Monday, December 1, 2008

Those Peace-Loving Liberals Attack Mormons

Mormons Attacked for Gay-Marriage Ban's Success

In the nearly four weeks since Election Day, gay activists and thousands of their supporters have rallied outside Mormon temples around the country, protesting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' support for California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal in the Golden State.

There have been calls to boycott the annual Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah; some activists have called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah. Protesters have defaced some church buildings, and in Arapaho County, Colo., the Sheriff's Office is investigating a possible hate crime -- the torching of the Book of Mormon on a church's doorstep.

Even the state of California itself has announced that it is investigating the church's involvement in Proposition 8, which was approved by a vote of 52 percent to 48 percent and, barring a Supreme Court overturn, will ban gay marriage in the state.

There have been no other reports of backlash against other groups that supported Prop 8, notably African-Americans and other churches and religious denominations that turned out in heavy numbers to push through the ban.

Exit polls after the Nov. 4 vote showed that 70 percent of black voters and more than half of Latino voters voted yes on Prop 8. About two-thirds of self-identified Christians supported the ban, and married voters and parents also showed strong support. The Knights of Columbus, the Catholic Church and evangelical groups in the state also urged for a ban on gay marriage.

So why is the Mormon Church the only target?

It's because of the money, says Evan Wolfe, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that supports same-sex marriage.

"The Mormon Church hierarchy led the way on this attack on gay families and the California constitution," Wolfe said. "They provided more than half of the funding. They provided the ground troops and were a major political force in a way that no other group was.

"It's not like there's one centralized voice telling everyone whom to protest. People have their own reactions to what they see with their own eyes, and what they saw here was a $40 million deceptive campaign to take away rights, led by the Mormon Church hierarchy."

Lorri Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, wrote on the organization's Web site that she doesn't blame African-Americans or minority groups for the passage of Prop. 8.

"We have been critical of all of the out-of-state conservative religious groups that made significant contributions to the campaign, including the Knights of Columbus National Headquarters in Connecticut and Focus on the Family in Colorado. But the truth is that the LDS church leadership in Utah specifically directed its membership to get involved with the Yes campaign in an unprecedented way -- both in terms of volunteer time and dollars," Jean wrote.

"The campaign they funded was one of lies and deceit, clearly in violation of the religious tenet of thou shalt not lie.

Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, an organization that organizes African-Americans for gay rights in Southern California, said fewer African-Americans supported the gay-marriage ban than was originally reported -- 57 percent instead of 70.

"People were emotional after Obama being elected and recognizing the ideal that the African American and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community were part of one large progressive alliance that were going to enact change ... was not necessarily true," Buckmire said.

"Once they realized that, and that some of the data is not exactly correct and they were actually being hateful to some African-Americans, I think they then focused on the Mormons, the religious people and some Republicans as well."

Rev. Roland Stringfellow, coordinator of the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations, a network of gay-friendly religious, said that he has heard of African American individuals being harassed for the passage of Prop 8, but that many are using the Mormon Church as a scapegoat for their anger.

"Many gays and lesbians have been hurt by the church and they see the Mormons as a way of taking out that aggression, not only on the Prop 8 position, but on their life in general," he told

"I think simply it comes down to everyone needing a scapegoat. I think we're seeing that with the Republican Party, where people are pointing fingers at Sarah Palin as to why John McCain lost."

Back in June, soon after the California Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional in the state, the Mormon Church sent a letter to members announcing its support of Prop 8, which was designed to overturn the ruling. The church's members subsequently donated millions of dollars to support the Yes on 8 campaign.

According to Californians Against Hate, which lobbied to defeat Prop 8, Mormons gave $25 million of the almost $40 million that groups supporting the initiative spent on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts.

"They did the slickest commercials you've ever seen, and they mostly do it to convince younger people why its OK to be opposed to same sex marriage," Californians Against Hate founder Frank Karger told

Mormon voters themselves had little effect on the ballot initiative's outcome, simply because the Mormon population is small in California. There are only about 750,000 Mormons in the state, about 2 percent of its 38 million residents.

But over 59,000 Mormon families contributed to the Yes on 8 effort, Karger said. "Without the Mormon money it would have been a very different campaign."

Mormons also donated time -- walking through California neighborhoods to get voters talking about Prop 8, he said.

In the weeks after Nov. 4, of Gay activist John Aravosis, editor of, called on Hollywood to shun the Sundance Film Festival, held just a few hours' drive from Salt Lake City.

"Anyone who attends Sundance is quite literally funding the enemy," he wrote. Aravosis also called for a boycott of tourism and skiing in the "Hate State of Utah."

