Prop 8 - Why Was That The Hill To Die On, And Would We Do It Again?

[cinepro]

I know this question has been discussed in the past, but as the (legal) acceptance of Same-Sex-Marriage (SSM) spreads across the USA and the World, the situation with Prop 8 in California in 2008 just seems to really lack...foresight?

 

It's hard to believe it was only seven years ago.  While some Church members try to downplay the Church's official role in the issue, I can't forget what it was like.  The youth in my ward, standing out on street corners holding up signs during their mutual activities.  And people being asked to donate money.  It seemed all the time.

 

There was a feeling that something really important was being done.  It was as if society was at a great turning point, and we, the LDS in California, were going to make a difference.  Through our money and our efforts, and with the help of like-minded Christians of other faiths, we were going to take a stand and tell society (and the homosexuals) that enough is enough.  God wants marriage to be between a man and a woman only, that's the way it's always been, and we are a Judeo-Christian nation. 

 

Then Prop 8 won, and there was a feeling that "We did it!"  It actually worked, and the voters in the state actually came through and stood up for traditional marriage.  For all the moral decay of the last few decades, we (as a society) finally did something right.

 

But now, looking back, what did Prop 8 mean?  Putting it in the context of what came afterward (having it overturned by the courts, with an appeal to the US Supreme Court being denied), what did that effort accomplish.  And more importantly, there has never been another action by the Church like it.  SSM is currently legal in over 35 of the 50 US states.  But there haven't been any mobilizations of the time and money of LDS like there was in California.

 

Why is that?  What was unique about California in 2008?  And if Church leaders knew what the world would look like in 2015, why did they take such actions?  And if they didn't know, why not?

[Storm Rider]

I find it strange that the voter has no influence on any activity of government or society when the judicial branch decides, in their infinite wisdom, that know what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the rules of our society and individual communities.  It is governing by fiat and the voter be...cast out into outer darkness because they just don't understand and are not intelligent enough to determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

What was unique is that it was a turning point; it really does matter that a society recognizes what is right and what is wrong.  I am not embarrassed that I think it is best for society to function in ways that echo religious principles.  

 

If the real question was really only about providing rights to those with SSA then there are a wide range of things that could have been done legislatively.  Unfortunately, the courts took all those opportunities away.  No discussion, no input from voters, no input from the legislative Branch of government, just cram it down the throats of society because silly men and women with a warped sense of importance think they know best.  

 

Yeah, not so much. 

[teddyaware]

I know this question has been discussed in the past, but as the (legal) acceptance of Same-Sex-Marriage (SSM) spreads across the USA and the World, the situation with Prop 8 in California in 2008 just seems to really lack...foresight?

 

It's hard to believe it was only seven years ago.  While some Church members try to downplay the Church's official role in the issue, I can't forget what it was like.  The youth in my ward, standing out on street corners holding up signs during their mutual activities.  And people being asked to donate money.  It seemed all the time.

 

There was a feeling that something really important was being done.  It was as if society was at a great turning point, and we, the LDS in California, were going to make a difference.  Through our money and our efforts, and with the help of like-minded Christians of other faiths, we were going to take a stand and tell society (and the homosexuals) that enough is enough.  God wants marriage to be between a man and a woman only, that's the way it's always been, and we are a Judeo-Christian nation. 

 

Then Prop 8 won, and there was a feeling that "We did it!"  It actually worked, and the voters in the state actually came through and stood up for traditional marriage.  For all the moral decay of the last few decades, we (as a society) finally did something right.

 

But now, looking back, what did Prop 8 mean?  Putting it in the context of what came afterward (having it overturned by the courts, with an appeal to the US Supreme Court being denied), what did that effort accomplish.  And more importantly, there has never been another action by the Church like it.  SSM is currently legal in over 35 of the 50 US states.  But there haven't been any mobilizations of the time and money of LDS like there was in California.

 

Why is that?  What was unique about California in 2008?  And if Church leaders knew what the world would look like in 2015, why did they take such actions?  And if they didn't know, why not?

 

It's because after the Family Proclamation warned the people of every nation that God would pour out widespread cataclysmic destructions upon the earth if the world's people would not arise and take a strong stand in support of traditional male/female marriage and the laws that have upheld it as an institution, the Church would seem hypocritical if it wasn't willing to follow through on the very things the Family Proclamation said everybody else should be willing to do. Also, in consideration of the fact that the Proclamations warns of God's terrible judgements, if the church didn't take a stand it would seem we were callous and indifferent about that fact that so many are going to suffer and die as a consequence of rebellion against the laws of God as set forth in the Proclamation. Simply put, it was a matter of walking the walk and not just talking the talk. Talk is cheap.     

[sethpayne]

 

 

If the real question was really only about providing rights to those with SSA then there are a wide range of things that could have been done legislatively.  Unfortunately, the courts took all those opportunities away.  No discussion, no input from voters, no input from the legislative Branch of government, just cram it down the throats of society because silly men and women with a warped sense of importance think they know best.  

 

 

Now hold on.  I live in WA and voted to approve SSM.  It passed by a significant margin.

