Another Gauntlet Hits the Ground

[Ray Agostini]

And this relates, how, to your inability to grasp the finer points of what Elder Oaks was saying?

Exactly how I said. Perspectives depend on background and personal beliefs.

Not hardly - especially when gay rights activists are soooo eager to draw the line about no official marriage recognition for other types of relationships - after their own.

That

[congruity]

I read the talk by Elder Oaks and my initial reaction was that it was a good talk. I later read a piece on Salt Lake Tribune's site about the speech. They, and the associated comments, ripped him apart for making a Civil Rights comparison. I never once felt he was comparing anything about the Church's Prop 8 persecution to the general treatment black people received. He did not elude to bombings, killings, and the like. Rather, I thought he made a fair comparison about voter intimidation. What other decent examples could he have brought forth regarding U.S. voter intimidation?

[juliann]

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.

You need to get your facts straight. The intimidation started as soon as the campaigning started. I know people who had their cars damaged immediately after they put stickers on them. Everyone had signs stolen (and that is a crime Structure Cop). The worst was after but you have to be completely out of touch to think it didn't start before.

[Zakuska]

A sure sign that the Second Coming will be here at any moment!

Tell me about it?!

[juliann]

Can someone tell me what the point of Elder Oaks' talk was? Meaning, what was the audience of his message supposed to take a way from it, or do?

I could understand if he were somehow addressing the people who were putting pressure on the prop-8 donators after the election, and asking them to stop doing it.

But I'm assuming that most of the people who were protesting, vandalizing, and making life difficult for Prop 8 supporters won't hear about Elder Oaks' comments, and won't care about them even if they do (and they will hardly be surprised that a Mormon leader isn't happy about the backlash).

So what are we supposed to do? Work towards legislation to protect people who support political causes? Work towards legislation to limit the ways people can respond when they get upset about a political process?

I'm quite sure that putting targets on people's backs by listing contributor's names and addresses will become common now....it may come back and bite those who are crowing about it in the behind. Who knows. Something does need to be done about that. Even though names are available, giving maps and advocating violence is a bit over the top. This isn't about just voting....it is about campaigning. I haven't seen that distinction yet. They are trying to cut off the money because money controls the votes.

The irony of this is that the Prop 8 opponents tried to use the "new black" label for themselves which didn't endear them with the real blacks. Now they are trying to pin that label on the Mormons, probably hoping for the same backlash. What this talk is doing is bringing up the embarrassing truth behind all of this....the Mormons didn't win the election, the Prop 8 opponents lost it. Their performance was shockingly inept for such a politically active group. That was followed by thuggery. All they can do is try to divert attention from this by race baiting. Maybe it will work this time....but their diversion tactics didn't work during the election.

[Pahoran]

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion. From the Universal Declaration on Human Rights:

I have parsed your excerpts carefully. Marriage is not mentioned at all, let alone "same sex marriage" or any such oxymoron.

"Same sex marriage" is not a civil right. There may or may not be a "right to marry," but that right attaches to individuals, not couples. And the state has always regulated it.

A person may only marry another person who (1) consents, (2) is legally able to consent (i.e is old enough and mentally competent), does not have too many genes in common (i.e. no incest) or too many chromosomes (i.e. is of the opposite sex) and (4) is not already married to another living person.

Since the USSC upheld the state's right to regulate marriage on the last and least point in Reynolds, it follows that the state can regulate marriage in all of the other points as well.

Furthermore, your darling declaration is not on point. There is no "sexual orientation" test for individuals seeking to enter into the opposite-sex institution of marriage.

The Church actively sought help from members outside of California. First Presidency statements were read over pulpits in other states to "gather forces" to overturn Prop 8, including contributing financial aid.

Actually to pass Prop. 8, just to be clear.

The Gay community isn't so well organised. There is no organisational figurehead who has anywhere near the power to create such opposition on any political issue.

And yet, despite these terrible handicaps, the established fact is that the "No" campaign raised more money than the "Yes" campaign did.

And a very large proportion of it came from outside California.

Why are you not seething with indignation about that?

In the Church, theoretically, one man has that power. I have heard supporters of the Prophet saying things like, "I don't understand all the issues, but the Prophet has asked us to support this drive to overturn Prop 8". If this isn't collective intimidation, I don't know what is.

