- ‹ previous
- 2174 of 2798
- next ›
Quote of the Day - 11.17.08
QUOTE OF THE DAY....From the Mormon church, reacting to protests against their campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California:
"People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America."
I'm afraid the church elders have it exactly backward here. Churches have every right to involve themselves in political issues, but if they do then they're going to be treated as political actors. Protests, boycotts, op-eds, blog posts, and marches are exactly the democratic ideals of our nation, and being on the receiving end of them is what happens to anyone who enters the political fray. It's a little late for them to pretend they didn't know this.
the mormon backers should be charged with extortion. that they haven't yet should be alarming.
"ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.
"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ? The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n14555...
the mormon backers should be charged with extortion. that they haven't yet should be alarming.
"ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.
"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ? The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n14555...
I think the bible covers this,
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Fuck that, I want their taxes. Every single church that put up money to support or oppose a person or amendment should be subjected to collection of back taxes for the 08-09 fiscal year (I know they aren't back taxes in the sense that taxes haven't been filed yet, but since they should already have been paid and accounted for, they are sort of like back taxes). Think of the billions of dollars that flow into these churches untaxed. There's probably enough to throw at least one or two more ski retreats for the AIG brass.
That's an interesting use of the word Intimidated. If somebody leaves a denomination, are they intimidating that denomination?
If the Mormons have a PR firm, they need another PR firm.
These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation.
I agree -- campaigning to deny other citizens their rights is unworthy. The supporters of Prop 8 deserve all the derision said campaign earns them.
Damn right, "anon."
Where is the boycott list? Products, companies, etc? Squeeze their hypocritical nuts until they scream!
Mormons should be careful with the American pracitce of democracy. Americans have already made prohibitions about how Mormons practice marriage, and it is probable a majority of Americans would place more prohibitions on how Mormons practice their religion, if given the chance to vote on them. California homosexual activists should draft constitutional propositions that limit the rights of Mormons.
Agreed on the tax collection front. Why someone can make tax exempt contributions to an organization that doesn't pay taxes that then spends the money to shape public policy is beyond me. Close one loophole or the other.
Also I'd say this backlash owes something to shock. I don't think people realized from the polling, and Kevin's statistical analysis, how likely an outcome this was. California is not demographically ready for gay marriage. You can hate on the Mormons if it makes you feel better but thems the facts.
I'll admit even following the polls and seeing the evidence I still thought prop 8 wouldn't pass. I just had a "California is better than this, isn't it?" kind of feeling.
I think CA gets cut a lot of slack because it votes so reliably blue in the presidential election. Once you start to pull that veil back you realize what an f'd up place it actually is. Did the founding fathers intend for individual states to be more populous and more powerful than most 1st world countries?
This reminds me of when Palin said that her First Amendment rights were being violated when people criticized what she was saying.
These people are so intellectually bankrupt.
After using their 1st Amendment right to free speech, they think it's a threat to those rights if other people do the same thing. Offering protests in response to protests, letters in response to letters, and political action to Mormon bareknuckle political attacks, is wrong.
Turn the other cheek is for their enemies only, they still get to slap. No wonder most Evangelicals don't consider Mormons to be Christian.
It reminds me of Palin's response to media criticism:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
What a bunch of candy-asses (pardon the language). You start a fight, expect some blows to be thrown away.
Agreed on the tax collection front. Why someone can make tax exempt contributions to an organization that doesn't pay taxes that then spends the money to shape public policy is beyond me. Close one loophole or the other.
There is no loophole -- the law just isn't being enforced. Only one church has had its tax-exempt status revoked in the past 50 years, even though so many churches have violated the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code.
And to the person griping about California having so much power: Remind me, in what state is the Mormon Church based again?
Is it clear how much money actually came from the central church? Mormons don't scare me too much. But as an organized entity spitting out dictates and emptying its coffers to manipulate elections in the nations most populous state? That's at least worth a second look.
And the "one man, one woman" chant is a little anemic sounding coming from this crowd.
I'd guess that both the Mormon elders and Sarah Palin live in the religious community where a religious leader stands up, makes pronouncements, and expects the followers to hear and obey without any back talk. They are called "followers," after all.
In Mormon communities and those dominated by evangelical or Catholic churches (of the older type - many American Catholic Churches are no longer quite so authoritarian as I understand it), even the politics follow those rules. So the Mormon elders and Sarah Palin neither expected anyone to be so crass as to bring the tools of modern democracy to bear on them. They are religious leaders, after all, and entitled to all the privileges that status entails.
Only - when they step out into politics as the Mormons did they are no longer religious leaders with a religious organization. The stories show they took great pains NOT to use church property to organize on. They did everything they could not to endanger the religious privileges of the church when they went out to sway the political election.
Kevin's right. The Mormon elders should have known better, and very likely did. The public relations statements are political spin trying to take advantage of their religious status.
Palin's 1st Amendment comment may also have been spin, but I have seen nothing that suggests she herself is educated enough to recognize the much larger cultural world outside her own or to identify the different roles she was trying to take on. I'd bet that most of the leaders she was modeling on are religious leaders. My bet also is that she was confusing her aspired-for status as national political leader with the religious leaders she has grown up with in the politicized evangelical churches.
The LGBT crowd should consider protesting the church from the right. I suggest getting into period dress, splitting into unbalanced gender groups, and protesting with pro-polygamy/polyandry signs.
"one man, one woman = marital socialism"
"Marriage: one Brigham, three Clarissas, three Elizas, three Mary Anns, three Marys, two Olives, two Abigails, two Elizabeths, two Harriets, two Lucys, two Margarets, the one with the freckles, the short one, ummm . . ., the cross-eyed one, I know I'm forgetting several . . .."
