A quick follow up my prior post on the same subject. I’ve been truly amazed at some of the antics ongoing all over California against those who are expressing their political and religious view points, fully protected by both state and federal constitutions. More below the jump. Update 10/21/08, even more disturbing is David’s post over at A Soft Answer where he discusses a coordinated effort a specifically targeting Mormons for their efforts on 8. It’s a must read.
This first example stems from a member of the Church here on the Central Coast. He has placed one of the large wooden Yes on 8 signs on his private property at his home. Last week, he received the hate mail reproduced below. I have redacted the name and address; but the remainder is posted in full.
Simply amazing. And, it has apparently escalated in at least one case to physical violence. The Proposition 8 Website has an article outlining several instances of trespassing and property damage, all over California, including this most disturbing event of actual physical injury:
As if violently attacking a Yes on 8 volunteer in Modesto on Sunday were not bad enough, No on 8 forces have been intimidating Yes on 8 volunteers and stealing yard signs.
The individual violently attacked was:
Prop. 8 supporter, Jose Nunez, 37, was brutally assaulted while waiting to distribute yard signs to other supporters of the initiative after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto.
Again, just unbelievable. Several individuals have forwarded additional photos of defacement, which I will continue posting:
If you live in California, and have photos of similar instances of intolerance, I will post them online. You can send them to me at guy dot murray at gmail dot com.
Messenger and Advocate 
October 20, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I’m not in favor of violence or destruction to property, but what was wrong (illegal) with the letter?
October 20, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“…those who are expressing their political and religious view points, fully protected by both state and federal constitutions.”
Like the author of the letter, perhaps?
October 20, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Hey Steve,
Good question. Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest the letter was illegal–and it likely is not; however, I am troubled by the fact that someone who expresses a political and religious opinion should have to be subjected to such anonymous vitriol for expressing that political/religious opinion in a lawful way.
The other thought I’ve been pondering in all this cacophony is that if Proposition 8 does not pass, will those of us who continue to speak out against genderless marriage and homosexual lifestyle based on political and religious views–will we be subject to a claim of hate speech under the guise of the newly created constitutional rights?
I don’t know. I found the letter as troubling as I did the physical destruction of property–chilling actually–because I think it not too far removed from the physical assault that has been reported.
Anyway, that’s the way I look at it.
October 20, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Actually it seemed to me that writing a letter to someone whose public sign you disagree with would be a fairly considerate way of dealing with the issue — although clearly addressing your letter to “Hateful House” is not the way to go. If we’re putting signs out on our lawn, isn’t the whole point that we are trying to engage the public on our agenda?
October 20, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Steve #4:
Yes, I think we are trying to engage the public. And, writing a letter per-se even to someone with whom you disagree is not in an of itself intolerant; but, the one forwarded to me was anything but tolerant. Writing a letter to a homeowner may be appropriate. I would think, however, it should not accuse the homeowner with whose sign you disagreed, of being a hateful bigot, and then not even having the courage to sign your name to the letter. That’s not only intolerant—it’s the mark of a true coward.
I think there are a number of ways those who oppose 8 can express their points of view, legitimately without defacing private property and sending anonymous hate mail to those with whom they disagree.
Same goes for the Yes on 8 folks. Kaimi has rightly pointed out that some of the Yes on 8 folks are not without the same discretion, as it were. I think it inappropriate on both sides–particularly more so for the Saints who have been counseled otherwise.
October 20, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I have forwarded to Guy pictures of a Yes on 8 sign erected at the Ojai Valley Baptist Church (see above) that was vandalized (tried to be toppled over by a large 4×4 truck) and then vandalized the following night a second time with paint. The same thing happened to a similar sign on private property not too far away. There is no excuse for that type of behavior, no one had an excuse at the newspaper I visited this morning, no one had an excuse at the Democratic headquarters I visited this morning and no one had an excuse at the Sheriff’s office I visited this morning. Every single person said it is WRONG!!
I am sick and tired of folks claiming we are taking away someone’s rights, read the Supreme Court ruling, there was no right, just a decision, 4-3 not so compelling, so folks wouldn’t feel bad. Well, when my grandson is taught he can marry a prince, or granddaughter (when I get one) that she can marry a princess, nope that won’t affect my marriage, that will affect my family and nothing makes me more upset and determined than folks who will not let me direct the education of my family.
I have also spent the last 22 hours replacing Yes on 8 signs along the highway. In those 22 hours 14 of my signs have been STOLEN, some repeatedly at the same spot, and only one No on 8 has disappeared, and not my doing. What justification does one have for restricting my right to free speech and expression. People who steal political signs are cowards and do not honor the men and women who have fought and died for our right to free speech. Cowards!!
