the same time for your "religious rights".

But "gay marriage" is not a "real civil right" but only an imaginary one. Who tried to "suppress the civil rights of others," Ray?

Because the claim that the Church, groups of Latter-day Saints, individual Latter-day Saints, or the entire Proposition 8 movement tried any such thing is an utter canard.

The only thing in the whole affair that could legitimately be classed as an attempt to "suppress the civil rights of others" is the attempts of the "No" faction to intimidate -- and thus silence -- the "Yes" supporters.

You have a right to worship and believe as you please, and there's no reason why religious freedom and civil rights cannot co-exist.

You're right. No reason at all.

For instance, there is no reason why our civil right to support legitimate causes in the public square cannot co-exist with the religious freedom of American Anglicans to bless "gay" unions.

It is clear that Oaks wants some minorities not to have those full civil rights. He considers their claim null and void, and on the basis of "the word of God".

That is false, Ray. No such thing is "clear" at all. And I regret that I can find no way to accept that you have any good faith basis to claim to believe what you assert.

Not on any demonstrable harm that same-gender marriage can cause to society. If that were clear (demonstrable harm) he might have a point. This reminds me of Mark Petersen's argument back in 1954:

Ah, race-baiting. The last refuge of the unprincipled anti-Mormon bereft of an actual argument.

Or is it the first?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

Can someone please explain to me how the protests that took place after the election could be construed as "voter intimidation"? I mean, beyond the inference that some people who might vote in an unspecified future election (on an ballot that hasn't yet been conceived) could in some way remember the actions of the protesters and be affected by them?

There is a street corner in Westwood (near the LA temple) in front of the Federal Building which almost daily has protesters standing on the sidewalk in front of it, shouting about Palestine, or Iran, or Gay Rights, or whatever cause du jour gets people riled that day. I'm a voter, and I see these people, so does that mean I'm being intimidated?

Obviously, the protesters that broke the law should be punished, and as far as I can tell, where the police were able to verify the illegal actions, these people were arrested (or at least stopped). Search for "prop 8 arrests", and you'll find many reports.

As far as I know, there is a wide latitude given to people in this country to express their political thoughts (and displeasure). The same laws that gave LDS and others the right to canvas neighborhoods and knock on peoples' doors (uninvited) also allow people to protest and rally.

Here's the wikipedia summary of "voter intimidation". Is there really a danger of these methods being used in prop 8 battles?

Intimidation

Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all. Absentee and other remote voting can be more open to some forms of intimidation as the voter does not have the protection and privacy of the polling location. Intimidation can take a range of forms.

* Violence or the threat of violence: In its simplist form, voters from a particular demographic or known to support a particular party or candidate are directly threatened by supporters of another party or candidate or those hired by them. In other cases supporters of a particular party make it known that if a particular village or neighbourhood is found to have voted the 'wrong' way, reprisals will be made against that community. Another method is to make a general threat of violence, for example a bomb threat which has the effect of closing a particular polling place, thus making it difficult for people in that area to vote.[8]

* Attacks on polling places: Polling places in an area known to support a particular party or candidate may be targeted for vandalism, destruction or threats, thus making it difficult or impossible for people in that area to vote.

* Legal threats: In this case voters will be made to believe, accurately or otherwise, that they are not legally entitled to vote, or that they are legally obliged to vote a particular way. Voters who are not confident about their entitlement to vote may also be intimidated by real or implied authority figures who suggest that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be imprisoned, deported or otherwise punished.

* Economic threats: In company towns in which one company employs most of the working population, the company may threaten workers with disciplinary action if they do not vote the way their employer dictates.

The "economic threat" seems to be the most similar to what happened with the boycotts and threats of boycotts. At what point does the legal right to "boycott" cross the line into actual "voter intimidation"?

[Ray Agostini]

Ah, race-baiting. The last refuge of the unprincipled anti-Mormon bereft of an actual argument.

Or is it the first?

Regards,

Pahoran

Unfortunately I have an appointment to keep (see, I do have some principle), but I'll be back later.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wrong. I was not presenting an argument. I was stating a fact.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court is the final authoritative body that identifies and defines rights protected under the CA constitution.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court ruled that under the CA constitution, gays had a the right to marry. That right is a civil right.

Fact: Prop 8 changed the CA Constitution to eliminate that civil right.

