Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Post-Prop 8 Goings-On

Oh my word... Things have exploded in the world. I have a few very interesting things to post about what's been happening since the people voted and Prop 8 was passed (as well as related propositions in other states), but I recommend people visit Lili's blog, because she has been keeping quite up to date with a lot of brilliant thoughts and damning evidence of intolerance by the No on 8 crowd.

Let me start by saying this: This is a democracy. Concerning socially desired changes of policy, there is a certain protocol that must be followed. Some such issue is brought to the table, the people vote, and that's it. Sometimes there are changes or amendments or whatever, but in general, that is how it works. When a presidential candidate I don't much care for is elected, I might complain as far as my personal and rational sphere allows, but I suck it up, hope for the best, and move on. When Prop 8 was passed the first time (this news surprised my roommate when I told him yesterday... he wondered why they even voted on it again if it's already passed... Good question, Jeff), that should have been it. Instead, the activists pressured and prodded until the powers that be overturned the voted-upon result and another proposition was up for debate. Does this not steam anybody else?? Does the majority vote not matter anymore?? I don't know why anyone's surprised it passed again, when you think of it. It passed last time, and societal morals don't shift that dramatically in just a few years. I will say that, unfortunately, I feel this is a delay of the inevitable, however, since by the time the older generations are gone, the younger, indoctrinated generation of voters will be around. Who knows, though? Maybe tradition and values will play a part even in the malleable minds of the MTV generation.

So, some of the things going around.

This is an outrageous, unfounded and pretty much ridiculous attack against the Church's involvement in the Proposition 8 issue. I mean... seriously?...

Here is an LA Times article citing the absurd protests at the LA temple... I mean, really, what do they expect? That the temple president is going to say, "Hmmm, you're totally right! Your obviously love-motivated actions have made me realize that the Church and dozens of other churches were wrong to promote family values and traditional morals! Since I'm the head of the LDS Church, I'm going to do something about it right this moment!" Please!!! I've never seen such hatred and intolerance displayed than in the articles about these protests. It's like a child having a tantrum because his mom didn't give him a cookie. And when people start blocking entrance and/or exit from MY temples, I am NOT happy. That's infringing on religious liberties, which ARE unalienable constitutional rights.

Then, a little closer to home, this article tells of the pointless and misdirected efforts of those protesting in Salt Lake City. Honestly, when are these people going to realize that there was a VOTE, and the majority spoke? It's stupid anyway, as if the LDS Church is the only one who participated in support of this proposition? Here's an awesome excerpt from the article:

Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, Calif., and former bishop of the Dioceses of Salt Lake City, lent his support to the LDS Church in a statement Friday.

"Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western civilization for millennia," Weigand said in the statement.

"The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included — but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos."

Weigand called the "bigoted attacks on Mormons" for their part in the coalition "shameful."

"I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them," he said. "I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8."

And finally (for now), this is the ultimate expression of intolerance. See for yourself, it'll blow you away. They dare demand tolerance while exhibiting this kind of behavior?? Can it be a joke?...

One good thing I will cite, though, is a news feature about the SLC protests featuring my dad, and the full, raw footage of the interview with Dad, one of the few people willing to stand up against the attacks and against the moral decline of the country, as far as he's able anyway. I applaud anyone who is brave enough to take a stand like this.

In other avenues, WTH?!? First Richard Dutcher, then Stephenie Meyer, and now Steve Young?? Is it at all possible for a Mormon in the spotlight to stand up and be a decent representative of the Church??


  1. Holy Hannah! I can't beleive they were treating that old woman like that!!! She did handle herself very well though.

    I also liked in the 1st article? when someone said that this was something that the LDS church has had to deal with for a long time. I also heard on the radio today that LDS churches are being vandalized here. It will be interesting to see the way that things go from here.

    The catholic bishop is right and very much appreciated his statement. I am greatful that we have support from righteous people on the earth to defend sacred and eternal morals.

  2. You know, in my opinion, let them rave and rant the way that they are. I think that it's showing the world just how irrational and orchestrated their attacks are, clearly with an agenda. It shows that they have no tact and no sense of humanity, especially considering the way that they harassed the woman that came to exercise her self-same constitutional right of freedom of speech. It shows that they feel that they are above all others, that they are entitled to their "rights" but hypocritically want to strip away all rights of others, in this case the majority. It's obviously such a shock to them that a loud minority was finally out-voiced, where it counted, by the more reserved majority.

    Your dad was fantastic. Smashing hair cut, I must say. But it's true what he said. I think people really need to see these protests as what they are. They are reciprocating the "hate" that they allege they have received. He said that if these same protests and attacks happened outside Muslim mosques, the entire nation would be shocked! What's the difference?! Clearly, they're only getting started. Once these protests' and commercials' shock values wear off, where will they go? What will they turn to? I highly doubt that they'll do what they should and accept the voice of the people. Considering their current behavior, who knows where it will lead them to get more attention?

  3. Very comprehensive. It's all quite crazy. Can you imagine if it went the other way? They'd STILL be acting crazy, and we'd just swallow it and be silenced as usual.