Clearly you don't, since it isn't "intimidation" of any kind.

So I will tell you.

"Intimidation" consists in the retaliatory actions taken against those who supported Prop. 8. And in the threats of violence against them. In hounding them out of their jobs. In blacklisting them. In short, all of the McCarthyism of the Left has been engaged in with one end in mind: intimidation of their political opponents.

What was the name of the bigoted reactionary who said something to the effect that "There can be no appeal from ballots to bullets?"

By the sheer force of numbers and obedience to the Prophet, the civil rights of a minority group can be overturned.

Well maybe they could be, but to date they have not been.

I also call this bullying.

That sounds like a very accurate descriptor for the acts I detailed above.

Then why not "Gay marriage"? Because of "the word of God"? A revulsion to non-traditional options?

No, because it's against the law. The voters of California decided that; the Church did not.

I note that you have wisely chosen not to try to defend this assertion, previously made by you:

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".

Which is just as well, because that assertion is a lie.

In 1954 Apostle Petersen's remarks were taken seriously by members, but in 2009, when quoted, they are called "race-baiting".

Given that they have nothing whatever to do with Elder Oaks' talk under discussion, or any subject related thereto; and

Given that you introduced this red herring purely for polemical purposes;

It follows that "race-baiting" was the entire intent of your dredging it up.

As is expected, when an unprincipled anti-Mormon is found to be bereft of an actual argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

I read the talk by Elder Oaks and my initial reaction was that it was a good talk. I later read a piece on Salt Lake Tribune's site about the speech. They, and the associated comments, ripped him apart for making a Civil Rights comparison. I never once felt he was comparing anything about the Church's Prop 8 persecution to the general treatment black people received. He did not elude to bombings, killings, and the like. Rather, I thought he made a fair comparison about voter intimidation. What other decent examples could he have brought forth regarding U.S. voter intimidation?

The thing that many reporters and many critics missed is he made specific reference to the Laws prohibiting Voter intimidation that came out of the Civil right movement. He wasn't comparing LDS to blacks and their suffering but he was drawing attention to the fact that even some whites endured persecution during that time when they tried to help the blacks register to vote, and set up voter registration booths. The rioting at several places were whites set up voting booths to register blacks got so bad from other whites that the white people who had set up the voter registration poles had to flee over the top of the roof to escape the mob.

Try looking up "SNCC office 616"

http://www.nps.gov/h...eme%20Study.pdf

It makes one wonder if anyone was even listening in Highschool during American History class?!

He makes specific reference to the way pre-post-prop-8 intimidation tactics where similar to pre-post-civil-rights intimidation tactics which lead to Voter intimdation laws we have today.

[juliann]

I read the talk by Elder Oaks and my initial reaction was that it was a good talk. I later read a piece on Salt Lake Tribune's site about the speech. They, and the associated comments, ripped him apart for making a Civil Rights comparison. I never once felt he was comparing anything about the Church's Prop 8 persecution to the general treatment black people received. He did not elude to bombings, killings, and the like. Rather, I thought he made a fair comparison about voter intimidation. What other decent examples could he have brought forth regarding U.S. voter intimidation?

If they can change a comparison of effects to acts I don't think anything else he might have said would matter.

[Mordecai]

You need to get your facts straight. The intimidation started as soon as the campaigning started. I know people who had their cars damaged immediately after they put stickers on them. Everyone had signs stolen (and that is a crime Structure Cop). The worst was after but you have to be completely out of touch to think it didn't start before.

In my area, there was some idiot going around throwing rocks at people who had prop. 8 signs. A pregnant woman at our prop. 8 rally was hit by a rock as well.

[structurecop]

In my area, there was some idiot going around throwing rocks at people who had prop. 8 signs. A pregnant woman at our prop. 8 rally was hit by a rock as well.

Were they arrested?

