Mormons Stole Our Rights!!!

mormonsstoleourrights

Mormons Stole Your Rights………Huh?

Get the Facts:

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims – all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with “civility, respect and love,” despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The phrase “separation of church and state”, which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

Before you point fingers understand the facts.  Mormons have Freedoms too.

Before you point fingers understand the facts. Mormons have freedoms too.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do – we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

this information was taken here at facebook

the original is from a letter written by Kevin Hamilton of Newbury Park, CA.  See the original letter here

Advertisements

56 Comments

  1. Ali said,

    November 8, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Citizens shouldn’t be allowed to pass or not pass laws on subjects they don’t understand. We have representatives for a reason, and they should do their jobs. A huge amount of people are now considered second class citizens because 52% of California takes a book too seriously. This is a sad, sad day for America.

  2. November 8, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    My feelings? STAND UP NOW!

    Please read: “Please Do NOT Wait” – http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/

    Apologies if moderator doesn’t want links.

  3. Steve said,

    November 8, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    The civility of the process does not justify the result. The right to marry is a fundamental human right, and cannot be taken away by any body, state and federal governments included. (Those who would disagree with this should see that they favor making marriage a privilege granted by the state, rather than a sacred human right—oops!). This is my sacred belief.

    The religious motivations of prop 8 are also cause for concern because they introduce the possibility that other religious views may become law. Can non-kosher foods be banned as well? Burkas? Such laws would not establish a religion, right? All they do is define what food people can eat and what clothing women can wear in public. Defining who people can marry is a way of enshrining religious beliefs into law, and that is the very best light one could put it in. (Otherwise, it’s just prejudice, which doesn’t violate the Establishment clause)

    Those who favored prop 8 are all equally responsible for it. Being part of a majority of voters does not excuse the act (two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is not the basis of law).

    I’m afraid this episode has made religious people look like unsympathetic zealots to the substantial minority that opposed prop 8. After all, those millions could have been spent helping the needy, but instead were used to alienate people for the sake of a single passage in Leviticus (among others that the religious unanimously reject as barbaric). I would have hoped the religious devout could have their priorities more in line with the teachings of their most revered prophet, who once railed against the religious authorities of his day for living by the letter of the law, but not its spirit.

    Jesus Christ!

  4. beetlebabee said,

    November 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Ali, to say that the opposition to gay marriage is only religiously based does your side a disservice. You will never understand the opposition to your cause until you understand that fact. The opposition to gay marriage is not fear based, religion based only. There are scientifically valid reasons not to rush into societal change, most of which are addressed on this site.

  5. californiacrusader said,

    November 8, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    I’m glad you’re getting more traffic to your site! Here’s another great article you might want to post a link to. Jennifer Roback Morse succinctly summarizes the Proposition 8 victory and what it does and does not mean. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGZiMzEzMGFmMzEzZDM4ODE1NDQ4Zjc0Yjk3MmFkNGM

  6. amy said,

    November 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    Personally, I trust my own judgment MUCH better than an elected official, whom I probably didn’t vote for anyway. Let the people have their say, and they have. The majority of Californians DON”T want the definition of marriage changed to accommodate those who choose the lifestyle they are living. Our democratic system is at work here, set up by the founding fathers of our nation.

    Unfortunately it looks like one single religion is being singled out as the problem, when in reality, it is a large number of religions and peoples, from Catholics to Evangelicals, from Blacks to Jews. Why don’t we hear about this sort of thing against those churches or groups of people too?

  7. beetlebabee said,

    November 8, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    So how’s this for tolerance?

    Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel checked blogs of homosexual activists in the aftermath of Election Day …

    “A number of homosexuals and homosexual activists are actually calling for violence, calling for churches to be burned to the ground — churches that supported these amendments,” he explains. The call for violence includes killing Christians.

    In a written statement Barber quotes from several blogs —

    “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”

    “I’m going to give them something to be f–ing scared of….I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”

    “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.”

    “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”

    “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

    “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics [sic] that were big supporters of Prop 8….As far as mormons and catholics…I warn them to watch their backs.”

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=313074

  8. beetlebabee said,

    November 8, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Nice for the gay community to show their true tolerance. If this was about anything but religious hatred, you’d be going after everyone, not just “Mormons and Catholics”…..how about Obama supporters? Where are the signs vilifying black people?

    African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

    How about Jews? Many Jews also voted for prop 8. Are you going to target synagogues now too? no. I doubt it. This kind of intolerance makes a mock of the whole mask of tolerance you in the gay community want to hide under. The party is over, the mask is off and everyone is looking at you.

    What kind of tolerance are you showing?

  9. the narrator said,

    November 8, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    some things you forgot on your list

    1 The the Church hierarchy in Salt Lake established quotas for each stake to fulfill (my Stake President was proud to announce that we had far exceeded the $64,000 quota allotted to us.

    2 Many affluent church members were pressured to make large donations.

    3 Many donations by LDS Church members, came from outside of California.

    4. The LDS Church did make a (small) donation to cover traveling costs for various leaders and efforts.

    5. LDS members made up more than 80% of the volunteer efforts for the Yes campaign.

    6. The LDS Church STRONGLY pressured it’s members to help volunteer for the Yes campaign.

    When you take those things into account, it is quite clear that those who have just had their rights (and spouses) stripped from them have every right to point to the (my) LDS Church for criticism

  10. beetlebabee said,

    November 8, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    If people volunteered their time, it was done freely. You know, Obama was pressuring me to vote for him, but I didn’t. You may be a lemming who is swayed by pressure, but I chose to stand up for what I believe in of my own free accord, and so did the others I worked with. I saw no twisting arms here, not like the pain inflicted by the vandals of the No on 8 campaign. Now there’s a whole thread and a half worth’s of stuff to talk about.

