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

[cinepro]

2 hours 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.

Sorry, but either you don't understand how American politics works, or you're being disingenuous.

Obviously one person gets one vote, so the sum of influence at the ballot box is only as great as the number of votes that can be cast for or against a cause.

But in getting those votes, campaigning is the key endeavor, and money and volunteer time are the fuel for the machinery that drives the campaigns.  Without them, even the most logical and sincere initiatives have little chance of passing.  And with them, even the worst and most illogical initiatives can be sold to the public. 

For example, hedge fund manager Robert Mercer was an incredible supporter of Ted Cruz, to the sum of at least $11 million.  But Mercer only gets one vote.  So according to some of the people in this thread, Mercer had a tiny, one-vote influence in Ted Cruz's campaign run.  If that's the level of thinking that is needed to try and minimize the Mormon effort behind Prop 8, then you're going to need a better campaign to sell it.

Edited May 23, 2016 by cinepro

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

What's great about this country is that we have a supreme court that can undo the result of an election if that result is unconstitutional.

I just wish that Donald Trump running for president was unconstitutional.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

If I could give you a hundred rep points for this post I would. This one sentence explains why the church played a significant role in passing prop 8 is indisputable. If it is not true, the implication is that the church asked members to come up with 20 million dollars and spend hundreds of hours for NOTHING. and that is just as appalling as taking away someone's civil rights

[california boy]

5 hours 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.  

As every everyone knows, the Supreme Court of California issued its ruling on gay marriage prior to Prop 8 even being on the ballot.  This is from that California Supreme Court ruling

From the California Supreme Court's ruling in March 2008:

Quote

 

Holding

Sexual orientation is recognized as a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. Offering a legal relationship called "marriage" to opposite-sex couples while consigning gay couplesto "domestic partnerships" impinges upon the fundamental right to marry by denying such legal relationships equal dignity and respect. The distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships risks the right to privacy regarding sexual orientation for those in domestic partnerships. Both because a suspect class is targeted and because fundamental rights are impinged upon by the challenged provisions, the strict scrutiny standard of review applies, under which those provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples must serve a compelling state interest and be necessary to serve such an interest. Neither being the case, laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

This ruling makes it crystal clear that the ability for gay couples to marry is a fundamental right under the California constitution.  Those fundamental rights have now been affirmed by every federal court and the Supreme Court of the United States.  Gay marriage is also a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution.  

To now pretend that Prop 8 did not take away the fundamental rights of gay couples is a big lie used to justify the church's actions on something that it never should have done.  Ever.  This decision will stand right beside the churches actions for over a century to deny a person priesthood and temple blessings because of the color of their skin. And I think over time denying any childs baptism because of the sins of their parents will also stand against the church as being unjust.

If the goal of the church is to bring people to Christ, then they are failing miserably.  Working to take away the fundamental rights of gay couples has pissed off so many people, far more are willing to even begin to hear the message of the church.  And why would they?  There is noting in the teachings of Christ that even hints that He would force through civil law to make people follow a commandment.  The actions of the church do not reflect the teachings of Christ.  For a lot of people, that is a no starter.  By their fruits you shall know them.

 

[juliann]

CB, I do understand. I struggle greatly with the new policy. But that does not excuse revisionism. If you live in CA as your name implies then you should know that the point of propositions in CA is to amend the state constitution. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/opinion/oe-hodson4 And you still are ignoring Federal Law and DOMA which were very much in play at the time. 

Quote

 

In either case, once a proposed amendment is on the ballot, it requires only a mere majority -- 50% plus one of those voting -- to change even the most sacred provisions in the state's core document. That's the way it works even if the ballot is crowded with items and many choose not to vote on the initiative amendment. More important, it's the case even if the vote is cast in a primary or other off-year election, when the fewest people come to the polls.