 

Maine voters rejected a SSM ban.

 

In fact, SSM became through legislation or ballot initiative in WA, HI, MN, IL, NY, VT, NH, ME, RI, CT, DE, MD, and Wash. DC.  

 

By seeking to ban SSM are you suggesting that the voters in WA, HI, MN, IL, NY, VT, NH, ME, RI, CT, DE, MD, and Wash DC are all stupid because you "know best?"

 

For reference:

 

Judicial decision:  OR, AK, CA, NV, UT, AZ, ID, NM, OK, CO, WY, MT, KS, OK, IA, WS, IN, AL, FL, SC, NC, VA, WV, PA, NJ, MA.

 

Total = 26

 

Legislation or referendum:  WA, HI, MN, IL, NY, VT, NH, ME, RI, CT, DE, MD, and Wash. DC.

 

Total = 13

 

[Buzzard]

Zions Camp also seemed like a failure, yet history shows that the leadership of the church after Joseph came from that experience.  Perhaps the Prop 8 experience will be shown to be like that, where the saints were asked to do a work that was frustrated, but proved the mettle of the saints and showed who would follow the brethren and who would go their own way.

[KevinG]

As far as I know no one died during the Prop 8 debates, much less the LDS Church as a whole.

[bluebell]

I'm with Buzzard on the issue.  

 

I don't have any answers, and i have no idea if the church would do it again given what they know now, but history seems to show that God is not always concerned about the outcome of events.  Sometimes it's the experience that matters, sometimes it's the chance to stand on the side of truth regardless of how anyone else takes that stand, and maybe sometimes it's just so people later can't say 'we didn't know it was wrong'.

[thesometimesaint]

I find it strange that the voter has no influence on any activity of government or society when the judicial branch decides, in their infinite wisdom, that know what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the rules of our society and individual communities.  It is governing by fiat and the voter be...cast out into outer darkness because they just don't understand and are not intelligent enough to determine what is right and what is wrong.

 

What was unique is that it was a turning point; it really does matter that a society recognizes what is right and what is wrong.  I am not embarrassed that I think it is best for society to function in ways that echo religious principles.  

 

If the real question was really only about providing rights to those with SSA then there are a wide range of things that could have been done legislatively.  Unfortunately, the courts took all those opportunities away.  No discussion, no input from voters, no input from the legislative Branch of government, just cram it down the throats of society because silly men and women with a warped sense of importance think they know best.  

 

Yeah, not so much. 

 

In 1803 the US Supreme Court in Madison v Marbury gave itself not only the right but the responsibility of court review. Largely premised on the Article 3 of the US Constitution establishing courts.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

The 14th Amendment clearly states that all those born here or are naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the US, and  are guaranteed the right to equal protection under the law.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

We in the US have the right to amend or totally change our Constitution as we see fit. But until such time as we do change it we are bound to it.

[stemelbow]

Huge waste if ya ask me. Soon enough the Church will realize the mistake on making such a big fuss about homosexuality and we'll all look back on this era as the mistakes of men as if they were/we were in a wholly different culture and world.

I would suggest that the delay for California, caused by activism offered by the Church and others, is a tiny blip in the whole scheme of things. But some will hold onto it as a way to demonstrate the mistakes of the Church.

[Rob Osborn]

Huge waste if ya ask me. Soon enough the Church will realize the mistake on making such a big fuss about homosexuality and we'll all look back on this era as the mistakes of men as if they were/we were in a wholly different culture and world.I would suggest that the delay for California, caused by activism offered by the Church and others, is a tiny blip in the whole scheme of things. But some will hold onto it as a way to demonstrate the mistakes of the Church.

It was never a mistake of the church. It was a mistake by judges to overrule what the majority in society agreed upon and voted on.

[Sky]

Because the Church's views are not now widely supported, and same-sex marriage is now the law of the land in many states, does not necessarily mean that the Church was wrong in the first place.  

 

Elder Oaks's advise really resonated with me:  

 

"When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries. In any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation."  

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

Now hold on.  I live in WA and voted to approve SSM.  It passed by a significant margin.

 

Maine voters rejected a SSM ban.

 

In fact, SSM became through legislation or ballot initiative in WA, HI, MN, IL, NY, VT, NH, ME, RI, CT, DE, MD, and Wash. DC.  

 

By seeking to ban SSM are you suggesting that the voters in WA, HI, MN, IL, NY, VT, NH, ME, RI, CT, DE, MD, and Wash DC are all stupid because you "know best?"

 

For reference:

 

Judicial decision:  OR, AK, CA, NV, UT, AZ, ID, NM, OK, CO, WY, MT, KS, OK, IA, WS, IN, AL, FL, SC, NC, VA, WV, PA, NJ, MA.

 

Total = 26

 

Legislation or referendum:  WA, HI, MN, IL, NY, VT, NH, ME, RI, CT, DE, MD, and Wash. DC.

 

Total = 13

 

Interesting graphic.

 

Thanks for posting.