    Volunteering for a campaign is just good old patriotic americanism. The LDS are stand up, can-do sorts of people. They don’t mind rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. They’re organized and got into the coalition early, but others came too. Go ahead, bash some of them. They’re feeling a little overlooked. I hope we’d all stand up for what we believed in, I did, did you?

    In the arena of ideas, all are welcome. Don’t be a sore loser.

  11. Leslie said,

    November 8, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    prop 8 can’t stop anyone from marrying – it just states that the state doesn’t recognize it. I agree with Beetlebabee – anyone who felt their arm was twisted by ads or phone calls, or even a letter from their religious leader is a wimp!

  12. Leslie said,

    November 8, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Narrator – any donations were definitely voluntary – I never got a phone call asking for money ( I’m not affluent)
    The no-on-8 campaign accepted out of state money, too. There’s no law against that. Or is it only ok for those on your side of the issue to accept out of state donations?
    Church members were informed -one time only- of an email group they could join to volunteer. That doesn’t seem too STRONGLY pressured to me.

  13. amy said,

    November 8, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    What will the threats and violence prove anyway? Anyone strongly rooted in their beliefs is simply not going to change their minds because of an outward threat or even an act of violence itself. Really though, people who are angry want someone to blame for their feelings.

    I can understand why they are angry (even though extreme), after all, if the government came to me and said I wasn’t married to my husband any more because I’m a Mormon, yes, I’d be upset. But at the same time it wouldn’t matter to me either. I wouldn’t live my life ANY differently. I’m not going to leave my husband and family because of it. And I certainly wouldn’t go to the extremes of defacing private property to express my anger, to take it out on other people. Why? Because I believe in who I am. The person that I am and the life that I live isn’t defined by my marriage, by my job, my family, by my religion. The person that I am is defined by WHO I am, by how I live, and by Who I follow.

  14. the narrator said,

    November 8, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    Leslie,

    just because you weren’t personally pressured or privately encouraged to make a large donation does not mean that others were not. In many wards, members felt pressured over and over again to march, donate, knock on doors, make phone calls, etc. Perhaps you were like me and lucky to be in a ward whose Bishop felt it was inappropriate for the Church to get involved as it had and largely kept Prop 8 out of sabbath meetings. Many of my friends, such as some who meet immediately before me were not as lucky.

    Beetle,

    when your Church leaders implies that you are an enemy to God if you do not donate at least 3 hours a week of your free time to peddle misinformation about Prop 8, it is a little bit more than Obama’s ‘pressure’ to vote for him. You’re an adult. You know the difference.

    Your ridiculous lemming comment was well… ridiculous.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 12:07 am

    This is just an observation but it seems odd to me that the gay community takes such pride in wearing their sexuality on their sleeves. They seem to become their chosen sexual preference. I AM GAY. I have never wandered around yelling to people that I AM HETERO. That’s not my identity. I just don’t think that way.

    I am a mother, I am unique, I am in a loving and stable relationship, I am an artist, a writer, a person of conscience. My house could be cleaner, but I’m a great cook. All those things make me who I am. Not one element alone.

    Perhaps because of this tendency to identify their being with their sexual preference, they take the reaffirmation of the word “marriage” more personally than they ought. Civil Unions can and ought to be celebrated. Take the term for same sex unions and run with it. Build it up, make it wonderful. It’s different but it’s your choice. That’s ok with me. What’s not ok are all the legal shenanigans the pandora’s box of marriage definition brings.

  16. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 12:16 am

    Narrator, your relationship with God is your own, that’s Christianity 101. You decide what to make of it. You have free choice right? You’re not a lemming right? So, you made your choice, be happy with it. It’s yours. Own it. Don’t blame it on your pastor.

  17. the narrator said,

    November 9, 2008 at 2:51 am

    Beetle, perhaps the reason you don’t think that way is because you aren’t considered different. I never considered myself white (I’m half asian) until I was serving my mission in Hawaii with another half-asian who looked much more Japanese than me. For 3 months everyone called me a haole (caucasian). Suddenly I became much more aware of and identified myself with my mixed racial identity.

    Blacks, hispanics, and all other races do the same. They identify themselves by what makes them different.

    Go into a gay bar and I guarantee you that you will start seeing yourself as a heterosexual.

    In Church on Sundays do you identify yourself as a Mormon? What about in the workplace.

    In my grad studies right now, I am taking a course on Mormon Studies (Mormon Theological Tradition w/ Richard Bushman) where all but 2 of the 15 students are LDS. I don’t identify myself as a Mormon in there. When I go to my Plantinga class where I am the only Mormon, I certainly start to see myself and openly identify myself as a Mormon.

    The minority or oppressed classes almost always take pride in and glorify what makes them difference. Whether it be the color of a black man’s skin, the gender of a woman, the religion of a Mormon, or the shortness of a midget. Why do you expect that homosexuals should bury what makes them different?

    “they take the reaffirmation of the word “marriage” more personally than they ought.”

    Easy for you to say. I’m guessing you would feel differently if you were singled out for your Mormonism or cooking and told that because you were different you could on have a civil union.

    “Don’t blame it on your pastor.”

    huh?

  18. Matt said,

    November 9, 2008 at 8:10 am

    I believe that members of the Church are free to choose which side of the issue they want to be one. But I do have a few questions for them. Since, domestic partnerships already enjoy EVERY right that a married couple has under California law, what is your basis for being against Prop 8? Since it isn’t about rights, what is it about? Are you aware of the implications of Prop 8 not passing see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191 ?

    If it were about rights, then the concern should be for religious and parental rights. The Church is well within the law in speaking out on moral issues. If the Church endorsed one particular candidate, it would be in violation of its privileges as a tax exempt organization. But the law states that Churches can speak out on moral issues. And I would be disappointed if they (not just the LDS Church) did not have the courage to do so. So since the Church is within its law privileges and since no rights were lost, where does the opposition to the words of President Monson come from?

