Storm Rider Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Why the ridiculous straw men? Who's saying it was all the Mormons? We're not talking about Mormons being evil, just disputing the obvious untruth that the church's efforts were minuscule. And why do you say that rights established by the California Supreme Court were not established rights? Oh, how many gay marriages were done in California in the last 200 years? the last 100 years? the 50 years? the last 25 years. Hell bells, how many gay marriages were done in the USA from the beginning of the nation to 2000? Just guess for us if you don't have the facts. Now, that is why I said it was not established. Simple, yes? You love that strawman accusation. Just review a few quotes: Cal – “Quite honestly, it is a ridiculous question to ask. The involvement of the Mormon church with Prop 8 is well documented. It is not like this is something that can be shoved back under a rock. Millions of California saw and watched what the Mormons did. This is one part of Mormon history that can not be hidden, though some seem intent in doing so.” Gray – “It seems clear to me that the church's involvement in getting Prop 8 passed was substantial.” Cinepro – “Robert, if you don't agree that the LDS Church had the largest role in passing Prop 8, which other religion or group do you think had a larger role?” Cal – “Name ONE organization that contributed more time and money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign than the Mormon Church. If fact, name ONE organization that came even close to contributing more time and money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.” Cal – “I have never made the claim nor has anyone else on this board that the church members vote was what won the Proposition.” Make up your mind – the Church both did contribute the most money, provide the most volunteers, and had the biggest impact or it did not. Which is it? Jkwilliams, the strawman accusation ad nauseum guy – “Now we're being told that if we think its role was more than minuscule, we are saying it was "the deciding factor. As far as straw men go, that's one for the ages.” So Cinepro stating the Church had the largest role, sounds like “the deciding factor” if it had the largest role and that is a strawman “one for the ages” no less. I have whiplash - the Church either was or was not the deciding factor. You guys make up your minds and we will all agree with you. The Church of Jesus Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and God has never from the creation of world ever condoned and/or accepted gay marriage. Never wavered, never had to rethink it, it stands the only command to replenish the earth is only accomplished by a male and a female. Let's move on this is tedious and stupid.
carbon dioxide Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: really? Before Prop 8 did Gay people have the right to marry in California? Yes they did. Prop 8 took that away The people decided in 2000 against gay marriage in California. Basically one judge decided against the will of the people in a 4-3 decision. Prop 8 was a response to the opinion of one single judge. So yes they had a brief right to marry for a few years but the people in California did not believe the issue should be decided by the opinion of one judge. I guess it comes down to a view of where one gets their rights from. If a court gives us our rights, a court can also take that away.
rockpond Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 54 minutes ago, bluebell said: People in certain states used to have the legal right to own slaves (until someone took that right away) for example. We agree now that the legal right to own slaves was never a civil right though. It's clear that Prop 8 took away a legal right. Whether or not Prop 8 took away a civil right isn't clear. How many judges and courts, including SCOTUS, have now declared it a civil right? 1
rockpond Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 55 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The people decided in 2000 against gay marriage in California. Basically one judge decided against the will of the people in a 4-3 decision. Prop 8 was a response to the opinion of one single judge. So yes they had a brief right to marry for a few years but the people in California did not believe the issue should be decided by the opinion of one judge. I guess it comes down to a view of where one gets their rights from. If a court gives us our rights, a court can also take that away. A 4-3 decision is four judges, not one. The constitution gives us our rights and that document is what has been continually cited as the backing for gay marriage as a civil right. Finally, to your comment that "if a court gives us our rights" the court can also take them away, I would say: if a vote of the people can give rights, then a vote of the people can also take them away. I prefer our system, even with its flaws, that relies on the constitution. 1
california boy Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: People in certain states used to have the legal right to own slaves (until someone took that right away) for example. We agree now that the legal right to own slaves was never a civil right though. It's clear that Prop 8 took away a legal right. Whether or not Prop 8 took away a civil right isn't clear. Not clear??? Are you kidding. The Supreme Court of California and every single federal court in this country and the Supreme Court of the United States all agreed that the constitution of the United States agreed that the civil rights of gay couples had been violated. How much more clear could the law possibly be??? 1
