Although I strongly support gay marriage, ideally I'm not sure if the Supreme Court should overrule a direct referendum of the people, even though they definitely have that legal authority. It is true that the court should protect rights even when it conflicts with the will of the majority, and it would be 100% legal, but it would just leave a bad taste for many people and make the issue even more divisive, I think. If we just waited another 2-6 years, Proposition 8 will probably be able to be overturned by referendum anyways, I would rather just wait. In my state of Rhode Island, nothing has been proposed yet officially, but there is small talk we may introduce a referendum to legalize gay marriage if support for it seems strong enough and likely to pass, sometime in the next 6 years. Also, Providence's (RI capital) openly-gay mayor is speculated to be running for Governor in 2010 too. If that did happen, and my state passed by referendum a law to recognize gay marriage (instead of a court ruling, or merely opposing a referendum/law that bans gay marriage) I think that would be a great step forward.
If Prop 8 is allowed to stand, then hopefully at least the court will rule that it cannot be considered retroactive. So when 18,000 married gay couples fail to destroy the fabric of society, family, or heterosexual marriages over the next several years, then most of the steam will be out of the anti-equality side's arguments. So when the overturn comes around on the ballot, it will pass. I imagine the bigots will put another prop 8 on the ballot trying to get it reinstated in the next election after that. It will be defeated, the balance will have clearly tipped, and the fight -- in California, at least -- will be over.
I still think that the best solution to the question of the existing same-sex marriages would be to legally convert them into RDPs, rather than just outright make them null and void. After all, under California law RDPs are equivalent in every way (except the term itself) to marriages, and under federal law they are unrecognized either way. By converting them to RDPs, you don't need to revise the meaning of Proposition 8 in any way (because on the face of it, it does say that they would not be recognized, as it does not offer any grandfathering clause), and yet you also don't deny any rights under California law to the couples. The only problem with this solution is that the Court really can't do it, because it would require new legislation to enact. Kimball Kinnison
Link The title is nice, but the article has nothing to do with the header. It's really frustrating to see such a hopeful solution touted when the damn thing doesn't say a word about it. Anyway, if it happens I'd like to personally thank the Mormons for being so intolerant that state-sanctioned marriage was dissolved altogether. I'd like to quote this, though: While the domestic partner registration exists, that doesn't mean that everyone will follow it. That fact is interesting since, "All the rights of marriage," can be disregarded on a whim or not recognized outside of the state. So, basically you're required to stay in-state if you want it to be recognized and sometimes not even then. All the rights of marriage...yeah...on paper. In reality...not so much.
You are severely distorting the facts here. That was the case before Proposition 8 was passed, too. Other states aren't required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in California, any more than they are required to recognize a RDP from California. Your complaint is as disingenuous as complaining that passing Proposition 8 prohibits same-sex couples from filing their taxes jointly. That is false. The DOMA prohibits that on the federal level, because it made it so that the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, no matter what state (or country) they are performed in. On the state level, RDPs can file their taxes jointly just like a married couple can, and so Proposition 8 doesn't prohibit that. Your complaint above has nothing to do with Proposition 8, and so blaming Mormons for it makes no logical sense. You complaint is based on the Defense of Marriage Act, not Proposition 8, and the LDS Church had nothing to do with its passage into law. Kimball Kinnison
Not true, and you know it, KK. The LDS Church outside California poured some heavy bank into the Prop 8 campaign, and used false arguments in telephone canvassing and radio/tv spots to scare people into voting yes. They actually did such a great job, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the leaders of that campaign were one day hired by Rove and the Republican National Committee.
Cheveyo, In your desire to prove me wrong, you failed to actually read what I wrote. Please not the use of commas around the phrase "not Proposition 8" in my last sentence. That indicates that it is an aside, not the subject of that clause. The LDS Church had nothing to do with the passage of the DOMA. Your response invovled Proposition 8, and so is entirely irrelevant to my post. Kimball Kinnison
Now, KK, are you truly feigning innocence on the part of LDS relating to DOMA? Are you really suggesting that LDS took no part in pushing for DOMA? It seems the LDS church has been actively participating in pushing anti-gay legislation (not just SSM, but also anti-discrimination laws that would protect homosexuality) for some time.