Not surprisingly, the California Constitution is a bloated mishmash by comparison with the hard-to-amend federal document. Instead of a transparent constitution that citizens can understand and use, California has obfuscation, clutter and dysfunction. Eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution, it is more about legal technicalities than principles; an embarrassment for an otherwise cutting-edge state.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

CB, I do understand. I struggle greatly with the new policy. But that does not excuse revisionism. If you live in CA as your name implies then you should know that the point of propositions in CA is to amend the state constitution. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04/opinion/oe-hodson4 And you still are ignoring Federal Law and DOMA which were very much in play at the time. 

 

I certainly did live in California. And I do understand the proposition system. You can put ANYTHING to a vote if you can get enough signatures. GaYou can even get a proposition that takes away fundamental rights of California citizens.

You can pass a law regardless of whether it violates someone's civil rights.  Heck, you can pass a law making it legal to murder Mormons as Governor Boggs did.  Do you give Governor Boggs a pass because he was following the will of the people?  Do you give him a pass because he was just following his personal beliefs?  Do you give him a pass because he thought he could convince enough people that what he was advocating was God's will?  Just because something is legal does not make it moral does it. 

Prop 8 became a state law not a federal law. As you well know a state ruling has to be made before the Supreme Court of the US can make a ruling. The FIRST case against DOMA was also declared unconstitutional. 

Sorry, but there is no wiggle room here. Prop 8 took away a fundamental right from Gus couples that was California law at the time and the Mormon church was smack dab in the middle of taking away those rights. Live with it.  

Edited May 23, 2016 by california boy

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

The statement of yours that I was quoting referred only to a "right", not a civil right, though I'll admit to not being totally clear on how those two terms differ significantly.  

You may not believe that marriage is a right that people should have, but it was a right that gay couples actually had in California before Prop 8.  And if it was something that people should not have have, then I assume you are duly proud of the church's work on the Prop 8 campaign, correct?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The statement of yours that I was quoting referred only to a "right", not a civil right, though I'll admit to not being totally clear on how those two terms differ significantly.  

You may not believe that marriage is a right that people should have, but it was a right that gay couples actually had in California before Prop 8.  And if it was something that people should not have have, then I assume you are duly proud of the church's work on the Prop 8 campaign, correct?

I was referring to civil rights.   And no, I don't think that government recognized marriage should be a civil right.  

I am "proud" (to use the word you chose though it would not be my choice) whenever the church sincerely tries to do what they believe God has asked of them regardless of public opinion. 

A church that didn't do that would be pretty worthless. 

 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was referring to civil rights.   And no, I don't think that government recognized marriage should be a civil right.  

I am "proud" (to use the word you chose though it would not be my choice) whenever the church sincerely tries to do what they believe God has asked of them regardless of public opinion. 

A church that didn't do that would be pretty worthless. 

 

To quote Chief Justice Warren from Loving v. Virginia (1967):

Quote

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So, since at least 1967, marriage has been recognized as one of the "basic civil rights of man," whether we agree or not. I don't have a problem with the church doing what it believes is right, but let's at least be clear that what it thought was right was to strip civil rights away from people who had been guaranteed those rights.

[rodheadlee]

17 hours 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. 

So  who do you think the Church influenced? The Catholic? Protestants? They make up 60% of our population.Maybe it was the 27% Atheist. If the Church has such great influence in California why are the membership numbers 1% or less.

Edited May 23, 2016 by rodheadlee

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

So  who do you think the Church influenced? The Catholic? Protestants? They make up 60% of our population.Maybe it was the 27% Atheist. If the Church has such great influence in California why are the membership numbers 1% or less.

I have no idea how successful their efforts at influencing people were, but those efforts were not minuscule. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

To quote Chief Justice Warren from Loving v. Virginia (1967):

So, since at least 1967, marriage has been recognized as one of the "basic civil rights of man," whether we agree or not. I don't have a problem with the church doing what it believes is right, but let's at least be clear that what it thought was right was to strip civil rights away from people who had been guaranteed those rights.

Ask a polygamist whether or not their marriages are a government recognized civil right.

And when the judge said this in 1967 he clearly didn't mean polygamist marriages, marriages to family members, or SSM either.  