[juliann]

The Church actively sought help from members outside of California. First Presidency statements were read over pulpits in other states to "gather forces" to overturn Prop 8, including contributing financial aid. The Gay community isn't so well organised. There is no organisational figurehead who has anywhere near the power to create such opposition on any political issue. In the Church, theoretically, one man has that power. I have heard supporters of the Prophet saying things like, "I don't understand all the issues, but the Prophet has asked us to support this drive to overturn Prop 8". If this isn't collective intimidation, I don't know what is. By the sheer force of numbers and obedience to the Prophet, the civil rights of a minority group can be overturned. I also call this bullying. But I grant that you will call it "democracy" (see Winston Churchill on efficacy of democracy). (And yes, I understand the concept of Gerrymander and how it is inequitably used.)

What the....?

You can see the contributions online. One helpful website did it for Mormons by city. So you can see who contributed (over $99) and how much. There was only a handful in my area and we have a huge Mormon population in some wealthy areas. So if you want to claim intimidation you are going to have to demonstrate that this awful pressure actually translated into forced behavior. Then you are going to have to tell all participating California Mormons that we have no will or brains. I resent that and you need to explain to me why you are entitled to explain my motives. Next you will have to explain why there are so many Mormons who disagreed with the church and even went public with it.

But most of all...you need to do some fact checking. Yikes.

[ttribe]

Where'd Ray Ray go? I was hoping to explore the rights issue a little more - Link

[Avatar4321]

Im hearing that Keith Olberman had less than complimentry comments about Elder Oaks and His speech.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33319827

Apparently, he's the worst person in the world.

[ttribe]

Im hearing that Keith Olberman had less than complimentry comments about Elder Oaks and His speech.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33319827

Apparently, he's the worst person in the world.

I don't believe it would be all that difficult to come up with a few less than complimentary comments about Keith Olberman either.

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe it would be all that difficult to come up with a few less than complimentary comments about Keith Olberman either.

Probably not from what I've heard of His reputation. But thankfully, we arent that petty.

[Calm]

One aspect that is fascinating to me is the reversal between what the gay activists are seeking now and what early Saints desired.

Now the goal is to encourage active governmental recognition and support, back then the goal was to discourage governmental involvement.

Definitely a different attitude to what the government's role in one's life should be.....

[cjcampbell]

Tell me just how exactly someone would keep an LDS person from entering the polls.

Why are gay rights groups suing in Washington State, among other places, to force the release of the names of those who support keeping marriage between a man and a woman, if not to intimidate, stifle free speech, and ultimately keep people from the polls?

[cjcampbell]

By boycotting Mormons? Or Mormon-owned businesses? I don't understand. If the Church is willing to take a moral stand (which is apparently a popular one) they should be willing to accept the consequences. How does the song go? Boycotting Mormon-owned businesses is entirely legal, by the way. What do you want -- enforced patronizing of LDS business?

You seem to be saying that opposing a certain political position should be classified as a hate crime. That is truly outrageous. Both sides have freedom of speech. They also have a right to peaceful assembly.

Would you say that boycotting gay-owned businesses is a hate crime?

[cjcampbell]

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:

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?

So anything short of murder, firing people for their religious beliefs, or evicting them is not intimidation? So it would not be a hate crime, for example, to dump manure on somebody's lawn, break their windows, write graffiti on their meeting places, stand in front of polling places and feel people's underwear to check their religion, etc?

[structurecop]

Would you say that boycotting gay-owned businesses is a hate crime?

No, I wouldn't.

[ERayR]

Im hearing that Keith Olberman had less than complimentry comments about Elder Oaks and His speech.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33319827

Apparently, he's the worst person in the world.

Was it one of his slobbering spittle slinging tirades?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Would you say that boycotting gay-owned businesses is a hate crime?

Better yet, boycotting businesses which employ a single gay person as long as that one employee continues to work there.

[cjcampbell]

Were they arrested?

Well, they haven't arrested anyone for vandalizing our ward building yet. Or the stake center in Olympia, despite the fact that a gay rights organization publicly took credit for the act. In fact, the police do not seem interested in investigating these crimes at all.

[Ray Agostini]

I have parsed your excerpts carefully. Marriage is not mentioned at all, let alone "same sex marriage" or any such oxymoron.

Furthermore, your darling declaration is not on point. There is no "sexual orientation" test for individuals seeking to enter into the opposite-sex institution of marriage.

Hold your horses and read this link: HRC. Don

[cjcampbell]

No, I wouldn't.

And are you willing to guarantee that no one else will think that it is a hate crime?