I'm sorry, but how is that link in any way connecting the LDS Church to the DOMA? In the entire timeline listed, there is not one mention of the DOMA, even though it has 16 entries specifically dated in 1996 (the year DOMA was passed). If you have any evidence (as opposed to insinuations) to support your allegation, then present it. If not, then don't waste our time with unsubstantiated accusations. Kimball Kinnison
That isn't the same law, though. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to which I was referring is the federal one, as is clear from the context of my posts (as I was discussing the difference between federal and state laws). The federal DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 and consists of 1 USC 7 and 28 USC 1738C. Not only that, but just because it was passed in Utah doesn't mean that the Church was behind it. I know it is common to treat Utah as though it were run by the President of the LDS Church, but the LDS Church holds no authority over the government of the state, nor has it since Brigham Young stepped down as governor of the Utah territory in 1858. Cheveyo's link has not demonstrated any connection between the passage of the Utah DOMA and involvement of the LDS Church. Again, it merely insinuates such involvement without providing any support for it. When people do that on other subjects (like 9/11, the JFK assassination, and so forth) it's called a conspiracy theory, and usually disregarded unless someone's willing to provide actual proof. Will you hold a different standard here? Kimball Kinnison
Not at all. I just noticed the reference to DOMA and thought you might have missed it and so I brought it up so that you could address it.
Personally I think DOMA should be repealed, and that the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages performed in any state. Everyone should watch this video.
I understand. However, I am getting a little sick of Mormons being the all-purpose boogeyman and whipping boys around here on this topic. FIDo's post specifically blamed Mormons (because of Proposition 8) for something that was based in a federal law passed over 12 years earlier, a law that no one has given any evidence at all to connect the LDS Church to. When I pointed out that FIDo's blame was misplaced, all I get in response is the posts from Cheveyo that contain no real evidence and a lot of accusations and insinuations. I thought we had some measure of intellectual standards here in the Senate. I thought we required people to provide proof to back things up, rather than just tolerate people throwing around wild accusations based on gut feelings. So, let me say this loud and clear to Cheveyo, FIDo, and any others who want to continue to pin all of the blame on Mormons: Either post proof of your claims, or shut up! If you think that the LDS Church was involved in passing the DOMA, then post proof, not allegations. If you are going to claim that something is because of Proposition 8, then make sure your representation is accurate. Stop this pathetic posturing crap, claiming that Proposition 8 keeps gay couples from receiving federal benefits, or anything like that. Yes, some of you are offended that Mormons were involved in passing Proposition 8, but it is really time for all of you to grow up, and stop acting like a bunch of whining two-year-olds. Mormons were only part of the coalition that passed Proposition 8, and to act like we did it on our own is nothing more than trying to make us your scapegoats. Kimball Kinnison
Actually, no. FIDo was blaming Mormons for their efforts to get Prop 8 passed, and therefore for the new issue of making marriage a complete non-state-issue: "Anyway, if it happens I'd like to personally thank the Mormons for being so intolerant that state-sanctioned marriage was dissolved altogether." If Prop 8 hadn't been passed, the push to dissolve state-sanctioned marriage as a compromise would not have been necessary, so if it happens LDS will be somewhat responsible. Also, you might keep in mind that, yes, non-Mormon religious voters played a big part in passing Prop 8, but it's interesting how they generally seem content to let LDS take the overwhelming majority of the heat of the backlash. They're every bit as complicit in the scapegoating as the anti-8 crowd. But in all fairness, it's not entirely 'scapegoating'. From mormonsfor8.com: "As of Nov. 8, 2008, there are 6,585 total donations of $1,000 or more listed here. Of those, 3,365 (51%) have been identified as Mormon/likely Mormon." Considering that Mormons make up something like 2% of California, I think it's fair to say that Mormon contributions to the pro-8 campaign were disproportionately large. Of course, it took a lot of people of other denominations to make the actual votes, and like I said, it's interesting that so few of them are coming out to say, "Stop picking on the Mormons! WE voted for 8 too!" Personally, I think the reason Mormonism comes up so much in this thread is because the people defending anti-gay-marriage positions tend to be Mormon. And I think you should consider AT least as much time complaining about the non-Mormon pro-8 voters who are letting you guys take the heat as you do about the people who are really upset with EVERYONE who supported Prop 8 but have basically only been given the one public face to confront.