I daresay that you're less enthusiastic about assuming the power of courts to invent new rights (and about the immutable character of court decisions) when the judicial decisions are less ideologically palatable to you. (Think, say, Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the United States Supreme Court -- no mere state court, by a whopping margin of 4-3! -- pretty much canonized the rights of white Americans, respectively, to hold slaves and to discriminate against blacks.)

I do not recognize the capacity of any court to create a new fundamental right in opposition to the will of the people who created both the government itself and the courts that interpret its laws. The power to reinvent the definition of marriage and to overturn thousands of years of custom and tradition has simply never been vested in, say, Joyce L. Kennard, even if she did graduate from the USC School of Law. I favor limited and humble government.

[Pahoran]

Wrong. I was not presenting an argument. I was stating a fact.

No, you were arguing a controversial position.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court is the final authoritative body that identifies and defines rights protected under the CA constitution.

Wrong. Since the people of California have the power to override the determinations of the court, it follows that the people are the final authoritative body in that jurisdiction.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court ruled that under the CA constitution, gays had a the right to marry. That right is a civil right.

And thus we've been jaybeared again. The second sentence is mere assertion, not a fact. A "civil right" is at all times a natural right, not a manufactured one.

The court's decision in striking down the former Proposition 22 was wrong in fact. It presumed that the law denied rights to "gays" that were enjoyed by normal people. The fact is that the law allowed, as it does now allow, all people the right to enter into marriage, which is an opposite-sex institution, without reference to any contrary sexual preference or "orientation." Its error was in imagining that the "right to marry" was something that extended to couples. It does not; it extends to qualified and mutually agreeing individuals.

The only "right" being denied was the right to enter into non-marital relationships and then demand that the state treat them as marriages.

Which is not a right at all. Rather, it is a special privilege being unreasonably demanded by an effete elite.

Fact: Prop 8 changed the CA Constitution to eliminate that civil right.

Since there was no such "civil right" to begin with, your conclusion -- which was never a fact -- is and always was moot.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Can someone please explain to me how the protests that took place after the election could be construed as "voter intimidation"? I mean, beyond the inference that some people who might vote in an unspecified future election (on an ballot that hasn't yet been conceived) could in some way remember the actions of the protesters and be affected by them?

That is, in fact, a very good example of voter intimidation.

Commentators often speak of the "chilling effect" of this or that policy or action, and it seems manifestly obvious to me that holders of a certain political opinion who see others who've voted or contributed to electoral campaigns on the basis of that opinion being fired, boycotted, vandalized, threatened, and defamed, will be less likely to contribute to future electoral campaigns on the basis of that opinion and will be wary, at the very minimum, of exercising their free right of expression in the run-up to future referendums on the matter.

If such a scenario doesn't represent anti-democratic intimidation of differing opinion, I'm powerless to imagine what it would represent.

[Bunny]

Wrong. I was not presenting an argument. I was stating a fact.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court is the final authoritative body that identifies and defines rights protected under the CA constitution.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court ruled that under the CA constitution, gays had a the right to marry. That right is a civil right.

Fact: Prop 8 changed the CA Constitution to eliminate that civil right.

Your "facts" are not correct.

Fact: The CA Supreme Court is NEVER the final authoritative body that defines civil rights. The final authoritative body on any law is the lawmaker, whether the legislature or the people. The court simply interprets the existing law.

Fact: Provisions of the California Constitution can be altered, added to, or deleted, which, in turn, will affect how the Court interprets any "rights" in the Constitution. In other words, if the people don't like the way the court interprets something, they merely change the Constitution to make it clear to the Court what it is they intended.

Fact: There was nothing in the CA Constitution before Prop 8 that outright granted gays the right to marry; the Court interpreted such a right from the existing provisions.

Fact: Prop. 8 added language to the CA Constitution that clearly defined to the Court whether such a civil right for gays existed. Under the CA Constitution, as determined by that final authoritative body, the people, no such right existed.

[Zakuska]

There is a street corner in Westwood (near the LA temple) in front of the Federal Building which almost daily has protesters standing on the sidewalk in front of it, shouting about Palestine, or Iran, or Gay Rights, or whatever cause du jour gets people riled that day. I'm a voter, and I see these people, so does that mean I'm being intimidated?

Would you think twice about voting/donating money against Gay rights if you where the owner of this resauraunt?

http://shutupiknow.b...nference-w.html

This is the type of Intimidation Elder oakes was speaking of. Not some stragglers on a street corner.