california boy Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: The people decided in 2000 against gay marriage in California. Basically one judge decided against the will of the people in a 4-3 decision. Prop 8 was a response to the opinion of one single judge. So yes they had a brief right to marry for a few years but the people in California did not believe the issue should be decided by the opinion of one judge. I guess it comes down to a view of where one gets their rights from. If a court gives us our rights, a court can also take that away. What are you talking about. The Supreme Court of California is not one judge. It is the ultimate authority on California law. In California, the people get their rights from the California constitution and the Federal constitution. Civil rights are not suppose to be voted on. They are guaranteed to all, even minorities. Those rights are protected in the constitution for the very reason to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses. If that was not the case, the south would still be treating blacks like sub humans. Those civil rights for gay couples was law guaranteed them by the Constitution of California. Prop 8 was an attempt to change the Constitution of California to take away those rights. And the church was at the center of fighting to take away those civil rights. That is the travesty. That is the shame no matter if Prop 8 had won or lost. Edited May 22, 2016 by california boy 1
Meadowchik Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 10:05 AM, california boy said: Quite honestly, it is a ridiculous question to ask. The involvement of the Mormon church with Prop 8 is well documented. It is not like this is something that can be shoved back under a rock. Millions of California saw and watched what the Mormons did. This is one part of Mormon history that can not be hidden, though some seem intent in doing so. The question of the OP is about influence on the vote, which is not equivalent to campaigning. 1
california boy Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I was doing some digging about how the pro and anti groups were funded. Much has been said about the terrible Mormons and their outlandish funding machine. I googled it and of course Wikipedia had some facts to share: The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million ($11.3 million or 29.1% from outside California) and $44.1 million ($13.2 million or 30.0% from outside California), respectively,[49] from over 64,000 people in all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries, .... Looks like a whole lot of people outside California was pouring money into the state for this Proposition. I wonder why no films were made about how funds were received form the anti-Prop 8 side or the terrible lies, blah, blah, blah that they did? Hmm, I am seeing a pattern of why a scapegoat is a scapegoat and why certain groups are viewed with completely blind eyes, closed ears, and sealed lips. That old saying about when you point your finger at someone else - how many fingers are pointing directly back at you - fits pretty well. From that same Wikipedia link: Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[75][76][77] (the LDS Church or, informally, the Mormon Church), also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time."[75] The church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the support of the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to support the Proposition.[78] Local church leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call.[79][80] The response of church members to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive,[81] such that Latter-day Saintsprovided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California.[82] LDS members contributed over $20 million,[83] about 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[84] ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.[85] From the very beginning of this thread, no one has made the claim that the vote of the Mormon church was significant. The claim that has been consistently made is that the church provided the most financial support to the yes on 8 campaign and more manpower. The records show that in fact the church provided 50% of the campaign dollars and 80% to 90% of the manpower. These figures come from the Yes on 8 campaign. Hard to pretend they are some anti Mormon group artificially inflating the numbers to use the church as a scapegoat when the facts are there. There is nothing minuscule about contributing those kinds of dollars and those kinds of man-hours on a proposition designed to take away the civil rights of gay couples. Like I said earlier, this is a ridiculous point to debate. It is not like the church can now try and hide it's involvement in the passing of Prop 8. The facts are all there for the world to see in all it's glory. I know that at this point there is nothing the church could do to take away their involvement in this shameful campaign targeting gay civil rights. But it would go a long way in healing very raw wounds if members of the church worked more on apologizing for the church's involvement rather than pretending NOTHING HAPPENED. That only makes the wounds deeper. Look.I get it. The church leaders asked it's members to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time" The church thought it was the right thing to do. But they were wrong. And history has proven how wrong they were. Taking away anyone's civil rights in the name of God is never right. Continuing to justify supporting those civil rights being stripped by prop 8, knowing so clearly how the courts have ruled is even more shameful. When an apology is needed, instead the gay community gets doubling down by members of the church for this shameful event. If you don't think taking away someone's civil rights is shameful, then so be it. It doesn't entirely surprise me. The church has created such animosity towards gay families and continues to do so by it's recent policy announcement, one would easily get the signal that to be a faithful member of the church, you have to do all you can to attack gay couples even if it means taking away their civil rights. 1