My comments were threefold: 1) I hate the DOMA and blame that as much as anything for the current state of affairs, 2) Mormons who contributed to the Prop. 8 campaign. I feel no sympathy for them whatsoever. If not for pushing this issue by them I probably wouldn't have a reason to dislike the LDS faith. But 'ehh...farewell to that. 3) Domestic partnership registration is a damn joke. And touting that as a 'proper substitute' to marriage is just plain foolish. However, my comments were more directed to domestic partnership not being recognized out of state. Say what you want, but it's not even close to same-sex marriage. Therefore the fact that it's not even recognized out of state is pathetic. Yes, the DOMA is the reason why, but it shouldn't since there's no 'marriage' involved in the act.
Well, first, KK, the chronology I presented illustrates a very clear and consistent behavior on the part of the Mormon church in regards to combating equal rights for homosexuals (both for SSM and for anti-discrimination laws) nationwide. Second, I'm working on information right now that shows LDS lobbying groups contributed to pushing for the 1996 federal DOMA. The name of one group was the Coalition for Traditional Marriage. In 1996, meetings were held in every Texas LDS chapel urging Mormons to join and participate in the Coalition. Additionally, in 1994, the church created fliers offering advice on how to create anti-gay-marriage PACs. These were distributed at Mormon congregations nationwide. When I have more info, I'll post it. Third, DOMA was written in direct response to what looked like would be the failure to prevent same-sex marriages in Hawaii, which the Mormon church actively fought. Anti-gay lobbies, including groups funded by LDS, pushed for the legislation, and the Republican Congress obliged. And in a related topic, The Mormon church has reached out to it's members to fight new legislation in Illinois that would grant civil unions to same-sex couples. So, is this really about gay marriage, or is it about being gay? Oh, and here is the email in question. The church of LDS doesn't need any outside source to vilify, KK. It's doing a pretty good job on its own by its own actions.
So, let me say this loud and clear to Cheveyo, FIDo, and any others who want to continue to pin all of the blame on Mormons: Either post proof of your claims, or shut up! I missed this point: Okay, here's some proof, the boy scouts kicking out homosexuals after the Mormon takeover of that group. The rabid support for anti-homosexual legislation such as Prop 8. I'm not blaming it all on one faith, however, 'ehh...the LDS did choose to make itself the public face of homosexual discrimination. So, if that doesn't apply to you I'd seriously question the direction my faith was heading; just as I thought about whether I wanted to be associated with people who have militant Atheist beliefs.
LostonHoth posted: have say in how the incapacitated spouse is treated medically and how their financial affairs are to be organized whilst they are incapacitated or even whether the spouse has a right to even visit the incapacitated spouse. One of the biggest imputeses for gay marriage was the death by dog attack of a San Francisco woman whose lesbian lover had no say in her final arrangements, etc. (The lawyer who owned/controlled the dog in question is serving a lengthy sentence for second degree murder and was disbarred by the state bar a while ago). This is one of the most important reasons why we can't have a "separate but equal" civil partnership. Marriage is the only legal partnership recognized by all states for the purposes listed in LoH's post. To say that gay sex is unnatural is basically missing the point. The fact is that everything we do as humans is unnatural. Wearing clothes is unnatural, building houses, cities, highways, cars, etc., ad infinitum, is unnatural. Even medicine is unnatural. We choose to dominate our environment, rather than living in harmony with it. All states must recognize the acts, judicial decisions, etc., of all other states according to the US constitution, so one state cannot arbitrarily decide that it won't recognize a legal matter from another state, even if it is a gay person's marriage license, duly and lawfully issued in the state it originated in.
That isa circumstantial case at best. Like I said, do you have any proof of your claims, or just more accusations? Tell you what. What don't you simply refrain from making the accusations until you have the "more info"? So far, you have simply continued with your accusations, without actually supporting any of it. Again, that is circumstantial. Finally you are providing something, except that you are blowing it out of proportion, either on purpose or through ignorance. Let me educate you a little. That is an email sent by the Bishop of one ward, posted to their ward web site. As your own article says, the Church itself hasn't taken any position on the legislation, either for or against. I have a fairly detailed knowledge of what is involved in sending a communication like that, because I am currently serving as my ward's Website Administrator and also as the Ward Membership Clerk. Contrary to what your article claims, the Church didn't consolidate all ward websites into the main Church site in order to maintain editorial control over them. It is done to make it easier for people to find information about their ward or stake, and to make it easier to update private information (such as the current ward directory, or leadership roster, both of which publish details like addresses and phone numbers that the Church will not make public for many good reasons). If I post a notice to the ward web site, it doesn't get reviewed by Church headquarters to make sure I can post it. It is posted immediately. There's even a place for members to submit ward news or calendar items for me (or a member of the Bishopric) to approve. And yet, you are treating that email as though it is part of a Church-wide campaign. If it were so, it wouldn't have been an email from a Bishop, but a printed letter from the First Presidency. Your own sources, in their updates, emphasize this. The original email starts by saying "This message has been authorized for sending by Bishop Church.", and the follow up message from Bishop Church himself states: "Members of the Church may take any action they wish concerning legislation but the Church does not take any position in relation to these issues." Nowhere in any of the messages does it say that the message was approved or
Then I assume you deny everything put forth about the Church of LDS and its 33-year (at least) campaign against gay rights. You are suggesting the church is neutral in this political debate? Yes, when I say 33-year I have something rather specific in mind. It was in 1976 that the LDS Church took on a significant role against the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). From then LDS President Spencer Kimball, a main concern was that if the ERA were approved, it would lead to changes in civil rights laws to give equal rights to gays and lesbians. The little tidbit about HI's same-sex marriage ruling and the Mormon church... it is well documented and publicized that the state supreme court ruling in Baehr v. Miike forced the DOMA into existance because opponents of gay marriage were afraid that gay marriages in HI would have to be recognized in every state. And as was noted before, the LDS church had its hands sunk deeply into the HI fight against gay marriage. Keep in mind, too, that all the way back in 1988 the church hired the marketing firm Hill and Knowlton to "monitor and promote the church's stance on gay issues in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress." "Following the [HI Supreme Court] ruling, Hawaii's legislature became embroiled in competing measures, and the LDS leadership expanded the role of Hill and Knowlton, a firm known for legislative lobbying and consulting, before eventually changing to another firm, Edelman Worldwide, for its external public relations work."(source) And lastly, regarding the "circumstantial" timeline: Kim Farah, LDS spokeswoman, does not dispute the claims of the Crapo timeline. Farah contends that the 1997 memo reflects a church position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage that has remained "highly consistent," referring the B.A.R. to the 1995 document on the issue by Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman described in the Crapo timeline. (source) But all this is of course circumstantial. IUn fact, I think I made it all up just to make the LDS look bad. Like I said before, the church doesn't need any external sources to vilify it in this discussion. Its own actions do it very well on its own.
If it's only a ward or not, the fact remains that it's a blight on the LDS if it's not a 'church wide position'. Which probably makes it worse because no one has stepped up and denounced the letter or even clarified their position. True, that sounds conspiracy theory-ish, but the fact remains that nobody has spoken up against it. So, I'm left only to conclude that 'silent agreement' is in effect.
No. What I am saying is that the Church itself has always been very limited in its actual involvement in political activities, including on SSM and related issues. You have been treating the LDS Church as though is has been the driving force behind every anti-SSM activity in the past several decades. For most of it, the LDS Church has played a very minor role in various coalitions, when it has had any direct involvement at all. As I said before, you are blowing a lot of things completely out of proportion. In fact, you seem to be going out of your way to ignore details on the other side, just so you can paint a caricature as a straw man. You talk about the LDS Church as though it is out to maliciously repress homosexuals, and to paint it as such, you ignore your own links. Your own article you just linked to points out the sincerity of the LDS leadership: You ignore that, even as your articles are also full of inaccuracies and distortions. (For example, that BAR article claimed that Gordon B. Hinckley was President of the Church in 1988, when it was Ezra Taft Benson. Hinckley didn't become President until 1995.) Your articles present assumptions as though they are facts, without providing any support for them. For example, the BAR article says: The LDS Church did not pass Utah's DOMA. The Utah Legislature did. The two are not one and the same, and if they are going to insinuate that the Church pushed the whole thing through, then they need to document it, not simply claim it. Until then, it remains nothing more than an allegation, not a fact. I have no problem with criticism, as long as it is valid and actually takes things in context. I do have a problem with your ignoring or simply not caring about how accurate things are (such as your citing the Illinois email, and distorting it). Kimball Kinnison EDIT: Did you even read the "source email" link that Cheveyo gave? Bishop Church himself clarified it and stated that it wasn't the Church's position.
Of course not. I just don't believe someone like that. I just have no reason to believe the Bishop given the church's history of homosexual discrimination.