  19. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 9:37 am

    “they take the reaffirmation of the word “marriage” more personally than they ought…. I’m guessing you would feel differently if you were singled out for your Mormonism or cooking and told that because you were different you could on have a civil union.”

    Everyone is singled out for something…skinny, fat, ugly, can bear children, can’t bear children, bear too many children…..there’s no way to win the ideal, it just doesn’t happen. It’s part of our existence on this earth. It’s how we each deal with it that makes the difference. Consider my comment healthy advice.

    Civil Unions are not any less of an official government recognition, the law says they’re equal with marriage. If the name suffers in society, change the perception. Take civil unions out of their perceived second class status and own them, promote them. The idea that you have to have the term marriage to be fair is fallacious.

    Consider adoption, it is one of the personal inequalities in my life that I am no longer able to bear children. Does that make adding to my family by adoption second class? No. Do I need to call adoptions “childbirth”? no, that’s ridiculous. I celebrate adoption, it’s a wonderful thing, but not everyone sees it that way.

    I guess I’m saying the gay community could use some grown up advice. Take what you’ve got and run with it. Enough with the sour grapes.

  20. the narrator said,

    November 9, 2008 at 10:35 am

    “I guess I’m saying the gay community could use some grown up advice. Take what you’ve got and run with it. Enough with the sour grapes.”

    If I lived in the 60s, that’s totally what I would have said to the blacks! ‘You Negroes need to take what you’ve got and run with it. Enough with the sour grapes. Quit your complaining and get to the back of the bus.’

    It is so easy to tell others to quit complaining and deal with life when you aren’t the oppressed class, isn’t it?

  21. Troyrock said,

    November 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Narrator,
    In the 60s, Blacks were denied legal rights and abilities because of something beyond their control (the color of their skin). That was unfair. White people could do things, for instance sit in the front of the bus that black people were not permitted to do.

    What is it that homosexuals are not permitted to do? What legal right are they being denied? Homosexuals have ALL the same rights despite the fact that the reason for their “separation” is something that they CAN control. They can marry (just like heterosexuals) and they can form a civil union with someone of the same sex (just like heterosexuals). I think Beetlebabee’s point that she can’t call her adoption childbirth pretty much sums it up as she has said in another post, “Words have meanings.”

    If I adopt, that familial relationship will forever be “branded” as “adoption” and not “natural childbirth.” That’s because it’s different. I may or may not be happy with the name and I may feel that it’s degrading but the reality is that it’s different and that’s why it has a different name. Same sex unions have a different name attached to them than marriage. There are no rights lost, Beetle is just saying deal with the fact that it’s not the same.

    If you don’t like the name, I’m more than positive that a proposition to give same sex couples a unique name that they can be happy with would be overwhelmingly approved. How about “mirrorage” or maybe “bonding” (actually bonding might not be best as bondage has a negative connotation already.) Anyway you get the idea, if you don’t like the name that same sex unions are being “branded” with, pick a new name and celebrate that! Trying to change the meaning of the name of a cherished institution that has so much meaning for so many people was really a poor choice in my opinion. Being angry about it and ignoring fundamental rights such as free speech, the right to vote, and the importance of obeying and sustaining the law is an even larger error. Some rights such as free speech are worth defending with your life, don’t trample those rights in your anxiety to have your way.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    It is so easy to tell others to quit complaining and deal with life when you aren’t the oppressed class, isn’t it?

    Oppressed class? Are you speaking for the gay community? That is an idea put forth by some to gain victim status to gain special favors. Ditch the victim status and quit waiting for everyone to solve your emotional problems for you. Own them, your happiness is not based on what people think of you.

  23. Liz said,

    November 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Hi there, I’m the creator of the Facebook group you referenced. I’m wondering if I can save these images to my computer and post them onto the Facebook group? They are quite powerful.

    Thanks for your blog. It’s amazing! You are very well-spoken and I certainly appreciate your willingness to speak up in the face of some very angry opposition.

    Liz

  24. November 9, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    So, let me get this straight…errr….gay… The Mormon Church marshaled its followers to donate more than $22 million dollars, but had no hand in the passage of Prop 8? Give me a break.

  25. lahona said,

    November 9, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Yes, the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints did have a hand in the passing of prop 8 through it’s members and was well within it’s rights to do so. So did Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Protestant religions and they were well within their right to do so. The ONLY reason that the gay activist community is not targeting these other religions is that it is politically incorrect to do so. They would lose much of their support if they appeared to be antisemitic or hateful towards these other churches. But “Mormon bashing” is still ok, they can get away with it. The actions of the LDS church did not overstep any boundaries and there is nothing wrong with how much money members donated. I am a member and felt no pressure from the church to donate but did so to support a cause that I whole heartedly believe in and others of my faith did the same. Again, there is nothing wrong with the actions of the LDS church in asking its members to support a cause that upholds the beliefs and standards of its members.

    (apologies if this comment wasn’t worded the best, I have a MASSIVE headache at the moment)

  26. beetlebabee said,

    November 9, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Collin, that statement is way too similar with the idea that “driving while black” is wrong. Just because people, who happen to be LDS donated, doesn’t mean there was anything shady. What, everyone can participate in the election except Mormons?

  27. lahona said,

    November 9, 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Just an afterthought here, If the Gay community is trying to intimidate or scare the Mormon church into submission, they are going to fail miserably. I believe it is safe to say that this church has seen more persicution, mobbing and murder of its members than any other religion has seen on American soil. So go ahead and protest all you want, you are only hurting your own cause with your actions against the LDS church and strengthening the resolve of its members.