And for you who are voting No on 4, you have opened pandora’s box. With your vote, there is no definition of marriage. As Mayor Newsom would say, it’s all open now. How could one say no to the FLDS from establishing themselves in California, heaven forbid. There are folks out there that want to marry their animals, google it if you don’t believe me, sad, but what does my opinion mean, or yours in the future. And it just keeps going down the slippery slope from there. You say it won’t happen, well when the Supremes made their opinion on sodomy not so long ago, folks said, gay marriage, no it will never happen. As Gavin says “It’s coming right at you”. Once you have no rules, and a No on 8 is a vote for no rules, anything goes and how do you say no without the bigot, intolerance or discrimination claim being thrown in your face. Do your research No on 8 voters, how slippery is that slope, how deep is pandora’s box?
I support the brethren because they are right in what they ask. And I also support the many sisters who are working for a Yes on 8 votes beside us. They too want the best future for their children. As they constantly say in Little League, “It’s about the kids”, not you lame adults. Amen.
October 20, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Guy, so long as Prop 8 has folks like Brianfa on its side, anonymous letters and sign-stealings will probably be an inevitable result.
October 20, 2008 at 10:51 pm
nothing makes me more upset and determined than folks who will not let me direct the education of my family.
How are they stopping you, if I may ask?
a No on 8 is a vote for no rules
Some would say that it is simply a vote for equal rules.
October 21, 2008 at 3:48 am
Guy,
True, Guy, gays should just accept being called sinful and should begin preparing their curtains for their haunted houses in hell. It is perfectly within the rights of a religious group to call gays sinful and against God, but those same members of that religious group should not be surprised to get some pushback against such language. While Mormons don’t use that kind of language, generally speaking, they continue to tie themselves to religionists who DO!
And frankly, according to our theology, those engaging in homosexual ACTS are indeed sinful. We may make all the efforts in the world to perfume that accusation with the scent of charitable love, but in the end, we still think they are sinful.
October 21, 2008 at 5:55 am
Steve #7:
Do you know Brian? Do you know anything about him, his life? Have you walked even a step in his shoes? I disagree that Brian’s expressed frustration motivates people to break the law.
Mark N #8
I think it’s pretty clear what has happened to education in MA, and what is likely to happen here in CA if Prop. 8 passes. Ignoring the realities do not make them cease to exist.
There isn’t anything untoward about “unequal” in all circumstances. Life, reality, and even Eternity, is not equality based. It’s a nice sound bite–but, again, not too realistic.
Dan #9
Expressing a political opinion is not calling anyone sinful. Again, a nice sound bite–but not terribly enlightening.
October 21, 2008 at 6:43 am
The problem, Guy, is that Steve Evans is more than willing to stick up for apostates of the church, than he is to stick up for those who follow the prophet. He silences those who disagree with him, uses vile language, and never apologizes for his actions. Just ask him how many times he’s publicly called someone a D**kw*d.
October 21, 2008 at 6:57 am
NODYMB1
Steve Evans is a good man, with whom I disagree on occasion. This is one. He made an unfair characterization about someone I know a great deal more than does Steve. No doubt Steve, like, me, you and everyone else has his flaws and imperfections–welcome to life.
My understanding (and I have no reason to believe I am wrong) is that Steve is a good family man, an active and believing Saint, amongst the community of Saints. We can discuss our political and even moral differences without impugning any person’s character and “righteousness”–since at the end of the day, we all fall short.
October 21, 2008 at 7:56 am
Disappointing that your would choose to use fear-based propaganda to push forward your legislative morality.
Anyone could just as easily posted the hundred-fold worse evidence of attacks on gays and the unnecessary discrimination they face. Guess the gays are being more Christ-like than those trying to legislate their religious beliefs as social policy.
So to you, I echo the words of the letter: Shame on you.
October 21, 2008 at 8:02 am
Guy, fair enough — I don’t know Brian, all I know of him was that single comment. It’s not fair of me to judge the entire man on that basis, and I wasn’t trying to do so. I thought the comment was pretty angry and probably the type of stance which, if held as a consistent position, would in turn provoke others to anger. If Brian was just venting… heck we all do that. No offense intended.
PS thanks for the backup. I think you’re pretty nifty.
PPS also note my changed email address (temporary).
October 21, 2008 at 8:26 am
There isn’t anything untoward about “unequal” in all circumstances. Life, reality, and even Eternity, is not equality based. It’s a nice sound bite–but, again, not too realistic.