[Bob Crockett]

Can someone please explain to me how the protests that took place after the election could be construed as "voter intimidation"? I mean, beyond the inference that some people who might vote in an unspecified future election (on an ballot that hasn't yet been conceived) could in some way remember the actions of the protesters and be affected by them?

My guess is that you did not contribute to Prop 8 and, as a result, you never became the subject of ridicule, hate mail, hate email, professional criticism, employment related after-the-fact questioning and threatened professional boycotting after the election. Perhaps you did not notice that after the election there was a civil suit, unsuccessful, which attempted to challenge California's law which required contributors to proposition to state their names and employers, and perhaps you did not further look at the evidence offered in support of the suit -- the post election violence. In my case, former Mormons posted information about me, my family, and my history on a website dealing with those who contributed significant sums toward the proposition.

Perhaps my vote wasn't intimidated, but my willingness to ever speak out or contribute anything in the future has been profoundly affected.

[Bob Crockett]

Fact: The CA Supreme Court is NEVER the final authoritative body that defines civil rights. The final authoritative body on any law is the lawmaker, whether the legislature or the people. The court simply interprets the existing law.

Too bad Marbury v. Madison affirmed the idea that the Supreme Court has the last word. I know we are dealing here with the California Supreme Court, but the principle is the same. The body having the last word is, effectively, "the final authoritative body."

Fact: There was nothing in the CA Constitution before Prop 8 that outright granted gays the right to marry; the Court interpreted such a right from the existing provisions.

Which is really the way most civil rights become defined, including the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that the right to bear arms includes the rights of individuals to bear arms, and not just an armed militia. Including various rulings about "cruel and unusual punishment" in the context of capital punishment. Including abortion. So I'm not sure you pointing that out has much meaning. Civil rights are basically what the courts say they are.

Fact: Prop. 8 added language to the CA Constitution that clearly defined to the Court whether such a civil right for gays existed. Under the CA Constitution, as determined by that final authoritative body, the people, no such right existed.

Unfortunately, I am wondering if that will pass muster in the current federal case pending.

[gtaggart]

My guess is that you did not contribute to Prop 8 and, as a result, you never became the subject of ridicule, hate mail, hate email, professional criticism, employment related after-the-fact questioning and threatened professional boycotting after the election. Perhaps you did not notice that after the election there was a civil suit, unsuccessful, which attempted to challenge California's law which required contributors to proposition to state their names and employers, and perhaps you did not further look at the evidence offered in support of the suit -- the post election violence. In my case, former Mormons posted information about me, my family, and my history on a website dealing with those who contributed significant sums toward the proposition.

Perhaps my vote wasn't intimidated, but my willingness to ever speak out or contribute anything in the future has been profoundly affected.

But are you black?

[Bob Crockett]

It is amazing that Oaks spends so much time early in his speech defending "religious freedom", then refers to the "alleged 'civil' right' " of others (the quotation marks around "civil right" is his).

That's all it is in California and in the federal government. It is only "alleged," for at the present time, "alleged" means, "not a". I'm not keeping track, but only in two or three states is it not "alleged." I guess had Elder Oaks been making the speech in Canada, he would have been over the top with the word "alleged." But, not Australia, mate.

How uncanny.Perhaps in 50 years time you'll be emphasising the fact that "Oaks was only speaking as a man".

I marvel at the argument which condemns another's view for something that has not happened yet. I find it so very unlikely that the Church will ever reverse its position on homosexuality.

[Bob Crockett]

But are you black?

No. I'm just a Christian. Maybe not lions are tearing me apart, but they've been going after my livelihood.

[smac97]

Here's the money quote from Elder Oaks:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California

[DanGB]

That is, in fact, a very good example of voter intimidation.

Commentators often speak of the "chilling effect" of this or that policy or action, and it seems manifestly obvious to me that holders of a certain political opinion who see others who've voted or contributed to electoral campaigns on the basis of that opinion being fired, boycotted, vandalized, threatened, and defamed, will be less likely to contribute to future electoral campaigns on the basis of that opinion and will be wary, at the very minimum, of exercising their free right of expression in the run-up to future referendums on the matter.

If such a scenario doesn't represent anti-democratic intimidation of differing opinion, I'm powerless to imagine what it would represent.

I don't believe boycotting is realy on the same level of civil rights intimidation. Boycotting is nothing more than organizing a group vote to have influence!

We do that (or attempt to) all the time in the Church!

[DanGB]

And a follow up: Were there actually mbers who were fired from their jobs for the way they voted? I hadn't heard this. Any specifics and why they didn't sue the pants off their employer?