  28. amy said,

    November 10, 2008 at 9:19 am

    Don’t forget the Jews. I don’t think persecution of the Mormon religion has ever reached that level. Ever.

    Anyone living in the South knows there are still bitter feelings there too, over slavery, civil war, and the history of the treatment of blacks that followed for over 100 years.

    But yes, anyone who knows a little about the history of the Mormon Church should know that we are well-acquainted with persecution and have put up with it before. And got over it. Anyone who has served a mission knows to some degree about being persecuted for their beliefs. But that never made me angry at anyone for it, nor did it make me feel any less value as an individual. Just sorry for the person that held so much anger and resentment toward they didn’t understand.

    I also side with the narrator on comment #17 on minority. While I DON’T agree that one SHOULD identify themselves by their differences or interests, it happens. People are human. We don’t live in a perfect world. Who you are shouldn’t be defined by what other people think of you, but it’s hard to break out of that mindset if you are being judged by others.

  29. amy said,

    November 10, 2008 at 9:20 am

    ps. Sorry lahona, just realized you said “persecution on American soil.”

  30. lahona said,

    November 10, 2008 at 10:31 am

    I added the phrase on American soil because America is supposed to be a place of religious liberty. My comment was not meant to minimalize the persicution of Jews or any other group of people. It was meant to say that this targeting of the Mormon church by gay activists is nothing new to us. They are only hurting their own cause by this “temper tantrum” that they are throwing.

    Can you imagine what would happned if the gays had targeted Jews or African Americans instead of the Latter Day Saints? They would have lost all the political support they had. People would have bailed on them faster than rats off a sinking ship. The only difference here is that it is still socialy acceptable to target and persicute Mormons.

  31. brian said,

    November 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Has anyone noticed that if every Mormon voter in California had stayed home on Tuesday Prop 8 would have still passed?

    The Mormon vote didn’t matter.

    Whether you are in favor of Prop 8 or against it, it is obvious that persecuting the Mormons is a waste of time. How can you blame the Mormons when the election was decided even without their votes?

    5,387,939 yes votes, 4,883,460 no votes. The difference is 504,479. As one blog entry pointed out, there are approximately 800,000 Mormons in California. The author of that post assumed there were 250,000 Mormon voters. If that is correct, then it wouldn’t have mattered if every Mormon voter had voted AGAINST prop 8, it still wouldn’t have passed! And since we know that many Mormons voted against prop 8, their yes votes were even less significant on election day.

    So that means that the only influence the Mormons had on the outcome of the election was in getting information out to other potential voters. And even then, there were Catholics, Jews, evangelicals, and more that were spreading information in support of prop 8. I suppose that without the support of the Mormons and without the financial support of individual members of the church, there would have been fewer voters with information in favor of prop 8 because there would have been fewer ads and fewer phone calls made.

    Therefore, given that the only influence the Mormons had on the outcome of the election was to inform potential voters (remember that the actual votes of the Mormons didn’t matter at all), it must be assumed that the anger and rage against the Mormon church is because they gave potential voters more than just one viewpoint to consider. Hmmm. Sounds like the masses that are screaming for tolerance and free speech don’t tolerate free speech very well.

    Unless you assume that all the potential voters were forced to vote for prop 8 because somebody called them on the phone or knocked on their door? Or maybe you assume that because there were TV and radio ads, people lost their ability to think for themselves and they could no longer make a choice to vote NO on 8.

    In other words, all the Mormons did was help spread the viewpoint held by those in favor of prop 8 which was a different viewpoint than the NO on 8 people were presenting, and the voters made a choice on the issue based on the information they were given. Mormons’ votes didn’t matter, they didn’t initiate the proposition in the first place, they weren’t the first group that supported it and they weren’t the largest group either, and even if every Mormon in the state had voted yes on 8, it didn’t make any difference on election day.

    The Mormon vote didn’t matter.

    So, to all those who are making a huge fuss because you lost a fair election, do you really think you’re going to make any difference because you persecute the Mormons? Why don’t you go pick a fight with a group that actually made a difference in the election? I understand that 70% of black voters voted yes on 8. Go protest at your local NAACP. I have read that most Hispanic voters also voted yes on 8. Catholics outnumber Mormons by more than 12 to 1. Evangelicals far outnumber the Mormons. I am left to guess why you don’t persecute these groups.

    Perhaps you think that Mormons have some special influence over the outcome of elections? Did you see what happened to presidential candidate Mitt Romney? Maybe they cast some sort of spell over the voters of this state with their mystical powers; after all they are an evil cult, right? Is there some logical explanation that does not ignore the facts? How do you explain your outrage against a group that can be found guilty of doing nothing more than helping to spread a viewpoint that is different from your own?

    The truth is, the voters of California made their choice. Nobody forced them to choose either way; they did it on their own.

    And the voters, on both sides of this issue, are nearly all good-hearted people. The opponents of prop 8 want to paint all those that voted yes as hateful bigots. But anyone can go out and meet the people that voted yes and would find they are nice people. There are a few hateful people on both sides of this issue, but by and large they are nice people. They voted the way they did because they felt right about how they voted. Nearly all of them care about their neighbors, treat other people with respect, and are all around good people. Any good person on either side of this issue would find many good people who voted differently from them, and in fact we work and play together every day and get along just fine.

    So stop with the Hate stuff already!

    The attacks on those who voted yes on 8 are unwarranted in every respect. They are not hateful bigots; they are nearly all good people.

    The attacks on a minority church whose voters made no difference in the outcome of the election are beyond reasonable explanation. One is left to assume there is no credible explanation; there is only bitterness and hatred that is being vented on an easy target.

    The Mormon vote didn’t matter. The majority of people in this state chose to define marriage the way it has always been, and they did it without the Mormon vote.