  4. i'm offended... by your rating of Flight of the Concords!!!! it's not 3 STARS!!! you're CRAZY!!! it's definitely 5!!!! poopstain.

  5. You know, if people who are protesting this thing were to take the time to stop and think about it, Mormons *did* practice "alternative" forms of marriage back in their history. Even though we believe such marriages were endorsed by God, it wasn't always pretty. Maybe we MIGHT know what we're talking about on this issue.

    In any case, you'd think the very public LDS stand in favor of Prop 8 would put to rest, once for all, the old slur that most Mormons have an extra wife or two hiding in the back of the closet somewhere (pun intended). If the Church had been in any way apathetic in its support, you can bet they'd be paying for it now: people accusing them of not wanting 8 to pass because it could possibly pave the way for making plural marriage legal again.

    BTW, as far as I can tell from the article, it sounds like Steve Young's *wife* was active in the no-on-8 campaign. Young himself did not give any public endorsement on the subject, other than supporting his wife's right to put her weight behind no-on-8. Obviously I disagree with her decision, but it's hers to make.

  6. Yes, but the problem is that, when questioned, Steve Young refused to take a stand on the issue, deciding rather to dance around a scripted response when asked about it. After all, how would it look if he disagreed with his wife on the subject? Besides, when you're in the spotlight, the celebrity's family becomes everyone's business, not just the celebrity.

    And, the Church's history with plural marriage is one of the reasons the antagonists are angry with the Church's support of Prop 8, seeing as how we once supported "non-traditional" marriage as well. They totally miss the point, but oh well.

  7. Honestly, people are getting way to rude, on both sides. I, personally, was against Prop 8. However, I respect that other people were for it. I really truly do and I know where they are coming from. However, I have had people here be rude to me because I was against it. They made me out to be a bad Mormon. I don't think I am - I just believe gay marriage is a civil issue. I worry that people are going to kill each other over these opinions and it is really sad. Can we just agree to disagree?

  8. Yes AND no, stephyj... If we agree to disagree, we agree that there's no particular right or wrong. When moral issues are involved, there has to be a right and wrong. Also, one side is going to be hurt, so which side? The right or the wrong?

    In cases such as this, I'm grateful to have the Spirit and revelation to let me know right from wrong, even if it seems clear already.

  9. I agree with you on that there are moral issues, but who are we to take away free agency? It's their free agency. I just find it hypocritical that we have laws that protect them from hate crimes directed at them, but in that same constitution we take away some of their civil liberties. I'm not saying their marriage is ordained of God - of course not. Absolutely not - marriage is sacred, and we in the LDS faith know that. But I think there are other issues here being overlooked - issues that are civil, not moral (separation of church and state stuff). I just don't like being treated like a bad person because my opinion is different than someone elses. No one should be made to feel that way, no matter what their opinion on the issue is. I was told that we are put on Earth to love, not to judge. That's where I stand.

  10. Actually, if you read the scripture, we ARE commanded to judge, that is, judge righteously, and judge behavior. We can judge someone's behavior as right or wrong while still loving them.

    Also, agency is not free. It was purchased by the blood of Christ. And having laws protecting children and preventing sinful behavior is not limiting agency, or else why even have commandments? Why have consequences for bad behavior?

    That's all I have to say further on the subject.

  11. Thanks for the mention of my interview with Fox13. They have been fair before when the covered us.

    Oh, and by the way, no one has taken any rights away from anyone on the Prop 8 deal. The radical sexualists have all the same rights as anyone has. Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege passed out with restrictions by societies in order to promote the ultimate benefit of the society. People who decide they would like to expand the inclusions of marriage to accommodate their peculiar sexual predelictions are off the mark.

    It is ok to judge good and evil, right and wrong, and then to actively stand for the one and against the other. It doesn't matter whether we win or lose in the short run. The Lord will ultimately win. The question will be did we stand with the Lord or just stand by and watch.

  12. For the record, I don't believe I've ever stated or intimated that anyone is "idiotic" for their opinion. I can disagree and still think you're a good person. Sheesh.

  13. I would just like to state this. While I know what the very religious think, you have to stop for a moment. God did not write the bible. A human did. And may I point out, its very human to leave out certain facts. We CAN NOT know exactly what god believes and if you recall, the bible has been interpreted wrong before. But this is besides the point. No matter your religious opinion, your thoughts on life should not be allowed to control another person's life. Even though its too late, I'm sure that one day there will be a recall on this topic and so until then.
    Equality to all.

  14. Correction: Inspired man wrote the Bible. Prophets, who were inspired by God, are the ones who wrote and compiled it. The Bible is not just the random musings that some guy decided to write down. It's true, there have been inaccuracies across the years due to incorrect translations and designing men, which is why I believe it is so important to have modern revelation to help us understand ancient and perhaps convoluted doctrine.

    Whatever happens, in the end, may God watch over and direct us all.

  15. Exactly, we have been wrong before. Who's to say we are not wrong in saying gay marriage is wrong? Besides, religion and government should not intermingle.