If anyone had believed that this ruling granted the civil right of marriage to homosexuals there would have been no need for SCOTUS to do it again in 2013. 

So no, it's NOT clear, that prop 8 stripped a civil right from people in 2008. In 2010 the California court decided prop 8 didn't strip a civil right either (though that decision was later reversed) which shows that the courts did not view Warren's decision in 1967 to extend to SSM either.

Edited May 23, 2016 by bluebell
grammar

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ask a polygamist whether or not they're marriages are a government recognized civil right.

And when the judge said this in 1967 he clearly didn't mean polygamist marriages, marriages to family members, or SSM either.  

If anyone had believed that this ruling granted the civil right of marriage to homosexuals there would have been no need for SCOTUS to do it again in 2013. 

So no, it's NOT clear, that prop 8 stripped a civil right from people in 2008. In 2010 the California court decided prop 8 didn't strip a civil right either (though that decision was later reversed) which shows that the courts did not view Warren's decision in 1967 to extend to SSM either.

It's all kind of a moot point, isn't it? By the time Prop 8 was voted on, the California Supreme Court had decided that same-sex marriage was a civil right that could not be denied to California residents. Since that time, the United States Supreme Court has agreed. My point, which I think you agreed with, was that much of the blow-back on the church was a result of the impression that the church had gone out of its way to strip citizens of established rights.

I think the church's involvement ended up being counterproductive, but I actually applaud them for standing on principle. I just happen to disagree with the principle.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's all kind of a moot point, isn't it? By the time Prop 8 was voted on, the California Supreme Court had decided that same-sex marriage was a civil right that could not be denied to California residents. Since that time, the United States Supreme Court has agreed. My point, which I think you agreed with, was that much of the blow-back on the church was a result of the impression that the church had gone out of its way to strip citizens of established rights.

I think the church's involvement ended up being counterproductive, but I actually applaud them for standing on principle. I just happen to disagree with the principle.

Understanding better what you mean, i don't actually think that the blow back was because the church was viewed as stripping a civil right.  I think that it was because the church was viewed as being responsible for ending SSM in that state.  I don't think it was the issue of a general of a loss of civil right, but an issue of the loss of that specific right.

But that might be a moot point as well.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Understanding better what you mean, i don't actually think that the blow back was because the church was viewed as stripping a civil right.  I think that it was because the church was viewed as being responsible for ending SSM in that state.  I don't think it was the issue of a general of a loss of civil right, but an issue of the loss of that specific right.

But that might be a moot point as well.

I don't know, honestly. The perception was that the church played a major role in the Yes on 8 campaign, which is why the blow-back seemed to focus on the church more than other groups. I think it's indisputable that the church had a major impact on the campaign in terms of money and organization. In a close vote, such things are not trivial. I readily admit that I don't have a clue how the church decides what it is going to do. The "policy change," for example, has earned the church a lot of ill will with no discernible upside. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I was referring to civil rights.   And no, I don't think that government recognized marriage should be a civil right.  

I am "proud" (to use the word you chose though it would not be my choice) whenever the church sincerely tries to do what they believe God has asked of them regardless of public opinion. 

A church that didn't do that would be pretty worthless. 

 

What word would be your choice?

And, I am not concerned with public opinion -- I am concerned with both doing God's will and with the moral virtue of our actions and words, as a church.

[Gray]

On 5/21/2016 at 11:02 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Not clear to me.  The Church did not need to get involved in dozens of other states that put down SSM on a ballot.  The Church did play a public role but I don't see any reason to believe that Prop 8 would not have passed if the Church did nothing.  If money buys election results, Prop 8 should have failed since more money was spent to defeat Prop 8 than for those who supported it.  I don't think it is really complicated.  Most of the people in California did not support gay marriage when Prop 8 was on the ballot.  

Millions of dollars and thousands of hours are substantial to me. The church punched way above its weight on this

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What word would be your choice?

