How much influence did the LDS Church have on California Prop 8?

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

What I meant is that a lot of people saw it as stripping an established right, which explains the criticism of the church. 

[juliann]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 

   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.

Oh please. How do you expect to have a civil conversation with anyone let alone change minds with this hyperbole?

[canard78]

On 21 May 2016 at 8:27 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Reminds me of a certain Galilean preacher who, despite having the tide of Jewish sentiment and the Roman administration well and truly against Him, still expected His disciples to continue fighting and, if necessary, to go down with Him. Silly losers.

You can console yourself with the thought that the Mormons taking a stance on homosexuality is comparable to the foundation of Christianity if you want to... but they're not remotely comparable. 

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I meant is that a lot of people saw it as stripping an established right, which explains the criticism of the church. 

I agree with that.  I think my point though is that a lot of people did not see it that way, which explains the push back on criticism of the church.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with that.  I think my point though is that a lot of people did not see it that way, which explains the push back on criticism of the church.

No argument here. Again I just find it weird that people are claiming the church was more or less just a bystander. I don't get it. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No argument here. Again I just find it weird that people are claiming the church was more or less just a bystander. I don't get it. 

I haven't read the whole thread.  Who has claimed "the church was more or less just a bystander"?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I haven't read the whole thread.  Who has claimed "the church was more or less just a bystander"?

I think "minuscule" may be slightly above bystander, but not much more than that. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think "minuscule" may be slightly above bystander, but not much more than that. 

Ok.  Who said that (like i said, i haven't been reading the whole thread)?

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok.  Who said that (like i said, i haven't been reading the whole thread)?

On May 19, 2016 at 8:16 PM,  Robert F. Smith said: 
I realize that the LDS Church will always be held in derision by you for supporting Prop 8, even though they did not initiate the effort in Calif, and made up a minuscule part of that effort,...

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

On May 19, 2016 at 8:16 PM,  Robert F. Smith said: 
I realize that the LDS Church will always be held in derision by you for supporting Prop 8, even though they did not initiate the effort in Calif, and made up a minuscule part of that effort,...

You said "people" are claiming that. So you need at least one more. I think it is time to stop the hyperbole on tender topics, don't you? 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Oh please. How do you expect to have a civil conversation with anyone let alone change minds with this hyperbole?

You don't think that the church has created animosity toward the gay community?  You don't think that many view the Mormon church as being anti gay?  You don't think that the recent policy by the church denying the children of gay couples baptism because of the sins of the parents has caused many both within and without the church to have problems with the way the church treats gays?

I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I could certainly show you some pretty hard evidence that disproves my statement is purely hyperbole.  I would be happy to provide as many statements from both members and non-members on this issue if you wish.  Or you can read the comments left on articles about the church's latest policy change of not allowing children baptism if they have gay parents.  Up to you.

[jkwilliams]

Here's rodheadlee:

"So your vivd imagination is telling you something that is not true and was never true. The Church had a minor affect on Prop 8. This is not the Wasatch Front the Church has about zero influence here.To tell yourself otherwise is pure vanity."

I acknowledge that "minor" and "about zero" are different from "minuscule," so if that's hyperbole, I suppose I'm guilty. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by jkwilliams

[juliann]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't think that the church has created animosity toward the gay community?  You don't think that many view the Mormon church as being anti gay?  You don't think that the recent policy by the church denying the children of gay couples baptism because of the sins of the parents has caused many both within and without the church to have problems with the way the church treats gays?

I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but I could certainly show you some pretty hard evidence that disproves my statement is purely hyperbole.  I would be happy to provide as many statements from both members and non-members on this issue if you wish.  Or you can read the comments left on articles about the church's latest policy change of not allowing children baptism if they have gay parents.  Up to you.

As soon as you are called on your hyperbole and unwillingness to listen to the other side explain (not excuse, just explain) you move the goal posts. None of this is responsive to my last comment and frankly, I'm not even sure where it is coming from other than to change the topic. 

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

You said "people" are claiming that. So you need at least one more. I think it is time to stop the hyperbole on tender topics, don't you? 

From rodheadlee:

"So your vivd imagination is telling you something that is not true and was never true. The Church had a minor affect on Prop 8. This is not the Wasatch Front the Church has about zero influence here.To tell yourself otherwise is pure vanity."

I acknowledge that "minor" and "about zero" are different from "minuscule," so if that's hyperbole, I suppose I'm guilty. 

[Thinking]

I'm jumping in late here. The emails from 2008 have long been deleted, but my sister who lives in Southern California emailed the family and told us that her local LDS leaders had asked them to spread the word about how to contribute to the support the gay marriage ban.