  16. Right, unless it involves a moral issue and the religious freedoms of the citizens. Which this does.

    And again, I say, I believe in MODERN revelation, which means God speaking to prophets here and now, telling them what we need to know about relevant issues and topics.

    Thanks for your comments, but in case you're new here, please be aware that posting anonymously is frowned upon. If you have something to say, say it with a name. Thank you!

  17. Just passing by and had to voice my opinion.
    Should your morals be able to define someone else's? I think not. Many people have said straight to my face that I will be going to hell for believing this. But my response is always the same. If believing in equality sends me to hell, then so be it. I will not go to heaven knowing I wasn't the nicest person I could be on earth. I realize that I can not persuade others of this, who wants to go to hell just to be nice? Maybe I am alone in my thoughts. So be it.

  18. ... You think you can't stand up for your morals and still be a nice person?... *confused*

    I am sorry people have reacted thusly to your opinions though. It's not for us to judge who does and does not go to hell.

  19. I am not saying all the morals are wrong. A lot I believe in myself. Its just that many people, even my friends, say that gays will go to hell just due to the fact that they are gay. They did not have a choice. You do not choose to be gay, you are born it. Whenever I make this statement the only comeback is, so then your gay? No I am not gay. I just believe how you spend your time on earth should define whether or not you go to hell. Not your sexuality or beliefs. I am sorry for taking this on you, Drew. I have had this conversation one to many times.

  20. I was going to let you have the last word, but I simply cannot leave it at that.

    Do even the most marginal amount of research and you will learn that the "born that way" ideology is outrightly false, utterly disproven and scientifically unsound. Even the APA has changed their stance saying that biology isn't the cause of homosexual attraction.

    No one is born gay. Period.

  21. Yes but you are born with the inevitable attraction.

  22. There are many people who are gay that wish to be other wise. Or their parents do not allow them to be gay. But its not something that can be controlled.

  23. Once again, do your research. There are thousands who have changed their orientation. No one has to be or do anything they don't want to be or do. People can choose to do whatever they like. To intimate otherwise is to deny the human spirit.

  24. People that have gone from gay to straight, are doing it be will. However they will still retain the attraction to the same sex.
    " Tellingly, two founders of a ministry established to 'heal' homosexuals later described their programme as 'ineffective ... not one person was healed'. "

  25. http://www.avert.org/hsexu2.htm

  26. Read the section: "Can you stop being gay?"

  27. What? it works on mine. are you sure?

  28. Try leaving off the htm. I have a Mac and it may not work on PCs.

  29. Nope, "Page Load Error"! Sorry about that.

  30. Here's what it says: (I'm sorry its so long!)

    "There is now growing general support for the belief that sexuality is pre-determined and may change over time, or remain fixed. However, many people are interested in whether sexuality can be altered solely by a person's desire to change. Organisations that help homosexuals attempt to change their sexuality can be generally divided between those that use psychological 'reparative' methods and those that use religious 'healing' methods.

    Some people believe homosexuality is an illness and believe it can and should be cured. Many of these 'cures' revolve around psychological therapies (often called reparative therapy) which endeavour to re-orient a homosexual sexuality to heterosexual. Although there is little scientific data to evaluate, what is available seems to indicate that reparative therapy is ineffective. The American Psychological Association (APA), the world's largest association of psychologists has stated that:

    “Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation.”
    Some strongly religious groups believe that homosexuality is sinful and is in direct breach of the bible and other religious texts. As with reparative therapy there has been little to no scientific evaluation of the healing and prayer techniques used. What evidence is available suggests that the success of these techniques is restricted to three areas:

    Convincing bisexuals to limit their sexual activities to members of the opposite sex.
    Convincing homosexuals to become celibate.
    Convincing gay men and lesbians to attempt to maintain heterosexual relationships, whilst retaining their homosexual orientation.
    Tellingly, two founders of a ministry established to 'heal' homosexuals later described their programme as 'ineffective ... not one person was healed'.

    The subject of 'curing' homosexuality has become a politically charged debate in America, with Christian political organisations promoting the theory that homosexuality can be changed through force of will alone. They claim that 'thousands are leaving their homosexual identity for sexual celibacy, and even marriage'.

    Alternatively, gay and lesbian rights organisations would argue that these views misunderstand what it means to be gay, and amount to discrimination against gay and lesbian people."

  31. Sorry, but without a functioning website and credentials to back this up, it's about as convincing as some random guy spouting his unfounded and uneducated beliefs on the street corner. It's an opinion, nothing more. And, again, DO YOUR RESEARCH and you'll find that the APA has altered their stance on the theory of reparative therapy, indicating that there is no evidence citing biological causes of sexual orientation.

    Be careful where you get your information, too. There are extreme biases, especially on the side of the gay activists.

  32. As well as the anti-gay marriage side. Ok where I am its very late. I would like to conclude that i will continue believing church cannot control the government, where your going in your afterlife depends on how you live your life, and equality to all. Peace Drew.

  33. That video with the old woman is terrible!! I can't believe people would do this..

    Way to go for your dad though! He was awesome!