On the tax front: keep in mind that nonprofits (like Mother Jones!) are allowed to advocate for issues all they want. The only prohibition is that they can't advocate for candidates. Legally, the LDS church had every right to support Prop 8.
Politically, though, they can't expect the fight to end just because they want it to end. Once they've entered the political fray, they have to expect to be treated like any other interest group with a political agenda.
I don't object to people using their free speech rights to demonstrate, protest, or heckle Mormons. I certainly do object to people vandalizing, damaging, or destroying buildings or property, or attempting to intimidate people in or around those buildings.
I don't think burning the Book of Morman on the steps of one of their church's qualifies as a democratic ideal.
I think what isn't understood here is that The Church didn't donate as a body, rather Members of The Church did. The Church did ask for members to get involved, but The Church also recognizes that Members of The Church are free to exercise their free agency and to vote their conscience.
And for whatever it's worth, I am a Mormon bishop and would have voted No on Prop 8 had I lived in CA at the time. I would encourage you haters out there to study up on the issue and let logic dictate your thoughts/comments. Most of you sound foolish.
The dilemma is how to make the point that if you spew hate, attack other people's rights, and try to damage other people's lives, the same might be done to you, yet at the same time not lose the moral high ground by resorting to tactics like vandalism.
Myself, I'm astounded at the self-righteous intolerance of the LDS church....their history is a prolonged struggle against intolerance complete with a Diaspora/Exodus trek from Illinois to Utah...and now they attack gay marriage? They must really feel secure........
I had to react the same way to a local yahoo who said that protesting prop 8 is proof that liberals hate democracy.
Response to patrick c
The problem that I see is not so much a group of Mormons objecting to Gay Marriage. What I find rather disgusting is their identification with the religion as the basis of their objection, then trying to hide behind the religion.
Bringing their religious beliefs into the political arena is not a protection from the political blow-back to their political actions. They knew they could not use their church to organize the objection to Prop 8. They demonstrated that by carefully following the laws and not using church property in organizing the political action. But they were specifically organizing Mormons and conducted the political action as a representation of Mormon belief.
To expect no blow-back - no reflection on their (and your) religion - is ridiculous.
You may not agree with them, but they acted as your agents and as agents of all Mormons. The logic behind the law of agency applies here. You and all Mormons are morally responsible for their behavior.
"Legally, the LDS church had every right to support Prop 8."
Kevin-
No, they don't. The IRS has specific tax laws for religious organizations that explicitly prohibit substantial lobbying activity.
See the IRS's document here.
It's one thing to make a statement in favor of Prop 8, and it's another entirely to encourage out of state people to donate large sums of money, help out with phone banks, help create political ads for Prop 8, etc. "Substantial lobbying" is sort of a subjective term that the IRS can judge for or against, but I'm pretty sure that members of the LDS church donated a majority of the funds in favor of Prop 8, which to me signifies substantial lobbying.
Patrick C.,
It's a political fight and unlikely to be governed by logic and fair discourse. You have to expect a little disingenuous blow back. The LGBT movement is going to get labeled by their shrillest members and the mormon church is going to take a few hits -- most likely concerning central control, dictation of social conservative morality, out of state money, and the fluidity of the church's past definition of marriage. I have no idea how much traction either side will gain but if you expect logic and fair discourse you're a little naive.
the mormon backers should be charged with extortion. that they haven't yet should be alarming.
"ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.
"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/23/state/n14555...
I like how all those people whose businesses are being put in jeopardy are buying off the LGBT crowd. It's like mafia rule. I think every time there is an election, the loser should vandalize those that contributed to the winners in the election. Like how the conservatives are doing right now since losing the presidential bid. They are printing the names of donors and mobilizing and telling people to make old ladies cry. More of that!
Guess the Latter-Day Saints expected to be treated more gently than their ideological allies treated Graeme Frost.
I didn't realize they picketed Graeme's house and demanded in-kind donations to conservative causes in order to back-off. Media intrusion is one thing (and you got us back for Graeme with "Joe the Plumber" if you want to compare oranges to oranges) and being shouted down on the steps of your church is something else entirely. Just like Christians or Mormons or Santeria practitioners that would picket a law-abiding homosexual business establishment.
You're referring here to the extortion letters sent by the Yes on 8 campaign before the election to people who had donated to No on 8, demanding an equal donation to Yes on 8 or risk having their names disseminated as opponents of traditional marriage, right?
http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=144185#
Another way of protesting this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2008/11/prop-8-push-bac.h...
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from criticism.
My way of protesting, in addition to going to rallies, has been to start working my way through the spokesperson and donor list for Yes on 8 (public records, available from the SF Chronicle), making small donations to organizations that support marriage equality in the names of Prop 8 donors. It may take years, but I want to make sure that all bigots involved in funding my unequal protection under California law get a thank you note from HRC, NLGTB, Equality Utah, or Act Up thanking them sweetly for organizing California LGBTQ folks for a generation to come.
Maybe if the gays did a little pro-bono update on the Mormon's holy undergarments it could lead to a detente. The Mormons would probably need to reciprocate by posthomously baptizing Harvey Milk or Judy Garland however.
Looking forward to the protests at my next Knights of Columbus meeting. We can talk about gay priests and iconography.
Rachel - your plan is both funny and sweet, but it is illegal. I urge you not to do it.
anon,
You can make a gift to most charitable or advocacy organizations in honor or in memory of someone. In some cases, the charitable or advocacy organization accepting the gift will send a thank you not to the donor, but to the person honored by the donor.
To clarify, I'm not misrepresenting myself as being Frank Schubert, which as you point out would be illegal; I'm merely "honoring" Frank Schubert, which is, depending on your point of view, either sweet or snarky.
As evidence of that, it would be helpful if every time the church complained, they were reminded who started it:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2008/10/yes_on_8_threatens_no_on_8_d...