Once upon a time, the Latter-day Saints did a fair amount of pleading of their own to the government, asking that they be treated fairly, and that they would just be provided equal treatment under the laws and Constitution of the land. Maybe Governor Boggs had a point after all. The Latter-day Saints, given equal justice under the law? A nice sound-bite, but not too realistic.
In the meantime, I still await brianfa’s response to my questions.
October 21, 2008 at 8:39 am
Guy,
Thanks for the info, but I’m afraid it just clouds the real issues further. If you are excercising free speech, please stick to the issues and respect the right of those with a differing opinion to speak their piece also. Tearing down and defacing signs is not appropriate.
I honestly don’t know how to address all these problems together comfortably. That is why I am resolved to follow the guidance from inspired church leaders, whatever they recommend. (I know they would never promote tearing down signs and the like.)
Although this issue is strictly for California voters to decide, it spills over readily church-wide. Soon, everyone will be confronted with the decision. For me, it comes back to Jacob’s question, “Who is on the Lord’s side?”
I know how to answer that question, without further pause or deliberation.
October 21, 2008 at 8:53 am
That letter is tame compared to this one. (Warning: foul language)
October 21, 2008 at 9:02 am
@ Jim #16
One of the difficult things about leaving it all up to the guidance of the Brethren is that during this campaign, the leadership of the Church has made it abundantly clear that we are to study, ponder, and pray until we settle this issue in our hearts. While following the Brethren may be the most important element, they have not given anyone a free pass on not understanding the complexity of the issues here.
@ Everyone else
Isn’t it amazing how the balance between rational dialogue and outright aggression in these discussions seems to just be razor thin? Can we start giving people the benefit of the doubt, instead of interpreting everything in the worst possible light?
October 21, 2008 at 9:20 am
I find a little danger in posts like this. Even though there was acts of violence and intolerance which is descipable, at the same time—living the Gospel, to me at least, requires me to be tolerant of those who are intolerant of me. That doesn’t compromise my beliefs, or values, and ultimately gives me more peace. Posts like this run counter to that, in my opinion.
October 21, 2008 at 9:52 am
[…] P.S. Besides this coordinated harassment campaign, here’s an isolated but a very disturbing incident of violence against a Prop 8 supporter. […]
October 21, 2008 at 10:19 am
The problem with free expression runs into a difficult can of worms. My right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, and all that.
The problem with compassion for those troubled is equally difficult. Should I sympthize with those living in sin, and thus condone their wickedness.
I honestly believe in the aphorism, “wickedness never was happiness”, and I think it applies here. But I don’t want to be responsible for piling on the misery, either.
Tough questions, even more complicated by the obvious fact that someone will be unhappy about my choice, no matter which way I decide.
October 21, 2008 at 10:41 am
Should I sympthize with those living in sin, and thus condone their wickedness.
We don’t have to sympathize with anyone, but I think we are asked to empathize, which does not imply any agreement on our part with those with whom we might feel empathy.
Which missionary do you think finds more success in the mission field: the one who can empathize with those he teaches and who encourages others to believe that the gospel really is for our joy and benefit, or the one that is only too eager to condemn others for not immediately perceiving that the gospel is true and that they should repent (right now!) and get with the program?
October 21, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“That letter is tame compared to this one. (Warning: foul language)”
How do we know any of these letters are legit? How can we be sure they are written in an attempt to gin up sympathy for the Yes on 8 crowd? These could be as fake as the Dan Rather memos from a few years back.
I call shenanigans on this.
October 21, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I call shenanigans on this.
Perhaps you’d like me to put you in touch with some of the families, including the Bishop of the local ward, who received this letter after having their signs vandalized? Shenanigans indeed.
October 21, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Yup, these campaigns, where civil rights are being voted on, are not pretty.
We know about the suicides that followed California’s Prop 22. We also witnessed a serious upsurge in violence against gays and lesbians during Colorado’s Amendment 2:
The same year, the Oregon Citizen Alliance advanced Ballot Measure 9 which whipped up an anti-gay frenzy which terrorized the gay and lesbian community and resulted in a number of serious physical attacks, including two deaths.
October 21, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Steven B.,
The point of your post is not clear to me. Are you implying that the LDS Church bears some responsibility for violence against homosexuals (including self-inflicted violence)?
October 21, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Are you implying that the LDS Church bears some responsibility for violence against homosexuals ?
No, I was only providing examples of the violence and tumult that has accompanied similar ballot initiatives involving gay civil rights. In these previous campaigns, it was primarily the gay and lesbian communities that took the brunt of the intolerance.