    The outrage is absurd no matter to whom it is directed, but to direct it against the Mormons has no basis in fact. I guess it makes a good news story and it’s safer than attacking the NAACP; they’re a lot bigger and more politically powerful.

  32. alan said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:15 am

    I don’t think most of you get it. The reason why those that lost the right to marry is directing most of its anger against the Church is not because the Church doesn’t have the right to speak out about moral issues. It is also not because members voted for prop 8. Everyone agrees these are also fundamental rights. The gay population is not upset about the blacks voting for yes. It is their right.

    What they are so upset about is the Church used its facilities to organize, sign up, rally against and direct a campaign from. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    And they are not marching on the temples because they are trying to intimidate the church. They simply are saying these are the people that provided most of the funding and manpower to take away my civil right to marry who I love. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. WE DID DO THAT.

    You may say all you want that gays should be happy with being treated as second class citizens and they should be happy that we allow them to have domestic partnerships. But obviously they see it differently. It is like saying to blacks they should be happy we let them sit on the bus. They still get to ride. And they should simply “own” the back of the bus for themselves.

    Maybe we should all take a minute to see this issue from their point of view. And whether you think it was fair or not we did take away their right to marry the person they love.

  33. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:26 am

    Alan, I think the emotional view is the easiest to see. Scratching beneath the surface of “Everyone hates gays” is where the real pay dirt is. Honest people disagree on this issue, and it’s more than love at stake.

    https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/

  34. lahona said,

    November 11, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    People who voted yes on 8 didnt do it because they hate gays. They didnt do it because they failed to “see the issue from thier point of view” they did it because they disagreed on the issue of gay marriage. No ones rights were taken away, no one was made into a second class citizen. Homosexuals still have all the same rights as heterosexuals. Civil unions have the same legal status as Marriges in California. They are called by different names because they are different institutions. Seperate but equal. Seperate but equal is possible…..thats why we have mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms. Men are not better than women, women are not better than men. But they are given different bathrooms because they are different. Seperate but equal. To combine them would be totaly inapropriate.

    As to the LDS churches involvment with the passing of prop 8. The church did not overstep any legal or ethical boundries with its actions. To protest the church about this issue is to protest the democratic process and the American way.

  35. jimmypedia said,

    November 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Why are Mormons so upset that they are being singled out? The Mormon church worked incredibly hard to get Proposition 8 passed. Mormons are less than 2% of the population but Mormons donated $20 million dollars to prop 8. The documentation of this comes from the Yes on 8 campaign and the Mormon church itself. It’s really embarassing to hear Mormons say they are the victims of hate, religious persecution and intolerance. Or perhaps those Mormons who are saying this really do not know what their church did. Gosh, that’s the most terrifying thing of all; ignorance.

    To me this is very much like Nazis in World war II saying “Why are Americans saying all those hateful things about Germans? They just hate Germans. Americans pretend to be tolerant and pretend to love democracy, but it just goes to show how hateful Americans really are.” This would be really funny if it wasn’t so terrifying.

    What’s also really scary is that millions of people like me had no ill-will towards Mormons at all before this. I actually admired Mormons. It is going to take the Mormon church a very, very long time to heal these wounds.

    Please do not confuse anger with hate. The idiots who said things like “burn Mormon churches” were angry. It’s pretty common for people to say stupid and wrong things when they are angry. It does not mean they hate the Mormon church. I myself do not hate the Mormon church, nor do I hate Mormons.

    But I am pretty angry right now, and it is going to take me a long time to forgive your church. Some day I will forgive you, most likely later this year or next year, when the Supreme Court overturns prop 8. Don’t think it’s going to happen? Really? Your support dropped from 60% to 52%. Trust me, you may have won the latest battle, but you are losing the war. Sorry, I do not mean to be cruel. I know it is hard to be on the wrong side of history, and I hope that when you finally do lose to progress, the 48% of the population who are pretty angry right now will also forgive you.

    I hope god forgives you, too.

  36. jimmypedia said,

    November 11, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    My apologies for double-posting, but I just read the post about words having meaning, and the argument that beetlebabee would never insist on calling adoption “childbirth.” This is a very flawed argument.

    The state still allows you to call your son or daughter your “child” even though you never gave birth to him or her. How would you like it if state law said that you had to refer to your child as your “domestic adoptee?” Ever think about the words you are allowed to use, and whether or not the Bible gives you permission to use them? Trust me, the Bible does NOT give you permission to call your adopted child “son” or “daughter.” A kind and tolerant society gave that to you. Maybe you should give something back to others.

  37. lahona said,

    November 11, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Jim others have attempted to punch holes in the child birth vs adoption argument. Here is beetlebabee’s response.

    The adopted child analogy absolutely holds. There are some who see my children differently than I do. For me, there is no difference. For other people, they want to know why my children look different, why they have different noses. Our family deals with comments that our biological daughter looks just like her mommy, and the uncomfortable lack of comments about our sons. It’s just life. Nothing is exactly equal. We celebrate adoption in our home, we build it up and show people that it is equal, and then we don’t sweat the small stuff.

  38. jimmypedia said,

    November 11, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Lahona / beetlebabee: I really do not want to offend anyone, but the word that used to be used for a child born out of wedlock was “bastard.” This was not a derogatory word, simply the conventional word used by society at the time. Pretend it is a hundred years ago, and your neighbors voted for a constitutional amendment that made it clear that a child born out of wedlock and adopted by a loving mother and father was a “domestic bastard?” Would you be OK with it only being a name, since the child would still have all the same rights and privileges of a biological child? Would you have said “it’s just life?”

  39. beetlebabee said,

    November 11, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Thanks Lahona for the cc.