California Musical Theatre Artistic Director Scott Eckern, a Mormon and graduate of Brigham Young University, resigned from his position with the Sacramento theater group on Nov. 12 after undergoing pressure from artists who scorned his decision to give $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

And last week, Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the Mormon Church did not report all of its non-monetary contributions to the campaign.

"I just want to make sure that when they involve themselves in California elections that they play by the rules," Karger said.

"They bused people into California the last three weekends going door to door and out with signs on the major intersects and major highways. It's a common California roadside activity, but they did it with hundreds and hundreds of people," Karger said.

On Friday, the commission said it would investigate the complaint. Californians Against Hate also has called on gay-marriage supporters to boycott A-1 Storage facilities around the state because the business's owner gave more than $700,000 to the Yes on 8 cause.

On Nov. 14, Mormon Church leaders issued a statement criticizing the backlash.

"Since the people of California voted to reaffirm the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman on November 4, 2008, places of worship have been targeted by opponents of Proposition 8 with demonstrations and, in some cases, vandalism," the church's First Presidency wrote.

"Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere."

But gay activists say they are right to single out the Mormons for the success of California's ballot initiative.

"What is clear in any case is that we did not lose this election because of African Americans," Lorri Jean wrote.

"Even if African Americans had voted for and against Prop 8 in the same proportion as white voters, we still would have lost."

Sounds like some people need to get a life. The Mormons did!


Various wire services


Anonymous said...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not that strident in its beliefs on homosexuality. In fact, they counsel full fellowship for celibate homosexuals.

So far, no gay-rights activist has had the fortitude to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals (even celibate ones).

Oh, I forgot, criticizing Moslems is off-limits for the Politically Correct.

Anonymous said...


There are many instances of religious liberties of individuals who dared speak out against a homosexual lifestyle being violated. Let me quote a few:

Case 1:
David Parker, a Massachusetts parent, was arrested when he tried to prevent his kindergartener from being exposed to pro-gay marriage books.

Case 2:
In the case of Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, the California Supreme Court ruled that a physician was required to perform artificial insemination for a female lesbian client or face loss of right to practice medicine.

Case 3:
In June of 2008, the University of Toledo summarily fired Crystal Dixon -- a high-ranking administrator and an African-American -- for writing a letter to the editor objecting to the comparison of "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of African Americans.

Dixon simply wrote:

"As a Black woman... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."

As a result of this personal letter and exercise of her First Amendment rights she was fired.

Case 4:
Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray same-sex marriage in a positive light.

Case 5:
Canadian pastor Stephen Boisson was ordered by the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission to publicly apologize for a letter to the editor denouncing the homosexual agenda as "wicked" and stating that: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights." He was then given a gag order to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

Case 6:
In April 2008 Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elaine Photography, was fined over $7000 by the state Human Rights Commission of New Mexico for refusing to photograph the 'commitment ceremony' of Vanessa Willock and her partner. She based her refusal on the fact that it was against her religious beliefs to do so.

Case 7:
STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 ( - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached in 2003 citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

Case 8:
LEXINGTON, MA, October 8, 2008 ( - The United States Supreme Court left intact a lower court ruling that allowed Massachusetts schools to promote homosexuality in the classroom without telling parents or allowing them to opt out.

Case 9:
London, Jun 7, 2008 / 09:32 pm (CNA).- A Catholic adoption agency in Britain has ended its service of placing children in new homes because a new anti-discrimination law forbids the agency from turning away homosexual couples. A Minister of Parliament has said the new law "smacks of a secular attack on the Catholic Church."

Case 10:
On Mar. 10, 2006 Boston Catholic Charities decided to pull out of adoption services after a century of service, rather than comply with Massachusetts law that requires adoption agencies not to discriminate against homosexual couples.

Case 11:
In October of 2007, the Boy Scouts of America 'Cradle of Liberty' Council was given eviction notice from their headquarters in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. The building was originally built in 1928 by the Boy Scouts and has been maintained by them ever since. The eviction is a result of the stand of the Boy Scouts against allowing homosexuals to be part of the organization's leadership, and is spearheaded by openly homosexual city solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr.

Case 12:
The Methodist Church's Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

Anyone who says that this issue is just about allowing same-sex couples to get married is either ignorant or lying.

Anonymous said...

The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage groups ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."

The same groups now charging it’s a lie (public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not) — were just in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims? I suspect the “Yes on 8” folks keep many more of the Ten Commandments (including “Bearing false witness”) than the “No on 8” side (some of whom subscribe to the “Ten Suggestions”).

Bot said...


Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.

When same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has already happened in Massachusetts (CatholicCharities and Lexington Public Schools), New Jersey (Methodist Church lost its tax exemption), etc. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.

Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.''