The Los Angeles Times has a database that has the recorded contributions both for and against Prop 8. I searched for donations coming from Utah.

820 Utahns contributed $2,771,809 in support of the gay marriage ban, while 221 Utahns contributed $1,086,845 opposing the gay marriage ban.

Do not post real life information on the board.  

Sorry. I also changed the link to a "0 Results" search.

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Thinking

[juliann]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From rodheadlee:

"So your vivd imagination is telling you something that is not true and was never true. The Church had a minor affect on Prop 8. This is not the Wasatch Front the Church has about zero influence here.To tell yourself otherwise is pure vanity."

I acknowledge that "minor" and "about zero" are different from "minuscule," so if that's hyperbole, I suppose I'm guilty. 

OK, you were right. But no one else is claiming the Church didn't play a major part. So why the emphasis on the "minor?"

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

OK, you were right. But no one else is claiming the Church didn't play a major part. So why the emphasis on the "minor?"

This whole thread is a follow-up on the claim that the church's role was insignificant, hence the emphasis on "minor." I don't have any idea how effective the church's efforts were, but I strongly disagree that its role was minor. 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

This whole thread is a follow-up on the claim that the church's role was insignificant, hence the emphasis on "minor." I don't have any idea how effective the church's efforts were, but I strongly disagree that its role was minor. 

The Church played a major role in the side that supported Prop 8, BUT in terms of the vote itself, its role was minor at best.  I don't think people make decisions based on a phone call or ad supporting Prop 8. Based on what was going on in the country where every time the issue was placed on a ballot, the results were always the same.  Gay marriage was shot down by voters nationwide.  The voters shot down gay marriage in 2000 in California and most of the same voters in 2000 were still alive when Prop 8 was on the ballot.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

The Church played a major role in the side that supported Prop 8, BUT in terms of the vote itself, its role was minor at best.  I don't think people make decisions based on a phone call or ad supporting Prop 8. Based on what was going on in the country where every time the issue was placed on a ballot, the results were always the same.  Gay marriage was shot down by voters nationwide.  The voters shot down gay marriage in 2000 in California and most of the same voters in 2000 were still alive when Prop 8 was on the ballot.

As I said, no one can say how effective the church's involvement was. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether the church's role was minuscule. It clearly wasn't. 

[rockpond]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

I haven't studied the pre-Prop 8 decisions to see if it was specifically called a "civil right".  But since marriage (for gay couples as well as straight couples) has been declared a civil right it means that what was taken away from gay couples in 2008, in part through the efforts of the church, was a civil right.  

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree with that.  I think my point though is that a lot of people did not see it that way, which explains the push back on criticism of the church.

How was Prop 8 not "stripping an established right"?  That's exactly what it did.  

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church played a major role in the side that supported Prop 8, BUT in terms of the vote itself, its role was minor at best.  I don't think people make decisions based on a phone call or ad supporting Prop 8. Based on what was going on in the country where every time the issue was placed on a ballot, the results were always the same.  Gay marriage was shot down by voters nationwide.  The voters shot down gay marriage in 2000 in California and most of the same voters in 2000 were still alive when Prop 8 was on the ballot.

If people don't make decisions based on phone calls or ads, why did church leaders ask members to invest their time and money in such efforts?

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How was Prop 8 not "stripping an established right"?  That's exactly what it did.  

A lot of people do not believe marriage to whoever you want is a civil right that people should have. 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I haven't studied the pre-Prop 8 decisions to see if it was specifically called a "civil right".  But since marriage (for gay couples as well as straight couples) has been declared a civil right it means that what was taken away from gay couples in 2008, in part through the efforts of the church, was a civil right.  

I understand why some people see it that way. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 22/05/2016 at 3:53 AM, canard78 said:

You can console yourself with the thought that the Mormons taking a stance on homosexuality is comparable to the foundation of Christianity if you want to... but they're not remotely comparable. 

Your condescension has been duly noted, but no consolation is necessary, thank you. Casting one's lot with Christ has always required one to be comfortable -- happy, even -- being allied with both losers and lost causes ... and with the taunts of the 'winners', who so often demonstrate a deep-seated need for their victories to be acknowledged as validating evidence of their rightness:

Quote

And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

 

Quote

And many came forth also, and smote them, saying: Will ye stand again and judge this people, and condemn our law? If ye have such great power why do ye not deliver yourselves? And many such things did they say unto them, gnashing their teeth upon them, and spitting upon them, and saying: How shall we look when we are damned?

 

Quote

If God really had inspired your non-seers to take away the 'civil rights' of gay people, how come you Mormons keep losing? The tide has turned against you. Etc.

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan