Gay Patriot Header Image

Angry Gay Activists Demonize Mormons

I updated a previous post to include a comment from Todd Zywicki, a year ahead of me at the University of Virgnia School of Law and my predecessor as Vice President from Programming of our chapter of the Federalist Society.

Believing Todd’s post merited more attention than an update, I decided to devote an entire post to his piece, excerpting rather generously.  Like me, he wonders at opponents of Proposition 8 picketing the Mormons:

So let me get this right–those who are upset about the passage of Proposition 8 in California have decided that the thing to do is to pick on the Mormons? So one marginalized group decides that the way to go is to vent their outrage against another marginalized group in society? Unbelieveable.

And he asks for understanding of those who have different views on the topic:

Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage, this is a question on which thoughtful people of goodwill can and do disagree. It is a perfectly reasonable and good-faith position to believe that marriage is a unique institution formed around childrearing. And to see same-sex relationships as fundamentally a bilateral partnership between two adults that can be governed by legal institutions like civil unions that create and preseve rights and obligations between two adults and to give the opportunity to form a long-lasting mutually-supportive loving bond without it being centered on the fundamental organizational principle of childrearing. And it is significant that married people with children apparently simply see this issue differently from everyone else–I speak from experience that marriage and children simply can and should change you as a person and your worldview. Maybe one disagrees with this argument or these people. But it is a perfectly compassionate and coherent position and it simply is not necessarily bigotry or gay-bashing to believe that. Barack Obama says he is against same-sex marriage–does that make him a bigot?

That’s not to say that some anti-gay bigots voted for Prop 8. But apparently the pro-8 side does not have a monopoly on bigotry.

Read the whole thing!

Via Glenn who adds “It occurs to me that picketing a mosque would be per se racist. Except that they’d be afraid to, anyway.

Share

56 Comments

  1. The left was never really anti-bigotry. They just wanted to be the ones who decided who it was okay to be bigoted against.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2008 @ 10:18 am - November 8, 2008

  2. The LDS church played a powerful role in the yes on 8 campaign, so it’s not like some gays are just randomly targeting Mormons for abuse, or even scapegoating them. They got out the vote, and their church does have some principals that offend traditional American values, namely the racist history of the church and the persistent sexism (priesthood, anyone?) that put LDS closer on the scale toward fundamentalist Islam. And we’re bigots for pointing out that the people who funded the campaign are extremists? I think not. (Though I also acknowledge the LDS church has positive aspects and diversity within – it would simply be better off were it not a dictatorship.)

    Comment by Kari — November 8, 2008 @ 10:55 am - November 8, 2008

  3. V the K – nothing to add, you’ve said it all.

    Comment by Leah — November 8, 2008 @ 12:22 pm - November 8, 2008

  4. Groups and States Face Boycotts Over Prop 8

    “Groups such as the CAIR, NAACP and Reconquista will find decreased fund raising and dwindling support in California due to the voter demographics they represent voting in favor of the constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriage (Prop 8)…”

    If only it was true. Face it folks Gays did not get pushed to the back of the bus they were THROWN under not once but twice. By non-white voters for passing prop 8 and then again by the dummycrats (not so dum if they foxed you twice) by USING you to blame the passing of prop 8 on the whole Mormon, Christian, conservative right = white. Why should I support Gay “rights” when they allow themselves to be used and discarded as just another political tool?

    Boycotts work both ways people….

    GoingThere

    Comment by GoingThere — November 8, 2008 @ 12:37 pm - November 8, 2008

  5. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me! When are Gays going to get it? non-white voters are why prop 8 passed. They used you then and they are using you now. Then to win a presidency and now to center your attack the “wrong” people. Not that the Mormons are innocent but look at the numbers people. Whites which in acceptable political speak are trash voted against prop 8.

    GoingThere

    Comment by GoingThere — November 8, 2008 @ 12:42 pm - November 8, 2008

  6. Dan, the LDS Church waded into politics — which it has every right to do outside of some pretty specific IRS limitations — and contributed millions of dollars in time and money to Prop 8 as well as similar measures across the country.

    Those contributions directly propagated some of the most reprehensible lies about the Gay community, resulting in not only the removal of our right to marry in California, our ability to foster and adopt in Arkansas, the potential to marry in Arizona but even the right to Domestic Partnerships in Florida.

    They aren’t the only group — other Non-Denominational and Catholic organizations contributed, as well as cultural attitudes of the larger African-American community, contributed as well — but they are perhaps the singular and most visible one.

    Sure thoughtful people can disagree, but if they’ve argued in bad faith — which the Yes on 8 group specifically did with their numerous and documented lies about what Gay Marriage meant — it’s not “demonizing” them to protest their role in the process. It’s part of the process they freely participated in.

    Comment by Jody — November 8, 2008 @ 1:23 pm - November 8, 2008

  7. Oh c’mon, GoingThere!

    Everyone knows that the Mormon Church is packed with blacks and Latinos.

    Comment by Draybee — November 8, 2008 @ 1:25 pm - November 8, 2008

  8. Yeah, stick it to them Mormons! If we get rid of Mormons, then gay marriage will become legal again. Everyone knows that Barack Obama is pro-gay marriage but the Mormons won’t let him admit it.

    Comment by Right Turn — November 8, 2008 @ 1:47 pm - November 8, 2008

  9. That does it. I’m going to Compton and East LA to give those blacks and Latinos what’s coming to them! Who’s with me?!

    Comment by Right Turn — November 8, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - November 8, 2008

  10. Jody, could provide some examples of those “lies” that were spread by opponents of Prop 8? I know the losing side claimed it was a “lie” that without Prop 8, schools would be required to teach about same-sex marriage. But then, proponents looked it up in the state law and dang it, turns out the schools are required to teach about marriage.

    Never mind the lesbian teacher who thought taking her first graders to see a lesbian wedding was a swell educational experience.

    And Draybee may be interested to learn that there are >1 million Mormons in Mexico, another 3 million in South America, another half million in Central America, and over a quarter of a million in Africa. Gladys Knight is a Mormon. I was ordained into the priesthood by a Hispanic member.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2008 @ 1:56 pm - November 8, 2008

  11. Jody, could provide some examples of those “lies” that were spread by opponents of Prop 8? I know the losing side claimed it was a “lie” that without Prop 8, schools would be required to teach about same-sex marriage. But then, proponents looked it up in the state law and dang it, turns out the schools are required to teach about marriage.

    Never mind the l-e-s-b-i-a-n teacher who thought taking her first graders to see a l-e-s-b-i-a-n wedding was a swell educational experience.

    And Draybee may be interested to learn that there are >1 Mil Mormons in Mexico, another 3 Mil in South America, another half Mil in Central America, and over a quarter of a Mil in Africa. Gladys Knight is a Mormon. I was ordained into the priesthood by a Hispanic member.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - November 8, 2008

  12. I was trying to figure that out too, Jody; after all, the Yes on 8 advertisements said that churches would be picketed and protested and that lawsuits would be filed to punish churches that didn’t allow gay marriage.

    Isn’t that what gays are doing now?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2008 @ 2:56 pm - November 8, 2008

  13. #4: Jody – If it’s accurate to say that the LDS church waded into politics then would it not also be correct to say that politics have waded into the church (e.g. Catholic Charities leaving the adoption “business” in Massachusetts because of discrimination laws)?

    Many people (including non-religious people) are becoming alarmed at the encroachment of the “PC agenda” into the schools and are willing grasp at any thing they can to “hit the brakes”.

    I am not religious at all but I find the anti-religious bigotry offensive (and counter-productive in the extreme).

    I might add that the adoption measure in Arkansas is asinine. Someone should ask these people just where all these kids in need of adoptive parents are coming from? Is the stork leaving them?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 8, 2008 @ 4:25 pm - November 8, 2008

  14. The title of this post would make a terrific left-wing gay group. (AGADM – Angry Gay Activists Demonizing Mormons) Oh wait – such a title would be too honest. It would confess too much.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm - November 8, 2008

  15. Todd Zywicki’s post (quoted by GPW) has an update worth pondering. He quotes Pam’s House Blend, who quotes Rod 2.0, who quotes a UCLA student who describes activist gays now extending their hatred to blacks as well as Mormons. It seems that the anti-Mormon protest we’re discussing featured gay, white men shouting anti-black epithets:

    It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

    Rod quotes another of his readers showing that carrying a “No on 8” was no protection from the anti-black epithets:

    Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

    To me, all this makes perfect sense. Left politics reduces human beings to their group identities / group memberships. Hence, inter-group conflict, demonization and bigotry are always bubbling just beneath any far-leftie’s thin skin. They hate admitting it, of course. They prefer to project it onto non-leftists.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2008 @ 5:29 pm - November 8, 2008

  16. Wow. You’re all a bunch of idiots with your heads up your asses.

    Comment by Chase — November 8, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - November 8, 2008

  17. I’d like to know which “lies” Jody is talking about as well.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 9:07 pm - November 8, 2008

  18. So, Jody, are you going to put up, or shut up?

    I’m guessing you can’t do the first and you won’t do the second.”

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - November 8, 2008

  19. Picketing a mosque would be “per se racist”?

    What bullshit!

    Comment by Dave — November 8, 2008 @ 11:23 pm - November 8, 2008

  20. Spending the evening in West Hollywood last night I was struck by a few things: Nowhere did I see people being sprayed by fire-hoses, nowhere did I see police dogs being set loose on people, nowhere did I see drinking fountains for straight and gay. What I did see were people having a good time and well dressed, drinking expensive drinks and driving expensive cars. In a lot of ways the Gay community has it pretty good and has come a long way, not the overly repressed minority the No on 8 crowd seems to try to portray and whine about.

    Sure there is discrimination and bigotry and this has to be addressed but to shout awful demeaning things and have callous disregard for other people’s opinions and religious beliefs will just make the Yes on 8 crowd angrier and less likely to want to start a dialogue for change. I am embarrassed for the community and definitely believe the radical element has hijacked it and may cause irreparable harm.

    Comment by Mark — November 9, 2008 @ 12:10 am - November 9, 2008

  21. The counterpoint to Todd Zywicki’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy was given in a commentary by Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin.

    Mr. Kincaid takes exception to the Mormon leadership’s call for “those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other.” Timothy is of the opinion that “gay couples were vilified, harassed and subject to dump truck loads of erroneous information during the campaign that the Mormon church itself played an enormous role in waging.” (His post has links to back up these claims; readers here should check them out to decide for themselves.)

    The bulk of his commentary, however, is devoted to looking at how the Mormon Church acted like a political group during the Propositon 8 (California) and Proposition 102 (Arizona) campaigns. He cites some of the Church’s political actions and concludes the Church’s leaders acted within their rights in a democratic nation. He goes on to say that by exercising their political rights the Mormon Church has to accept the political consequences:

    When the Mormon church chose to enter the political sphere, the fact that they are a religious institution became irrelevant. They led non-Mormons in their political campaign, and they exhorted everyone – regardless of their religious affiliation — to vote on amendments which affected everyone, Mormons and non-Mormons alike. This was a democratic political campaign, not a religious one. We were voting on constitutional amendments, not theology.

    …as citizens leading a political campaign, they cannot escape public accountability for their public actions, especially when their political actions were seen by many as dirty, degrading, dishonest, and most definitely un-Christian. After all that, the leadership of the LDS cannot suddenly change roles, toss up their hands and say, “You can’t criticize us! We’re a religion!” They forfeited that right when they threw themselves enthusiastically into a non-religious, political campaign. They forfeited that right when they left the temple and entered the world of Caesar. They are politicians now, and they deserve the same scrutiny and criticism due to any other political leader or movement.

    Although I have strongly disagreed with Timothy Kincaid on the role of the judiciary in the debate over same-sex marriage (the argument is ongoing), I must admit his conclusion seems pefectly sound:

    It is not scapegoating to point out the facts, nor is it Mormon-bashing to criticize their agenda and tactics. This is all fair game in politics — politics which the Mormon church eagerly entered.

    This is not bigotry or discrimination against a religion. It is criticism leveled against what is now seen as a powerful political organization. That is perfectly legitimate.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 12:42 am - November 9, 2008

  22. I made another post that your spam filter caught!

    Be sure to retrieve it.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 12:45 am - November 9, 2008

  23. gay couples were vilified, harassed… during the campaign…

    Really? Which gay couples were vilified and harassed by roving Mormons? I don’t recall any. I do recall adds which pointed out that gay activists are lawsuit-happy, and that gay marriage would logically have to be taught in CA schools since marriage in general is taught in CA schools, by law. Those fears may or may not have been exaggerated, but, to the point here, I don’t recall those ads vilifying or harassing gay couples – either specifically or as a category. Didn’t some campaign materials even reassure Californians that gay couples would keep their Civil Union rights under Prop 8? I forget, but if that were the case, it would be the opposite of gay couples being vilified or harassed.

    Also, Dave, aren’t you the Dave who has promised to leave about 90 zillion times by now? Or is that another Dave?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 1:47 am - November 9, 2008

  24. >So, Jody, are you going to put up, or shut up?

    V, do you wait before you post, or does being snotty, bitchy and trifling just form an irrepressible wave you have to vomit forth? Some of us have these things called “lives.” As much as I’d love to hang and respond to your every charming word, I do have more important things that take precedence. Like cliping hangnails.

    Dave up the page links to Timothy Kincaid’s post outlining the lies of the LDS church and the nasty behavior they financially supported.

    From the No on 8 Website… as well as several news articles… some of those fictions included:

    -Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gay people.
    -Teaching children/kindergardeners about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
    -Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
    -Four Activist Judges in San Francisco imposed this on the state
    -If Prop 8 isn’t passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs.
    -Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.
    -Unless Prop 8 passes, California parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.
    -Obama supported Prop 8

    >But then, proponents looked it up in the state law and dang it, turns out the schools are required to teach about marriage.

    No, CA 51890 doesn’t require teaching kindergardeners about gay marriage. The California Superior Court told the Yes on 8 people to stop saying it did. They didn’t.

    That’s not arguing “in a spirt of mutual respect and civility towards each other.”

    >Never mind the l-e-s-b-i-a-n teacher who thought taking her first graders to see a l-e-s-b-i-a-n wedding was a swell educational experience.

    The students who attended the trip did so with parental approval. The teacher didn’t “take” the children anywhere.

    >And Draybee may be interested to learn that there are…

    The LDS only opened up the Melchizedek priesthood to blacks in 1978. From 1849 to 1978, blacks and anyone else with “one drop of the seed of a Cain” were second class members of the LDS, forbidden from performing and participating in the most important of ceremonies and rites. Interestingly, the “revelation” that lifted this prohibition occurred months before the Church announced the building of a new temple in San Paulo, Brazil, a country where a significant percentage of the population is multi-racial.

    >advertisements said that churches would be picketed and protested and that lawsuits would be filed to punish churches that didn’t allow gay marriage. Isn’t that what gays are doing now?

    No, they’re protesting various churches political expenditures and advocacy. You know that.

    >If it’s accurate to say that the LDS church waded into politics then would it not also be correct to say that politics have waded into the church (e.g. Catholic Charities leaving the adoption “business” in Massachusetts because of discrimination laws)?

    No, because adoption is a matter of civil law. Catholic Charities adoptions were done under state law; they had to abide by the same set of laws and regulations secular agencies and organizations did. It wasn’t “their” business.

    >I might add that the adoption measure in Arkansas is asinine.

    Agreed. But bigoted forces would rather children rot in group homes than be fostered or adopted by stable, loving gay ones. Assholes.

    The LDS can’t openly advocate and organize for political measures then plead religious bigotry when called to the carpet for what they did. Well they can — and they are — but it’s part of the political process they chose to participate in.

    Comment by Jody — November 9, 2008 @ 2:00 am - November 9, 2008

  25. You’re all a bunch of… [demonizing dumb names]

    Chase, coming from you, that is a compliment 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 2:02 am - November 9, 2008

  26. #15: Using racial slurs is offensive to the 30% of blacks who voted against Prop 8. They are not the enemy. Black gays are not the enemy.

    And I will gladly protest a mosque. They oppose gay breathing not just gay marriage.

    Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2008 @ 2:41 am - November 9, 2008

  27. No, they’re protesting various churches political expenditures and advocacy. You know that.

    Thank you for making the bigotry of gays so obvious, in that you admit gay and lesbian liberals believe that churches and church members have no right to be involved in politics or to advocate for any issues because of their religious beliefs.

    The First Amendment disagrees with you, but then again, gay bigots never stopped for the Constitution before, so why should they start now?

    Meanwhile, since you demand that these organizations be stripped of their tax-exempt status, I think it only fair that all gay organizations, all of which are involved in politics and advocate for issues, be stripped of theirs first. Do you support that, Jody?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2008 @ 3:55 am - November 9, 2008

  28. Unfortunately for Jody, both the California Superintendent of schools and the opponents of proposition 8 admitted that teaching marriage was required in schools and parents would not have any say about it.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 7:12 am - November 9, 2008

  29. Also, am I to understand that because the LDS church dared to defend traditional marriage, it’s now okay for ghey activists to threaten to burn down their churches? Because that seems to be the point that is being glossed over here.

    Americablog: (After listing the addresses of Mormon facilities.) “I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice.”

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

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

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 7:23 am - November 9, 2008

  30. Thirdly, what happens in the real world when parents object to an activist curriculum in the school, or when parents object to inappropriate materials in a library? The media, the teachers union, and the librarians all gang up on the parents and portray them as intolerant loons who should just sit back and let the “professional educators” indoctrinate their children as they see fit.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 7:28 am - November 9, 2008

  31. And even though the California Teacher’s Unions spent $40 million opposing Prop 8, no one is suggesting they have no right to enter into a political debate, much less that their union halls be burned down.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 7:52 am - November 9, 2008

  32. Unfortunately, some of the more militant voices on the left seem to be arguing that the freedom of association is optional if it’s a religious organization.

    Also, can we please stop using discrimination and bigotry interchangably? I lived in a very nice apartment complex that chose to discriminate by making their renters sign a no alcohol promise. Quietest apartment I’d ever been in. That’s fine.

    Saying “No gays becasue they’re always drunk.” that’s bigorty.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 9, 2008 @ 10:41 am - November 9, 2008

  33. V, you neglect to mention that those idiot remarks you quote were comments on the blog, not from the bloggers themselves. You’re as good as those against us, take a bit of truth, warp it and use it as “fact”

    Comment by a different Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 11:21 am - November 9, 2008

  34. Only true if the other commenters or the blog-owners reprimanded them.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 12:48 pm - November 9, 2008

  35. A group that virtually owns Utah, and controls the goings-on in several other states. is hardly a marginalized group. They wield a heck of a lot of power. They are, of course, capable of change.

    An example was when Nixon mentioned using his attack dogs (some folks use the name “Justice Department”) to investigate their tax-exempt status due to their racism, the chief poobah (the top elder) “had a vision…” and the policy changed.

    The same could happen regarding the evil terrible nasty horrid homosexuals as well. The LDS is nothing if not pragmatic.

    Lest anyone think I hate Mormons, I don’t. Most I have met have been wonderful, proper, decent people. It’s their church I find so off-putting.

    Comment by the friendly grizzly — November 9, 2008 @ 1:29 pm - November 9, 2008

  36. ILoveCapitalism,

    I am not any Dave who has promised to leave. There are too many Dave’s here, I guess.

    I posted quotes from Timothy Kincaid’s commentary for the reason I stated, to provide a counterpoint to Zywicki. GPW endorses Zywicki’s view and I hoped he would have something to say about Kincaid’s. I likewise posted about Zywicki’s comments at BTB. So far neither GPW nor Kincaid has responded.

    Now I asked readers to go to Kincaid’s piece on Box Turtle Bulletin and follow the links he gives to examples of the bad-behavior he cites. (I didn’t provide the links myself hoping to avoid the spam filter. That didn’t work, ironically.)

    You obviously didn’t read any of what Kincaid gives as evidence. He certainly didn’t mention any “roving Mormons.”

    I don’t find all of Kincaid’s evidence compelling. But from the harassed link he gives details about a threat letter sent out by the Yes on Prop 8 folks:

    San Diego realtor Jim Abbot received one of those letters featuring a Yes on 8 letterhead … That letter read, in part:

    “Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you. … Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. … Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. 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.”

    The letter was signed by four members of Yes on 8’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, ProtectMarriage.com’s lawyer.

    (He provides a link to a pdf of the entire letter.)

    Tim and the rest at BTB consider this tactic to be blatant (and probably illegal) extortion. What especially has Tim’s ire about sending the letter to Abbot is this:

    Jim Abbot, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August

    There is a news report on this story at CBS-8.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - November 9, 2008

  37. Jody,

    Your post (#24) was pretty good, but you made one glaring mistake:

    It was not a lie to say that “”Four Activist Judges in San Francisco imposed this on the state.”

    What the California Supreme Court did was clearly judicial activism.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - November 9, 2008

  38. So, this Abbott fellow decided that it was “extortion” to publicize his support of groups opposed to Prop 8. So, then, he goes to the media, so that everyone knows about his support of opposition to Prop 8.

    Some extortion.

    And that’s if the letter is even legitimate. It was pretty sloppy to leave the internet website information on the bottom of one page… which commonly happens when you print a page directly off the innerwebs.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 2:13 pm - November 9, 2008

  39. V the K,

    I am uncomfortable with your assertion concerning Prop 8 opponents conceding what the proposition’s proponents said about teaching children.

    At the post you link to, Ace said,

    I sometimes grow weary with political experts like Karl Rove speaking so much about “the message.” “The message,” I tend to think, is PR nonsense; it’s the facts that matter.

    Well, this is why they pay guys like Karl Rove a lot of money. “The message” can win.

    That doesn’t sound like an endorsement of the truthfulness of the Yes people’s ad.

    When California’s Superindent of Public Instruction spoke out against the Yes campaign he was discussing state regulations. The No proponent alluded to in the ad seems to refer to local school curricula. The two campaigns are talking past one another. (Of course the Yes ad’s claim contradicts the superindent’s claim about parental rights under California law, but looking at the applicable laws should settle that.)

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 2:14 pm - November 9, 2008

  40. Parents are, in general, smarter than the education bureaucracy gives them credit for. The bureaucracy got weaselly, and tried to sell the idea that they weren’t compelled by law to teach specifically about gay marriage. But parents figured out that the activist unions sure-as-hell would teach about same sex marriage. Especially considering the NEA considers advancing a gay rights agenda to be a top priority.

    When a lesbyun (for the filter) teacher decided that getting married in front of her first grade class was a “teachable moment” it pretty much confirmed what parents suspected all along.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 2:38 pm - November 9, 2008

  41. V,

    I agree that teachers and teacher unions will try to find ways to do what they want regardless of parents’ wishes. But that was happening before the California Supreme Court intervened in the same-sex marriage controversy, and will continue to happen even after the passage of Prop 8.

    None of this answers the questions raised by the pro-Prop 8 advertising, nor does the example of the field-trip in San Francisco. That was decided on a local level, and it was San Francisco after all!

    As for the letter sent to Abbot (and other businesses) the Yes on 8 campaign admitted they sent the letter. You can see this for yourself if you visit the link to the newstory I give in my comment above.

    I admit that threatening to release information that is already available to the public is a lame form of extortion, but extortion is what it was nonetheless.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 3:33 pm - November 9, 2008

  42. #29 V, actually Queerty did. Not sure about the other two. But, Matt Barber, the king of vile anti-gay drool well spiced with exaggerations and fabrications? He has no right to call anything hate speech.

    Comment by a different Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 3:34 pm - November 9, 2008

  43. OK, so even if it was legitimate, “Extortion” seems more than a little hyperbolic, since we are talking about something that was public knowledge, and they were only saying they would urge people to boycott his business, not burn it down or anything.

    Second, OK, so the ad said teachers would teach about gay marriage, and you admit that they would teach about gay marriage. I don’t see any lying anywhere in there. I mean, if they were going to teach about gay marriage, and gay marriage were (corrective subjunctive tense? I don’t know) the law if Proposition 8 failed, it seems logical to assume they would teach that gay marriage was the law in California. I don’t see any dishonesty, except from those who claimed teachers *wouldn’t* teach about gay marriage if Prop 8 failed.

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 4:14 pm - November 9, 2008

  44. Dave, I’m thoroughly unimpressed by anything you’ve quoted of Kincaid.

    [Kincaid] When the Mormon church chose to enter the political sphere, the fact that they are a religious institution became irrelevant.

    A meaningless argument. Are churches never supposed to take a political stand on anything? What about all those churches who have taken stands on issues over the years that Mr. Kincaid would find politically correct or agreeable?

    This was a democratic political campaign, not a religious one

    …in which everybody – EVERYBODY – has a right to take a stand. One would expect a Church’s stand to be informed, shall we say, by the teachings / viewpoint of that church, no? Mr. Kincaid apparently needs to get over it.

    the leadership of the LDS cannot suddenly change roles, toss up their hands and say, “You can’t criticize us! We’re a religion!”

    Whoa! Have they done so? Where? Please post a link here. I thought the LDS church had requested, in Mr. Kincaid’s own quotation of them that he is apparently well aware of, that “those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other.” That’s not saying “You can’t criticize us! We’re a religion!” Is Mr. Kincaid using cheap straw-man tactics?

    San Diego realtor Jim Abbot received one of those letters featuring a Yes on 8 letterhead … That letter read, in part:

    “Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you. … Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. … Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. 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.”

    I asked for evidence to be posted, in this thread, of gay couples being vilified and harassed. That, by itself, ain’t it. It’s (1) looking at public donation records and (2) informing business people that you looked at public donation records and are aware of how they donated and may perhaps choose to pass that on to the general public, for example, to let the public boycott.

    Public donation records and possible consumer boycotts are part of the democratic process, Dave; they’re neither harassment nor vilification. Some liberals have done the same, or threatened to do the same, to Republican donors. Big. deal. If people can’t take the heat – i.e., having their name pointed out in information that we as a society explicitly chose to make as open and public as possible – then they shouldn’t make the donations. When I make a donation, I assume the world will know it; in other words, I don’t make the donation if I’m not prepared for the world to know it.

    (His post has links to back up these claims; readers here should check them out…)
    […]
    You obviously didn’t read any of what Kincaid gives as evidence…

    Indeed. When the proffered teasers amount to nothing, I am in no hurry to wade through the rest of the information. Especially when (in terms of the argument, or who is advocating what) it is not my job, shall we say.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm - November 9, 2008

  45. P.S. To be perfectly clear: There are actions which would constitute vilification and harrassment. Burning someone in effigy, advocating physical injury or violence on them, advocating destruction of their property, organizing a campaign of harassing phone calls in the middle of the night or pickets at their employer or their child’s school, etc. would all be vilification and harassment. And, would be illegal. A few liberal blogs have advocated that sort of thing against known Republican donors. I see no evidence here of Yes on 8 advocating that against Abbott. There is a range of legal, reasonable and proper steps their followers could do against Abbott: such as, again, simply not giving Abbott their business. Absent other evidence, we may assume and should assume that’s what they have in mind.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 4:51 pm - November 9, 2008

  46. Now this is vilification and harassment:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/277772.php

    A man is arrested – arrested!! – for doing nothing but showing up to exercise his First Amendment rights peacefully and calmly by wearing a McCain-Palin T-shirt. The officers ask him to leave, and he’s willing to, but he needs to get to his car. They don’t care.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 5:22 pm - November 9, 2008

  47. (And if McCain had won and someone were arrested for wearing an Obama T-shirt just as calmly and peacefully, that would also be vilification and harassment.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 5:25 pm - November 9, 2008

  48. V the K,

    I don’t see how the term extortion is over the top since they were demanding money in exchange for not doing something the target might find disagreeable. It’s textbook extortion.

    As for the public education brouhaha, there was a bit of lying by ommission on both sides here. Each party was only interested in the aspects that favored its own argument, which is typical in politics.

    The Yes side made a suppositon: legally recognizing same-sex marriage will increase the drive to discuss the same in public schools. That is plausible.

    The No side knew that the laws on education were not changed by the Supreme Court’s actions, and would not be changed by Prop 8. Discussion of homosexuality already occurs in schools and will continue so for them the issue was a red-hering.

    Classic arguing past one another.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 6:16 pm - November 9, 2008

  49. If teaching about gay marriage in schools is a good thing, and an important agenda item for the NEA, why don’t they come out and say so?

    The proponents of Proposition 8 can well articulate that they are opposed to it, and why. Why can’t those who support teaching same-sex marriage make *their* case instead of making implausible denials?

    Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 6:34 pm - November 9, 2008

  50. ILoveCapitalism,

    Yes, I knew you hadn’t bothered to read the short posts Kincaid linked to in the intro of his commentary. That was obvious. I find your explanation for not doing so disappointing.

    When the proffered teasers amount to nothing, I am in no hurry to wade through the rest of the information. Especially when (in terms of the argument, or who is advocating what) it is not my job, shall we say.

    If you are unwilling to look at the arguments Kincaid makes for his claims of uncivil behavior you cannot fully understand where he is coming from. And if you do not look at them you are not really in a position to say that the claims “amount to nothing.”

    I am not here to defend all of Mr. Kincaid’s sentiments about the Yes on 8 campaign. I cannot because I don’t fully share them. But if you want to understand the likes of Kincaid then, yes, wading through their info is your job. I specifically invited readers here to that task. (The implied hint was to do so before commenting on Kincaid’s opinion of how gays were treated during the campaign.)

    As for you being unimpressed with Kincaid’s commentary as far as I’ve quoted from it, you might have done better to read it for yourself. Then you’d see that I was telling the truth when I wrote that Kincaid “concludes the Church’s leaders acted within their rights in a democratic nation.”

    Specifically, what Kincaid said is this:

    One thing must be made clear: the leadership of the LDS church has every right to do this. … they are fully free to participate in the political process on the issues — including ballot propositions. To claim otherwise would be to deny the LDS Church’s right to speak out on what it sees as important moral issues. It would also deny the rights of LDS members to fully participate in the democratic process.

    So there is nothing that Kincaid need get over here.

    As I said in my post (#21) above, Kincaid also insists that the Mormon Chuch must accept the political consequences of its political actions:

    But exercising those rights in the democratic process brings with it public scrutiny and criticism. That, too, is an integral part of the democratic process from which no one is exempt.

    Kincaid’s whole point is that the LDS Church is not exempt from criticism or protest because it is a church. His point is aimed at those who consider religions to be above criticism as well as those who consider protesting a church’s actions to be counterproductive. When a church acts as a political organization in polticial matters, Kincaid consider it fair to treat it the same as any other political organization.

    The entire commentary was provoked by a statement from the LDS Church. Amongst the points it made was this:

    While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

    While the Mormon’s are acknowledging that airing grievances against their position is legit, they are also carving out a special place for themselves as a church. Their religion and most cherished institutions and meeting places are to be consider off limits for protest — a privilege not accorded to non-religious groups.

    I pointed out Kincaid’s commentary because it is a counterpoint to Zywicki’s. GPW pointed out one point of view on protesting the Mormon Church over its Prop 8 and Prop 102 activities; I pointed out another, opposing view.

    I think examing both sides of something is good.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 7:17 pm - November 9, 2008

  51. V the K,

    The proponents of Proposition 8 can well articulate that they are opposed to it, and why. Why can’t those who support teaching same-sex marriage make *their* case instead of making implausible denials?

    A good question.

    In most cases, I imagine those who want same-sex marriage (and other gay concerns) taught in schools can make a straightforward case for their position.

    For the No on 8 crowd, however, the issue of civil gay marriage and teaching homosexual topics in schools were completely separate issues. Their objection was to conflating the two.

    Obviously that approach didn’t work.

    Comment by Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 7:25 pm - November 9, 2008

  52. I admit that threatening to release information that is already available to the public is a lame form of extortion, but extortion is what it was nonetheless.

    As I pointed out on my own blog, the entertainment value of watching groups that were ordering people to dig up “dirt”, who were insisting on donations in exchange for avoiding the wrath of their boycotts, and who themselves were publishing websites with peoples’ names and addresses and encouraging their followers to confront them suddenly scream about extortion is beyond measurement.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - November 9, 2008

  53. I have never seen a more vile, profane, hateful, intolerant, uncouth, uncultured, uncivilized group than the protesters of prop 8. their real true colors are coming through loud and clear.

    Comment by Stephen — November 10, 2008 @ 12:16 am - November 10, 2008

  54. A fair enough point, NDT.

    But to be fair to Kincaid, I don’t think he was involved in anything like that.

    He did support the idea of boycotting the San Diego hotel of a Yes on Prop 8 donor if that is what gay people wanted to do, however I don’t believe there was any demand for payment involved in that effort.

    Comment by Dave — November 11, 2008 @ 12:55 am - November 11, 2008

  55. It was fascinating to read the various opinions about my thoughts on the activism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the debate over whether my arguments had merit.

    But sadly, while I agree with the words attributed to me, they were not mine. That particular commentary came from my fellow Box Turtle Bulletin author, Jim Burroway.

    Oh, but could I write so eloquently as Jim I’d be a happy guy indeed.

    Comment by Timothy Kincaid — November 11, 2008 @ 9:51 pm - November 11, 2008

  56. If you are so angry about this issue that you are starting to hate Mormons, please visit my blog to deal with your hate:

    mormonhatershow.blogspot.com

    Comment by Weston Krogstadt — November 14, 2008 @ 3:15 pm - November 14, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.