Meadowchik Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 I don't think there is shame in having sincerely supported Prop 8. The world does not always make the best collective decisions, even if historically people may try to paint some as inevitable progress. 1
california boy Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: The question of the OP is about influence on the vote, which is not equivalent to campaigning. To assert that providing money and manpower does not influence the vote is to deny the very way every single campaign has ever been run in this country. The purpose of a campaign is to influence vote. Otherwise, why even have a campaign. Every single campaign is run on two underlying kingpins. Raising money, principle to pay for advertising and getting manpower out there to pound on doors and provide the labor needed. The Mormon church provided 50% of the money and 80% to 90% of the manpower It was those resources that were used to influence the vote. How can you not understand these basic principles in how a campaign is run? 2
Meadowchik Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, california boy said: To assert that providing money and manpower does not influence the vote is to deny the very way every single campaign has ever been run in this country. The purpose of a campaign is to influence vote. Otherwise, why even have a campaign. Every single campaign is run on two underlying kingpins. Raising money, principle to pay for advertising and getting manpower out there to pound on doors and provide the labor needed. The Mormon church provided 50% of the money and 80% to 90% of the manpower It was those resources that were used to influence the vote. How can you not understand these basic principles in how a campaign is run? I understand those relationships of course. I also understand that outside efforts can only do so much to influence a personal vote. For example, it's possible that a vast majority of funding might only create a 5 percent change in a vote, which for a given side may not even change the final outcome. It's like the principle of diminishing returns, but more complex, because there's also the opposition to consider and the dynamic there. Sure, that the LDS campaigning was influential is a given, but to say it determined the outcome does not follow. Edit: And the essential point of the OP was that there were plenty of people voting yes without seeming to decide based on LDS influence. Edited May 22, 2016 by Meadowchik 2
california boy Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I understand those relationships of course. I also understand that outside efforts can only do so much to influence a personal vote. For example, it's possible that a vast majority of funding might only create a 5 percent change in a vote, which for a given side may not even change the final outcome. It's like the principle of diminishing returns, but more complex, because there's also the opposition to consider and the dynamic there. Sure, that the LDS campaigning was influential is a given, but to say it determined the outcome does not follow. Edit: And the essential point of the OP was that there were plenty of people voting yes without seeming to decide based on LDS influence. You do realize there was less than a 5% difference in the vote. And again, if you have read any of my posts. My issue is not whether the Mormon church swung the vote, which according to you is entirely possible. My issue is that the church organized a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples. 2
Meadowchik Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: You do realize there was less than a 5% difference in the vote. And again, if you have read any of my posts. My issue is not whether the Mormon church swung the vote, which according to you is entirely possible. My issue is that the church organized a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples. Yes, I know the vote was close. And me throwing out numbers was an example to illustrate a concept. I don't believe there is shame in what the church did or tried to do. There are good reasons to found the notion of marriage on a joining of man and woman. Apparently those have been rejected, but let the record show it.
bluebell Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 7 hours ago, rockpond said: How many judges and courts, including SCOTUS, have now declared it a civil right? California boy claimed that Prop. 8 took away gay people's civil right to marry, and carbon dioxide asked what civil right had been ended. Your response was that SSM was legal before Prop. 8. However, at that time no judges or SCOTUS had granted that SSM was a civil right, correct? So Prop. 8 didn't take away anyone's civil rights. It took away legal rights but not civil rights. Unless you are arguing that civil rights are somehow moral rights that exist regardless of whether our courts recognize them or not. But if that were true then pointing to a SCOTUS decision as proof of a civil right doesn't work either because we all know that no court on earth has the power to declare whether or not something is moral. They can declare law but not truth, that is beyond their scope and ability. 1
bluebell Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 7 hours ago, california boy said: Not clear??? Are you kidding. The Supreme Court of California and every single federal court in this country and the Supreme Court of the United States all agreed that the constitution of the United States agreed that the civil rights of gay couples had been violated. How much more clear could the law possibly be??? When did those courts declare that? Before or after Prop. 8?