    Jimmy, I think that the bastard comment has undesirable connotation problems. If the term you choose for your children or your marriage has a bad connotation, choose another, or work to improve it, don’t commandeer a term that means something else.

  40. busywithconviction said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Jim is right. Prop 8 did pass because of the hard work of the Mormons. Props to them. Bottom line though, we have two groups here who have two different moral codes. Is it OK for those who think sex should only be something shared between heterosexual couples force that belief on others? Humm. But isn’t the LGBT trying to force their morals on the rest of society too? So one or the other group is going to have to accept the others moral code. Is it fair? No, but someones moral code has to win out. Both can’t exist side by side. There are more ramification to the legalization of same sex marriage also to be considered, but most of these can easily be connected to your own personal morality too.

  41. jimmypedia said,

    November 11, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Lahona / beetlebabee: You are right. Let’s just call your adopted sons your “domestic dependents” since they are not really your sons. Don’t worry, we will grant your domestic dependents all of the same rights and privileges as real sons. Please be certain to use that term on school registrations, camp permision slips, and all legal documents, however. Remember, just calling them your sons doesn’t make it so, any more than calling a same sex marriage “marriage” makes it so. And, also remember that the bible referred to Cain and Abel as Adam and Eve’s sons, not their fake sons. I don’t think there is anything in the bible that allows you to use the word “son” for an adopted son. I promise, though, that we will all treat your domestic dependents as if they are real sons. Honest.

    My point is not to belittle or diminish the bond you have with your adopted sons. My point is that your bond is no different than that of any other mother, and society has dignified your love by allowing you to use the word “son.” Your friends and neighbors did not have to, but it was the kind and just thing to do. Perhaps you should think twice before you deny the word “marriage” to two adults who love each other, simply because of your religion.

  42. November 13, 2008 at 11:26 am

    This has been such a big issue in my family…it has been nice to read your blog and its support of Prop 8

  43. jimmypedia said,

    November 13, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Busywithconviction: Very good points, and perhaps the best analysis I have read to date. Sometimes short and simple is best.

    We eventually have to choose a set of morals we can all accept as a society. The question is what can we agree on? Everyone agrees murder is immoral. Everyone agrees that stealing is wrong. Everyone agrees adoption is good, and being able to call an adopted child “my son” is good for the parents, for the child, and for society.

    In addition, and most significantly, most Americans, gay or straight, agree that the many wonderful marriages performed every day between men and women who love each other and commit to each other are good for society. But right now everyone disagrees on whether a union between two men or two women can be as moral and good, and therefore whether or not such unions are worthy of the word “marriage.” A big part of the problem is that everyone also disagrees on whether or not our moral code should come verbatim from religious texts.

    Obviously, I think gay marriage can be just as moral and good as heterosexual marriage. And although I know that religion was the origin of our laws, I believe that our laws should be better than a literal interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran. How on earth can we expect to respect and tolerate many different religious beliefs or those who choose not to believe if we start writing majority religious views into our constititution? This makes us no better than certain Islamic fundamentalists. However, I and many others have to convince others of this and not expect it to be a knee-jerk reaction.

    My hope is that once the anger passes, the dialogue will begin. This website and the people who are posting here provide good examples of what might be accomplished. My hope is that the demonstrations this weekend and in the future will be peaceful. My hope is that those who disagree with me will see good examples in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and will see that no-one’s faith, personal moral values, or freedom of speech are being harmed in those states.

    And, last but not least, my hope is that both sides will reconsider their tactics, and someday apologize to each other for what they have done. Fear-mongering was wrong, but the reports of violence towards Mormon churches horrify me. There is no place in our country for any of this.

  44. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    “Perhaps you should think twice before you deny the word “marriage” to two adults who love each other, simply because of your religion.”

    Jimmy, at no time have I ever advocated a position simply because of my religion. In fact, just the opposite. While my religion compliments my views, it does not direct them in a vacuum.

    Central to my views is that God is a god of truth. That being the case, there are evidences of this truth all around us. Many people I speak with on this issue reject the religious facets of my belief, and I respect their differences. Because these things are based on a universal truth, there is physical evidence that backs up the truth. I have read studies, papers, other tangible evidences that I use in connection with my spiritual views.

    I believe based on my personal research into this subject that the gay lifestyle is not as stable, loving, kind and beneficial as the gay activists would have us believe. That this is a false premise that the equality argument rests on. I also believe it’s not as physically healthy. I believe that it is detrimental to children for a few reasons, some being that the cause of gay behavior, while not completely understood is known to have societal factors. The more gay influence permeates our society, the more widespread gay lifestyles become through societal influence. The common idea is that being gay isn’t catching, but in some respects that is not true. Societal influence does have an effect on impressionable children. I also believe that gender matters in parenting. Each gender is beautiful and has a gift to give the next generation in modeling societal roles. This builds strength and stability into children and into society. Creating motherless or fatherless homes by design would deprive children of that modeling by design and I think that is a major strike against the equality of the two types of unions. I also believe that traditional marriage adds stability to society in the stabilizing complimentary roles wives and husbands play in a marriage. Many gay activists promote open marriages. I think this is detrimental to the fabric of society and I desire to keep this from becoming accepted behavior.

  45. busywithconviction said,

    November 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Jimmy trying to interpret the scriptures is a hard thing. You say,
    “I believe that our laws should be better than a literal interpretation of the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran.”
    You obviously think that oft quoted Leviticus scripture is somehow not saying what it implies there. And I am not talking about the kill part. I am referring to same sex relationships being wrong. Your opinion is fine. But that doesn’t mean that it is right. I am not going to go out and stop anyone from having a relationship I personally disagree with, but when people want to force their morals on me I am going to stand up to them.
    At some point the larger part of society may move in favor of same sex marriage. If or when that happens I will accept that choice, but it won’t change where I morally stand.