Certainly, in the case of the gay man who had his eye gouged out with a shard of broken glass, people placed blame on the Oregon Citizens Alliance for fostering an atmosphere of hate. I don’t know whether or not the LDS church got involved in the Oregon ballot measure, but the church did assert itself in the simultaneous measure in Colorado (which passed, BTW) and, of course, Prop 22 in California.
Though they may have participated in voicing their position, as all voters did, the LDS church did not initiate any of the ballot measures, including Prop 8, and it is not my intent to place blame on the LDS church for any violence associated with the campaigns.
October 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“Perhaps you’d like me to put you in touch with some of the families, including the Bishop of the local ward, who received this letter after having their signs vandalized? Shenanigans indeed.”
Do we have independent corroboration that the letters were sent anonymously? How do we know this family didn’t arrage for somebody to write this letter in an attempt to gin up sympathy and get folks talking.
Anything is possible. It could be legit. Or it could be a publicity stunt.
October 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm
[…] Tolerance II Messenger and Advocate – October 20, 2008 […]
October 23, 2008 at 1:27 am
Guy, I don’t think you mean to come off like one, but fact is, only bullies use made-up terms like “genderless marriage”
… your contempt for gay people is obvious enough when you argue against allowing them to share your rights, but then you go even farther and make sure they’re not even allowed to share your vocabulary. You make it very clear that you believe that once the gay taint touches “marriage” it becomes something completely hideous.
Seriously, read it out loud: “genderless marriage” …
You don’t hear the violence in that ridiculous expression?
It implies that a man in a same-sex marriage is not a man. It implies that a woman in a same-sex marriage is not a woman. It implies that I’m less of a man, that we’re all less manly, because the gays got marriage equality in California. It implies that my wife has been rendered less womanly by those conniving homosexuals.
It’s an insult. It’s a slur. And even though I don’t condone illegal activity, if this is how you and your allies talk, it makes it hard to feel much sympathy for your plight.
Of course, I don’t expect you to stop baiting your opponents with such hateful speech, and I do expect you’ll continue to turn out a new outraged post with every new outrage you hear about. But, c’mon …
“Genderless marriage” ???
Trash talk like this reminds me of the folks over at protectmarriage.com who used to describe lesbian parents and their kids as “families” (always in quotes, they just couldn’t bear allowing these folks to call themselves a family).
It reminds me of the jerks over at The Opine Editorials who you helped promote on your other blog. I thought you’d read their stuff and figure out that those guys are a bunch of haters, Guy. Instead, you picked up some of their stupid and insulting lingo.
You’ve sown the wind, and now you’re crying that you’re reaping the whirlwind.
October 23, 2008 at 11:39 am
I have a hard time seeing how “genderless marriage” is a bullying term, despite Chino Blanco’s claim. California isn’t issuing same-sex marriage licenses and heterosexual marriage licenses; it’s just issuing one kind of marriage license. It used to be a requirement that a couple applying for a license had to include one person of each gender; that gender requirement was deemed unconstitutional. If “genderless marriage” is bullying, then what would be a nonbullying term for marriage as sanctioned in California in 2008 that distinguishes from the the previous form? “Constitutional marriage” instead of “unconstitutional marriage”?
October 23, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Marriage.
October 23, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Well, if that works for you, CB. It’ll probably make writing a bit incomprehensible, although it may explain those websites with the URLs that appear aimed at misdirection. How about “gender-neutral marriage”? Still bullying?
October 23, 2008 at 6:48 pm
It seems to me that marriage licenses in Calif do not include gender anymore, but party A and party B or something similar. I guess if genderless designation is state sanctioned then nobody should be surprised by the use of the term in a campaign.
October 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Are you sure that’s still the case, Rich?
We’re back to “bride” and “groom” in California. Does that mean y’all can stop now with the “genderless” nonsense?
October 23, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Speaking of antics, Yes on 8 supporters try to blackmail No on 8 supporters.
http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html
October 23, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Yup, vandalism is one thing, but extortion? The plot thickens.
October 24, 2008 at 4:49 am
“Does that mean y’all can stop now with the “genderless” nonsense?”
No, Chino Blanco, it doesn’t. Just because you have no concern for a regard for gender within marriage, that doesn’t authorize you to rule it out of bounds as something others may legitimately be concerned about. You wrote that we are suggesting that your wife “has been rendered less womanly” by those such as yourself promoting marriage between homosexuals. That’s correct; that’s what you’ve done. Being a woman has nothing in particular to do with her being your spouse; that just happens to be one of her features that attracted you. Being the spouse of a man has been the sole province of women, an heretofore unquestionably female role, and you working to change that.