And, I am not concerned with public opinion -- I am concerned with both doing God's will and with the moral virtue of our actions and words, as a church.

I would probably say that i'm very glad to belong to such a church and that I appreciate that our leaders sincerely seek to do God's will above everything else.  I feel confident in saying that you don't care more about God's will or the moral virtue of our actions and words as a church than our leaders do.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Millions of dollars and thousands of hours are substantial to me. The church punched way above its weight on this

What does that mean, 'punched way about its weight'?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would probably say that i'm very glad to belong to such a church and that I appreciate that our leaders sincerely seek to do God's will above everything else.  I feel confident in saying that you don't care more about God's will or the moral virtue of our actions and words as a church than our leaders do.

I agree.

[Jeanne]

The thing is ..for me anyway, is understanding how it even hurts the church to let others have their civil rights.  It does not affect them at all.  Their beliefs, their families are not hurt by giving others their civil rights.  They can teach, pray, have doctrine whatever way they deem good without taking away the rights of others.  This has done nothing but hurt the church.  Like I say, I was on the fronts steps of the COB with signatures and people from all over the country with a plea to have this stopped.  Resignations followed.  Yeah, big deal.  But it was a big deal for so many families on both sides. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What does that mean, 'punched way about its weight'?

Given the small number of LDS voters in California, Mormons were very heavily involved in the campaign to pass Prop 8. 

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punch_above_one%27s_weight

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is ..for me anyway, is understanding how it even hurts the church to let others have their civil rights.  It does not affect them at all.  Their beliefs, their families are not hurt by giving others their civil rights.  They can teach, pray, have doctrine whatever way they deem good without taking away the rights of others.  This has done nothing but hurt the church.  Like I say, I was on the fronts steps of the COB with signatures and people from all over the country with a plea to have this stopped.  Resignations followed.  Yeah, big deal.  But it was a big deal for so many families on both sides. 

Yeah... that's the thing.  I have seen the church's actions in support of Prop 8 hurt so many.  In the end, Prop 8 help legalize gay marriage.  So unless you are going to take the position that the Lord wanted legal recognition of SSM, the call to campaign for 8 doesn't seem all that prophetic.  There is the argument that there was value in the journey - but with the pain it caused, I'm just not seeing it.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know, honestly. The perception was that the church played a major role in the Yes on 8 campaign, which is why the blow-back seemed to focus on the church more than other groups. I think it's indisputable that the church had a major impact on the campaign in terms of money and organization. In a close vote, such things are not trivial.

I have a close family member who is gay and lives in New York (she lived there during the prop 8 campaign as well).  She has told me that the prop 8 subject never comes up that the Mormon church doesn't come up along with it.  She is not a Mormon, but has told me that every gay person she knows fully attributes the passing of prop 8 to the efforts of the Mormon church (and then other religions and groups who got involved as secondary influences).  I'm only reporting here what she has told me, but I have no reason to doubt her as she is quite a big part of that community back there and on social media. 

.

Edited May 23, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Given the small number of LDS voters in California, Mormons were very heavily involved in the campaign to pass Prop 8. 

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punch_above_one%27s_weight

Given this-

"By election day, volunteers on both sides spent thousands of hours getting their messages across to the state's 17.3 million registered voters.[47][48] 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, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative and more than for every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest.[50]Contributions were much greater than those of previous same-sex marriage initiatives. Between 2004 and 2006, 22 such measures were on ballots around the country, and donations to all of them combined totaled $31.4 million, according to the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics.[51] A ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman estimated that 36 companies which had previously contributed to Equality California were targeted to receive a letter requesting similar donations to ProtectMarriage.com."

I'm not sure how we can even know that the church was unique in punching above its weight and so deserves the accusation when others don't (if the accusation is even a bad thing, which i can't really see that it is but maybe it's meant as one, i really can't tell).  I don't think it's possible to punch above one's weight in a state where you live.  And if we are counting those who didn't live in California, the opposition to prop. 8 seems to have punched above it's weight more than the mormons did.