  46. jimmypedia said,

    November 14, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    “You obviously think that oft quoted Leviticus scripture is somehow not saying what it implies there.” Incorrect. I know exactly what Leviticus says. However, I disagree with most of it, and I know that most Americans either ignore, disagree, or have no idea what it says in Leviticus. I am willing to bet a bazillion dollars that you also disagree with most of Leviticus. I don’t think I need to post all the parts you disagree with, but if you want, I’d be happy to give it a try. Hint: what did you have for dinner last night?

  47. brian said,

    November 14, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    alan said:
    “I don’t think most of you get it. The reason why those that lost the right to marry is directing most of its anger against the Church is not because the Church doesn’t have the right to speak out about moral issues. It is also not because members voted for prop 8. Everyone agrees these are also fundamental rights. The gay population is not upset about the blacks voting for yes. It is their right.

    What they are so upset about is the Church used its facilities to organize, sign up, rally against and direct a campaign from. BIG DIFFERENCE. ”

    I think you’ve completely missed the point of my post that Mormons didn’t make any difference on election day. Let me try to restate it more succinctly.

    Whether the 2% of voters who were Mormons had even funded and ran the entire campaign for prop 8, or if they were just a minor part of it, I am trying to identify exactly how the “Mormons Stole Our Rights!”. And so I repeat, all that the Mormons and the other tens of thousands of non-Mormons who worked on the prop 8 campaign did was to inform potential voters and encourage them to see their viewpoint on the issue. Whether or not the Mormons, or any other group for that matter, used their money, their church buildings, their time, or whatever else they did to inform and encourage other voters, they still didn’t take away anybody’s ability to think for themselves, to come to their own decision on the matter or to vote how they wanted to vote.

    I would ask you, what are you saying that was wrong? Was it wrong for an organization to put their support behind a cause they believe in? Was it wrong for them to encourage members of the organization to get involved?

    Remember this goes both ways. Was it wrong for AT&T, Google, and the CTA to contribute?

    The Mormon church did not require anyone to participate in any manner, it was totally left up to the members to decide what they would do. As a side note, in contrast to that, the CTA used money collected from union members to pay for a cause that many of it’s members were opposed to; they had no choice but to contribute. But even then, all the CTA money did was pay for ads in an attempt to persuade voters to vote against prop 8, it didn’t take away anyone’s freedom to think and vote for themselves. Ultimately many of the members of the CTA voted in favor of the proposition that their money was spent to oppose. But that’s another subject, isn’t it?

    OK, I guess I’m not very good at being succinct, am I?

    My point is this: I am left to assume that those who are so angry at the “Mormons” are angry about two things. One, that the church and many of it’s members oppose your viewpoint. Two, that if the church and it’s members had not been involved, you think the proposition would have passed. And since we’ve already established that the actual number of Mormon votes made no difference at all in passing prop 8 the only reason their involvement made a difference is because more people were informed and encouraged to see the yes on 8 viewpoint.

    If that is what you and others are so angry about, then I can’t accept it. The Mormon viewpoint concerning gay/lesbian relationships has not changed, it has been well established, so that doesn’t explain a sudden rash of attacks.

    And I think you should consider what the second point really means. If you think prop 8 would have failed without the Mormon support, and given that all they accomplished was to spread the yes on 8 viewpoint, then what you are saying is that the only way prop 8 would be defeated was if the voters were uninformed. Is that what you are saying? Is that really what you believe? I doubt that you really think that, but that’s where the conclusion goes.

    I am sincerely interested in your response to this question, if you will stay to the point of the question. You obviously disagree with the Mormon viewpoint on prop 8, that’s not the question, that’s a topic for a different thread. The question is, since the mormon vote didn’t matter, and therefore they are responsible only for encouraging and informing more voters than otherwise would have been reached without them, are you really saying that prop 8 wouldn’t have passed without them? And if so, how do you address the point that all they did was get the word out? As I see it, that leads to the conclusion that giving voters information on both sides of the issue rather than just the NO side was not OK with you. I’m pretty sure you don’t really think that. So how do you explain that their involvement stole your rights?

  48. jimmypedia said,

    November 15, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Brian: I agree with you that the Mormon church had a right to get the word out. Very good point.

    I think the issue is complicated by the fact that many of us think “yes on 8” blatantly lied in its ads and campaign. First of all, if yes on 8 did not pass, children would not be taught about gay marriage (there is an opt-out protection in California. I do not believe that anyone wants to teach little kids about sex. The famous field trip was one incident, and occured in San Francisco. The famous story-time in Massachusetts was another isolated incident. My nephews are in school in Massachusetts, I know what is going on there, and there is no conspiracy to indoctrinate kids about same-sex marriage. Finally, if a group wants to protect their childern from being taught values that contradict theirs, pass a law restricting marriage and/or sex education.

    Second, the church back east that had to allow a same-sex ceremony on “their” property was using public property with a special permit. NO churches will have to perform same-sex marraiges any more than they have to perform Jewish weddings.

    Basically, there were a LOT OF LIES used to get “yes on 8” passed.

    I think the problem is knowing who to be angry at; the Mormon church and its members for funding the lies, or those who came up with the campagin strategy. If the Mormon church only wanted to “get the word out” they should have disavowed the smear campaign that “Yes on 8” ran. They haven’t now, have they? What can we do but believe that they also endorsed the strategy, deceipt, and fear-mongering.

  49. beetlebabee said,

    November 15, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    There were lies told about education, but which side were they coming from?