October 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Since we’re talking about tolerance, I suppose this video and commentary will help us flesh out the frenzy that is Prop 8.
October 28, 2008 at 4:45 pm
jjohnson beat me to it: “No” on Proposition 8 signs are being vandalized as well. Most news articles I’ve read discuss destruction on both sides of the issue. It is beyond annoying and juvenile, but proponents of Prop 8 are as guilty of breaking the law as the proposition’s opponents are.
Regarding the “death threat” letter: The author(s) have written a vile letter that is meant to intimidate anyone who has received it, and according to some blog sites, it has worked.
However, there are no death threats in the letter. Expressing a “wish,” is very different from insisting “I am going to (violent act) you.”
If the recipients would just throw the letters away, and not respond to them, it would dissolve any power the author has over them.
But, based only on MY observations, the typical Latter-day Saint receives a letter like this, overreacts, and then immediately e-mails it to the fifty people in his address list, with a note about how awful these opponents of P8 are; then those fifty members send it to fifty more people, and these fifty people overreact, attaching a note that the letter contains death threats, and soon you hear cries of “persecution,“ when there is none.
In fact, based on the behavior of both sides, if the Saints want to call the actions of opponents of P8 persecution, I think they would have the right to call the Church’s activism “persecution” as well.
(Obviously, neither of them is being persecuted–I’m only trying to add some perspective to the situation.)
True persecution is when mobs steal all of your belongings and burn your house to the ground, leaving you in the bitter cold with nothing to protect your babies, and your husband is hiding out in the woods so the mob doesn’t find him, torture him, and then murder him.
Persecution is when contemptible men massacre people at Haun’s Mill, including a young boy whose murderer calls him a “gnit,” before he pulls the trigger and slaughters the beautiful child.
Persecution is when a crazed, vigilante mob murders both Joseph and Hyrum in cold blood.
Receiving an intimidating letter in the mail is not persecution, and to call it so demeans the very real persecution the Church’s earliest members endured. In fact, what the members in California are experiencing is harassment–but harassment is not persecution.
I personally believe the Church has every right to be against Proposition 8. I also think it has every right to ask its members, even those from out of state, to do what they can to make sure P8 is passed. (I think I read the Church is asking those from out-of-state to leave California and return to their homes–but I am not sure about that.)
The opponents’ belief that P8 must not pass is as intractable as your belief that it should. And focusing on the vandals from one side, and ignoring the vandals on the other, drudges up the persecution complex that lingers with many Latter-day Saints.
Please keep things in perspective, and try to understand that some people do dumb things, but that doesn’t mean they all do, and it’s wrong to talk about your opponents as if they do.
Elphaba
October 28, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Okay, I just went back to the main page and saw that Jose Nunez was seriously beaten by an opponent of P8.
This IS persecution. And it makes me incredibly sad.
Hopefully this P8 opponent is a rogue, and is the only one to perpetuate this vicious violence.
Now I’m conflicted, because as soon as I finised my post, I discovered I was wrong–beating someone up is persecution.
All I read everywhere on the LDS message boards is hate. It’s subtle, and certainly not always on purpose, but there is a prejudice that taints the air, and I hate it.
So, I write to beg people to keep things in perspective, and then I see this picture of Jose. Perhaps I should stay away from my computer for a week. I can’t stand how human beings can hurt each other so, in so many different ways.
Jaynee
November 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm
[…] https://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/tolerance-ii/ […]
November 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm
[…] Temples, Traditional Marriage, Voting | For my other tolerance posts see Tolerance I, Tolerance II, Tolerance III. Well, its been almost two weeks now since election day, and amazingly one issue […]
November 19, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I would like to know where to donate the $1000 so I can have my mormon name published on the list.
I have a right to protect my definition of a family and mine and my ancestors religion. I will do this with out fear. I know the election in California is over but is there a fund for other campaigns in other states. I would like to help.
February 7, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Dead thread but… OVERTURNED!!! Took over three years to fix this abomination of a proposition but better late than never I guess. This whole “Prop 8” thing just illustrates that a majority of California voters can’t be trusted to uphold basic human rights and that we should perhaps re-think ballot initiatives, to protect civilization as a whole… Thank God for checks and balances, that was a close one.
March 13, 2012 at 6:15 am
Nate: Prop 8 has not been overturned. It is still wending its way through the appellate process. Once the United States Supreme Court ruled, then the process will be over, and not until then . . .
August 17, 2017 at 7:05 pm
court Approved online
Tolerance II | Messenger and Advocate