[carbon dioxide]

I thought that the LDS involvement with Prop 8 was not necessary since it most  likely was going to pass anyway based on what happened earlier in California and what was happening nationally.  Whether courts threw it out or not really does not matter.  As members we are supposed to stand up for Christ and what is correct at all times and places.  Not just when its is politically or culturally easy.  Even when we lose we win.  By standing up for Christ, we will not have to be held accountable for the issue at the highest court there is --the judgment bar of God.  Those who practice SSM will be condemned at that high court and whereas the Supreme Court or lower courts decisions are temporary, that eternal court decisions don't end. Even 100 trillion earth years later they still have an effect.

[Paddy]

The lasting image for people outside the US and away from the context of what was going on were the episodes of violence surrounding a thing like gay marriage. I remember some of our islander brothers beating up the protesters which made international news. It seemed unusual that an issue like gay marriage could evoke such intense feelings from both sides of the issue.

It was also unusual that people would spend so much resources on a moral issue of seemingly little impact when the U.S. at the time was at war in Iraq, and were in the grips of the GFC. It was a very weird time for members of the church looking in on church involvement of and internal political issue which had little relevance outside the U.S. I think it negatively effected the perception of the church internationally. And forced international members to kind of own an issue and problem they did not really want to have.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Paddy

[teddyaware]

Huge waste if ya ask me. Soon enough the Church will realize the mistake on making such a big fuss about homosexuality and we'll all look back on this era as the mistakes of men as if they were/we were in a wholly different culture and world.

I would suggest that the delay for California, caused by activism offered by the Church and others, is a tiny blip in the whole scheme of things. But some will hold onto it as a way to demonstrate the mistakes of the Church.

 

So am I correct in presuming you don't believe in the Family Proclamation and in its prophetic warning of God's destroying judgments?  

[sethpayne]

It was never a mistake of the church. It was a mistake by judges to overrule what the majority in society agreed upon and voted on.

 

Dang you US Constitution!!!

 

We are not a democracy.  We are a representative republic.  The majority does not rule.  In fact, much of how our government is structured is to protect against the tyranny of the majority.  If UT voted to ban all firearm ownership and 99% of voters approved would that somehow make it right or valid?  No way!  

 

We can certainly have a conversation about how these principles apply to gays and lesbian issues but we can't bemoan the fact the US Constitution prevents us from having a tyranny.  

[sethpayne]

Interesting graphic.

 

Thanks for posting.

 

It is pretty interesting and seems to reflect the general political leaning of some states.  Those who voted to approve tend to be "blue" states and those where it is still banned lean "red."  OH and MO are outliers, though.  And of course, it is hard to say anything about the states in purple.  Some are blue and some are red.  A matter of timing in say, OR where voters and the legislature would very likely have approved SSM.  While in UT or ID it was an overturn of existing law.

[rongo]

I was at a meeting several years ago with Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom. In the Q&A, a bishop asked why we acted in California, but not Massachusetts, or Iowa, or Denmark. Elder Perry said that God had told the united FP, Q12, and Seventies Quorums to act then and in that way. He said that God had not told them to that in other times and places. He acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, the Church was positioned to make a difference in California and Arizona in ways that it isn't in say, Maine. In other words, picking your battles is a consideration, too.

 

Elder Perry also said that by doing what we did at that time, we made an impression on some important people --- some who will join the Church because of this, and others who will be favorably disposed (yes; many will be ill-disposed as well). And yet others who carry an impression from this seemingly futile action (in hindsight). Despite that fact that the Catholic Church and black voters were a much bigger factor than our involvement could ever have hoped to be, everyone's impression is "The Mormons are responsible for this!"   So, there was important publicity value (as with polygamy), the effect of which can't be calculated now.

[cinepro]

So am I correct in presuming you don't believe in the Family Proclamation and in its prophetic warning of God's destroying judgments?  

 

 

But that's kind of my point.  If you're correct, then the situation is far worse now than it was in 2008.  The need for action is greater.  Where are the calls for similar donations and mobilizations in all the other states? 

 

It's kind of like we swung for the fences in 2008, thought we hit a home run, then it got caught just before it went over the fence and we shrugged our shoulders and said "Oh well, we tried!"

[cinepro]

I was at a meeting several years ago with Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom. In the Q&A, a bishop asked why we acted in California, but not Massachusetts, or Iowa, or Denmark. Elder Perry said that God had told the united FP, Q12, and Seventies Quorums to act then and in that way. He said that God had not told them to that in other times and places. He acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, the Church was positioned to make a difference in California and Arizona in ways that it isn't in say, Maine. In other words, picking your battles is a consideration, too.

 

Elder Perry also said that by doing what we did at that time, we made an impression on some important people --- some who will join the Church because of this, and others who will be favorably disposed (yes; many will be ill-disposed as well). And yet others who carry an impression from this seemingly futile action (in hindsight). Despite that fact that the Catholic Church and black voters were a much bigger factor than our involvement could ever have hoped to be, everyone's impression is "The Mormons are responsible for this!"   So, there was important publicity value (as with polygamy), the effect of which can't be calculated now.

 

Thank you.  That answers my question.