jkwilliams Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 9 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Oh, how many gay marriages were done in California in the last 200 years? the last 100 years? the 50 years? the last 25 years. Hell bells, how many gay marriages were done in the USA from the beginning of the nation to 2000? Just guess for us if you don't have the facts. Now, that is why I said it was not established. Simple, yes? You love that strawman accusation. Just review a few quotes: Cal – “Quite honestly, it is a ridiculous question to ask. The involvement of the Mormon church with Prop 8 is well documented. It is not like this is something that can be shoved back under a rock. Millions of California saw and watched what the Mormons did. This is one part of Mormon history that can not be hidden, though some seem intent in doing so.” Gray – “It seems clear to me that the church's involvement in getting Prop 8 passed was substantial.” Cinepro – “Robert, if you don't agree that the LDS Church had the largest role in passing Prop 8, which other religion or group do you think had a larger role?” Cal – “Name ONE organization that contributed more time and money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign than the Mormon Church. If fact, name ONE organization that came even close to contributing more time and money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.” Cal – “I have never made the claim nor has anyone else on this board that the church members vote was what won the Proposition.” Make up your mind – the Church both did contribute the most money, provide the most volunteers, and had the biggest impact or it did not. Which is it? Jkwilliams, the strawman accusation ad nauseum guy – “Now we're being told that if we think its role was more than minuscule, we are saying it was "the deciding factor. As far as straw men go, that's one for the ages.” So Cinepro stating the Church had the largest role, sounds like “the deciding factor” if it had the largest role and that is a strawman “one for the ages” no less. I have whiplash - the Church either was or was not the deciding factor. You guys make up your minds and we will all agree with you. The Church of Jesus Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and God has never from the creation of world ever condoned and/or accepted gay marriage. Never wavered, never had to rethink it, it stands the only command to replenish the earth is only accomplished by a male and a female. Let's move on this is tedious and stupid. When the Supreme Court upholds a civil right, it is an established right, no matter how many times that right has been exercised. What's more interesting is that you went to the trouble of finding quotes that don't say the church's role was the deciding factor. This discussion has been about whether the church's role was minuscule or not. Even if the church had the "largest role," which is certainly debatable, that's not the same as "the deciding factor." 1
jkwilliams Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 9 hours ago, bluebell said: People in certain states used to have the legal right to own slaves (until someone took that right away) for example. We agree now that the legal right to own slaves was never a civil right though. It's clear that Prop 8 took away a legal right. Whether or not Prop 8 took away a civil right isn't clear. From the Wex Legal Dictionary: A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Civil Rights | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal
jkwilliams Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 48 minutes ago, bluebell said: When did those courts declare that? Before or after Prop. 8? Before, in the case of the state of California, which is the relevant state. 1
bluebell Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: From the Wex Legal Dictionary: A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Civil Rights | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal I don't disagree with this definition, but it's really just our current cultural morality in print and little more. Over a hundred years ago, SCOTUS declared in a Supreme Court decision that black people did not have the same civil rights as white people. Civil rights obviously had a different definition back then. The definition in our culture is very fluid. Edited May 22, 2016 by bluebell 2
bluebell Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Before, in the case of the state of California, which is the relevant state. Can I get a date on when the Supreme Court of California declared SSM to be a civil right? I found the date, thanks. Edited May 22, 2016 by bluebell
jkwilliams Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 16 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't disagree with this definition, but it's really just our current cultural morality in print and little more. Over a hundred years ago, SCOTUS declared in a Supreme Court decision that black people did not have the same civil rights as white people. Civil rights obviously had a different definition back then. The definition in our culture is very fluid. The definition of a civil right doesnt change, but who has them does.
jkwilliams Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: Can I get a date on when the Supreme Court of California declared SSM to be a civil right? I found the date, thanks. March 2008.
bluebell Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: The definition of a civil right doesnt change, but who has them does. I suppose that's one way to look at it.
bluebell Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: March 2008. I see it was declared a right (2008) and then not a right by vote (later in 2008) and then confirmed to be not a civil right by court (2009), and then changed back to a civil right by court again (2012). This is what I meant when I said that whether or not it's a civil right has not been clear and was not clear before Prop 8. 2
juliann Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 7 hours ago, california boy said: You do realize there was less than a 5% difference in the vote. And again, if you have read any of my posts. My issue is not whether the Mormon church swung the vote, which according to you is entirely possible. My issue is that the church organized a campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples. I understand your anger. But one more time, it was not a civil rights issue at the time. Do you not realize civil rights rely on protected classes? It has been only recently that sexual orientation became a protected class. There had to be court rulings and federal law changes. Have you forgotten DOMA?? That is why I don't find your raging convincing. You seem to forget that some of us were there, too. I'm not debating the rightness or wrongness of Prop 8 or the Church's involvement. It is what it is. What I am objecting to is your revisionism and refusal to allow for anyone else's experiences and observations. 1
Recommended Posts