    In the Hayward incident the kindergarten parents were told they COULD NOT opt out. The school held a secret “Coming Out” day for the kindergarten kids. It was all legal. This happened two weeks after the lesbian wedding incident. See this link and look for the pdf at the bottom of the page that is a copy of the letter they were sent.

    https://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/its-gay-day-at-school-today-mommy/

  50. jimmypedia said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Oooh, scary, a second incident in 6 months in a state of 27 million. Not only that, a “Secret Coming Out Day!” That proves there is a conspiracy. We need to protect our children from this deluge of gay-mongering. I suppose we could meet with our children’s teachers and school board and complain, or home school them, or pass laws that truly protect children from inappropriate educational experimentation. But that would be too easy.Le’t just ban equal rights for 10% of the population.

    Sorry for the sarcasm, but think about it. Let’s say it is 1970 and one or two California teachers decide to teach kindergarten children about interracial marriage, then go on to teach them about the brutal horrors of slavery, such as cutting off a slave’s foot to keep them from escaping. Which would make more sense: (a) pass a law banning interracial marriage, or (b) slap some sense into the teachers and school board?

    There were much better solutions than Prop 8 if the real issue was protecting our children. It may be hard to believe me, but I have young nieces and nephews, my brother and sister do NOT want them to be taught about things that might go against their beliefs or be inappropriate for them, and I completely support and repect my brother and sister. If I was in their shoes, and someone did that to my kids, I would passionately work to change the laws so that children are better protected.

    Changing the constitution to ban equal rights for a whole class of people was not a smart solution. Not only that, how does it keep activist teachers from teaching little children about same-sex civil unions or from teaching about atheism or teaching about many inappropriate and potentially offensive things?

    How about this: let’s pass good and decent laws that limit the ability of any special interest to control or corrupt the curriculum of our public schools. America is an amazing country; I am certain we can protect our children and our gay couples at the same time.

    If the true reason for Prop 8 was to protect children and the rights of parents to control what their children are taught, I can at least respect the feelings behind this. I think the problem is that many of us feel it was a manipulation intended to attack gay rights. If it wasn’t, maybe both sides are not as far apart as it seems. Maybe we can all work together to find another solution.

  51. beetlebabee said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Actually, the incidents were within two weeks of each other, and within ONE DAY of Jack O’Connell coming out and saying we were lying about gay marriage being taught in the schools. You can continue to argue that some new arbitrary line will hold society back from progressive downfall, but if this one doesn’t hold, what will guarantee the next one will hold?

    At some point you just have to say “No. This isn’t right.”

    I’ve reached that point already, you haven’t. So let’s just for fun look at the logic you’re presenting. Say we call gay unions marriage, and we call hetero unions marriage. Who in their right mind would think it was fair to only teach one type of “marriage” and not the other?

    Handing the keys to the car over to the opposition gives them the ability to drive, the things are connected. If they’re unfit to drive, don’t give them the keys.

  52. beetlebabee said,

    November 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    “If the true reason for Prop 8 was to protect children and the rights of parents to control what their children are taught, I can at least respect the feelings behind this. I think the problem is that many of us feel it was a manipulation intended to attack gay rights. If it wasn’t, maybe both sides are not as far apart as it seems. Maybe we can all work together to find another solution.”

    This is where I think we have common ground. Once we get past the “8 is hate” mindset, we actually do have a lot in common. There is a lot of hoopla about civil unions being less than “marriage”, but I don’t get why that is. Separate but equal got a bad rap for good reasons in the civil rights era, but there are plenty of examples of separate but equal working just fine. For instance Childbirth and Adoption. Both are ways of growing a family. I adopt children, and I have also given birth to a child, so this is near and dear to my heart. Adoption wasn’t always so well received, it had to be built up and worked for.

    The thing I don’t understand is why it’s insulting for gays to work on the image of civil unions. What makes it second class? My kids aren’t first and second class kids based on the terms that describe the way they joined our family.

    I think Elton John made some similar point the other day. He’s perfectly fine with Civil Unions, as long as he has all the legal rights, which in California we do. Nationally I understand there’s work to be done to continue to get those rights, but here, you’ve got all the rights we have to give. All p8 is about is the name and the associated fallout for families, especially in education.

  53. busywithconviction said,

    November 19, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    I really like where this thread is going so I don’t want to take away from it, but in case someone is reading this and thinks Jimmy has a point about not taking much of Leviticus seriously…I will tell you what I had for dinner last night, pumpkin ravioli, with sage sauce, a roman salad and a bread stick. I realize this is likely not typical for most American’s but I assume he meant eating animals with cloven feet and those that chew cud. It is hard to understand one individual scripture all by itself, but later in the new testament we have some clarification. Thanks goodness because I really do like a nice piece of bacon once in a while. The Jews not believe in Jesus was the Christ don’t have the New Testament don’t have the additional insight and so don’t eat pigs. But I can’t find anything that give greater clarification on the Leviticus scripture referred to prior that would say same-sex sex is OK. Jimmy if you know of a scripture that says if is OK please do let me know.

  54. busywithconviction said,

    November 20, 2008 at 2:51 am

    I have to add I don’t think running through scriptures really is going to convince anyone one way or the other. Bottom line some find acting on same-sex desires to be wrong, others don’t. Once again going back to having two differing moral views.

  55. Common Member said,

    November 22, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    I don’t understand the fuss here. We live in a society, a diverse society at that. There have to rules and guidelines and such so that we can all get along peacefully. This was simply the majority of folks in our society speaking their mind and their opinions. It is too bad that we can’t all have what we want but when has that ever been realistic? I also don’t understand why the country has to forsake their beliefs when the country was founded on those beliefs. Both sides can make the same arguments in than we would both have something forced upon us that we didn’t want. Our society is on an overall destructive path in that everyone feels they should get what they want and that their way is the right way. There have to be boundaries and structure to make things work and keep things civil. We have made far too many changes far too quickly in recent years. We need to slow down a bit and be a little more reserved in how fast we go charging down the road of progressivism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: