Reed Cowan, a Miami film maker has produced a documentary on the Church and it’s involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. It apparently premiers today at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, UT.
I suppose it depends on how you define documentary whether this particular film fits into that category. If you define it as does Webster as being factual and objective, then this film probably doesn’t make the documentary cut. Of course, I haven’t seen the film; but, have seen the You Tube clip and read a few articles, as well as briefly looked at the official website. I’d have to say it’s more of a hit piece on the Church, filled with hyperbole and hysteria, which typically accompanies Proposition 8 discussion.
The promo photo of the website, pretty much says it all, depicting a book of scripture, emblazoned with title 8 The Mormon Proposition, with dollar bills protruding from the pages. This is probably the first clue, Mr. Cowan isn’t interested in a well documented, balanced discussion about gay rights, marriage, or Proposition 8.
As Church spokesperson Kim Farah noted:
Church officials have seen the trailer and other online materials about the film, LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah said, and “it is obvious that anyone looking for balance and thoughtful discussion of a serious subject will need to look elsewhere.”
The MSNBC article says Cowan begged the Church for participation in his endeavor. Why on earth would the Church do that, given the tenor and tone of Mr. Cowan’s presentation?
There really isn’t much new in the articles I’ve read or even what his website portrays. It’s pretty much the same tired arguments we’ve heard made against the Church by other gay activists with an axe to grind and a political agenda to promote.
Predictibly Cowan ignores several facts:
1. Proposition 8 isn’t/wasn’t the Church’s Proposition–the People of California placed it on the ballot, and voted in favor of it. Yes, Mormons (individually) contributed vast sum of money toward the proposition–so that makes them bigots and hateful because they exercise Constitutional rights of religion, expression and voting?
2. California couples can and do register as domestic partners under one of the most sweeping domestic partnership laws in the country. Under those laws they enjoy the same legal rights as married persons in California law.
3. The Church was only one of a plethora of churches supporting the proposition.
4. The Church does not teach anyone to hate anyone else, under any circumstances.
5. The Church supported Salt Lake City’s first gay right’s ordinance--and rightly so; however, they were not obligated to do so, and without the Church’s support may not have eventually passed.
These are just a few which come to mind. Mr. Cowan has every right to produce any type of film he wants; but, it’s important to recognize he clearly has an agenda, is not supportive of the Church’s stance on Proposition 8, and uses highly charged emotional extremes in his documentary “so called.” He unfairly characterizes the Church’s motivation, mission, members and marriage, not only as it relates to Proposition 8, but overall.
Messenger and Advocate 
January 24, 2010 at 10:34 am
looks like now he can be in contention for MOTY at T&S 🙂
I’m glad our church leaders are attempting to understand homosexuality in a much more reasoned fashion than gay rights advocates are trying to understand the church’s position.
I don’t see how this film, when not offering anything new, will break new ground or even add anything to the debate. This man will have his moment of fame and then the world will move on.
January 24, 2010 at 11:44 am
I agree with you Dan that the Church is reaching out better to the gay community than the gay community is reaching out to the Church
January 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm
The KKK is reaching out to African-Americans more than African Americans are reaching out to the Mormon church. DUH!
January 24, 2010 at 11:08 am
Is it not true that 70% of the money going to Prop 8 came from Mormons AND the LDS Church? Is it not true that only 2% of Mormons are California residents? Is it not true that Protectmarriage.org is the LDS Church? Is it not true that 20,000 Mormons voluteered for the passage of Prop8. Is it not true that the LDS Church is being investigated for illegal actions committed in regards to Prop 8?
January 24, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Correction: Isn’t it true that Mormons are 2% of the population in California?
January 24, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Your statement that the Church is reaching out more to the gay community than the gay community to the Church absolutely astounds me. Why on earth would you think that? Because they supported a gay rights ordinance that has no effect whatsoever on the church and its holdings?! That’s the sum total of it’s “reaching out.”
January 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm
While I don’t necessarily agree with the original statement with which you are taking issue, I also think it’s not true to say that the “sum total” of the Church’s attempts to reach out are in it’s non-opposition to the SLC ordinance you reference. The Church has encouraged members and leaders to reach out and to be compassionate. The “sum total” of the Church’s outreach is much more broad and, in my opinion, doesn’t necessarily even include the stance on the SLC ordinance. I served as a Bishop and did my best to reach out and to support and love all the members of my ward regardless of their situations, income, weaknesses or sexual orientation (and I AM NOT classifying sexual orientation as a weakness that’s why I list it separately). The Church hasn’t changed it’s doctrine. God could do that, “the Church” can’t. But, that doctrine also includes loving and reaching out to all. Elder Holland and others have made attempts — both in public and in private to do so.
Tell us, what would you have the Church do as outreach to the gay community? I don’t think supporting an ordinance is reaching out. Nor do I think supporting Prop 8 was intentionally beating down.
Maybe I’m just arguing semantics now, but I am interested in what type of outreach you feel “the Church” should be doing. I think members ought to be more compassionate and sensitive to how much Prop 8 hurt others who believe differently. But nothing “the Church” said or did made me love others less. Although, I’ll admit some took it as license to ignorantly express prejudice. But, the Church didn’t tell me to do that and I didn’t.
A long winded response when really all I wanted to say was that I felt your statement that the “sum total” of the Church’s outreach was to support that ordinance. From what I read and hear and see inside the Church, that seems untrue and clearly argumentative.
January 26, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Very well said
January 24, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Cindy–because it is a fact, your astoundedness notwithstanding . . .
January 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Guy, thanks for your usual reasoned, balanced take on this issue. I hope you are recovering from all the rain.
January 24, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Since when does Guy pretend to be balanced on this issue. What fun would that be? He is a strong voice for his side. Good for him.
January 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Cindy: Yeah that’s a pretty darn good reason. And on top of that the LDS Church doesn’t make propaganda films about gays. I suggest that we not ignore the fact that gays have protested, fired Mormons and boycotted their businesses.
Beuaragarde Sessions: You’re doing your cause far more harm than good by being a snark wad.
January 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm
In sports, the strategy usually differs when you are behind from when you are ahead. I’ll be interested to see the news and the documentary, if I have the opportunity. Let’s not ignore, however, that LDS folks also protested SSM — an issue important to gays, have fired gays from employment, and are boycotting gay businesses, too. One thing for sure, I don’t think name-calling furthers the conversation, do you?
January 24, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“snark wad” is not name-calling, it is funny.
January 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm
[Edited, mostly because it was a lousy comment—if you come back again and make more like it–it will be your last] gwm
January 24, 2010 at 5:05 pm
It’s silly to say that the Mormon church did not have much stake in Prop 8. They were neck deep in it. Summer of 2008 a First Presedency statement was read in all Californians wards about Prop 8 and how members should be involved in the passing of it. A month later many Bishops told members to give money “until it hurts” to save marriage.
It’s silly to say that domestic parterships is equal to straight marriages. It’s just not true.
It is true that other churces were involved in the passing of Prop 8, but it was the Mormons who provide the bulk of the money. The Mormons put a Catholic face on all the commercials with this money.
Doesn’t matter if the church tells members not to hate gays; they still took away a civil right to marry. Very silly to try and avoid that fact.
SLC’s ordinance is a step in the right direction, but it looks political.
January 24, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Mitch–I never said the Church had no stake in Proposition 8. I said it didn’t originate with the Church. It is a matter of historical fact that the Church and its membership supported the Proposition, which was their right and obligation to do. That doesn’t justify the over the top hit pieces like this one sided film.
It’s not silly to say domestic partnerships are equal to marriages. In CA that is the law. It’s silly for you to argue otherwise, unless you just want to ignore the state of the law in CA.
There was never a civil right in CA history for gay marriage other than the brief period of time the court generated one out of whole cloth. There is no federal equivalent–and don’t look for there ever to be one. The Church took nothing away from gays with Proposition 8. This issue isn’t about marriage its about societal acceptance. You can’t require people to accept a gay lifestyle no matter how many court decisions you create or legislation you pass.
That said, there should be more understanding, and compassion for all people, their beliefs and choices they want to make in terms of what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. But, redefining civil marriage for the entire country is not something that fits within that framework.
January 24, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Uh, Guy, you are not very educated on this issue. Domestic partnership is not equal to straight marriage. You say it’s on the books, but cleary you don’t get the idea that gay couples are not able to go to the county registrar to register for domistic partnerships. Very silly of you.
Quite a few Mormons voted against Prop 8 since they felt it was wrong to take away the civil rights of gays to marry. Silly of you to think that it’s not a civil right.
January 25, 2010 at 8:59 am
Guy, you keep claiming that “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” are equal to marriage, but if you truly believed that, you’d have no reason to give them a different name. Your umbrage at calling a legally-recognized same-sex union a “marriage” only makes sense in a context where same-sex unions are considered inferior to opposite-sex unions. Even the current rhetoric of those who oppose legally-recognized same-sex unions being called “marriage” is illustrative, in that these activists continually proclaim that they are “protecting” marriage. What are they seeking to “protect” marriage from, if their method of “protection” is to prevent same-sex couples from being recognized under that legal title? The whole line of argument relies on an assumption that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples, and unworthy of the title of marriage.
Your insistance on calling legally-recognized same-sex unions something other than marriage inescapably betrays your prejudice against such unions. You’re entitled to hold such a prejudice, of course, just as you’re entitled to hold a prejudice based on any other categorization. Just don’t expect everyone else to admire you for it.
January 24, 2010 at 6:07 pm
[…] to substantiate their apologetic stance. A laughable case that exhibits this fact is found on Messenger and Advocate. Author Guy Murray describes Cowan’s film as a slam piece without ever seeing the film. […]
January 24, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Guy,
You and I do not share the same perspective on some of this stuff (been there and done that). However, I always enjoy the firestorm that follows these posts. Good luck.
January 24, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Chris, if your perspective is that this film is in fact a documentary and treats the Church’s and by extension the membership’s beliefs and teachings about gay marriage fairly and accurately, then you are correct we have a different perspective on this issue. Tell me if this is the case or not.
January 25, 2010 at 9:02 am
Guy, I just think it’s humorous that you think a documentary is “objective,” by definition. By that measure, Guy, there’s simply no such thing as a documentary!
January 24, 2010 at 8:24 pm
The first Salt Lake City gay rights law was actually put in place in December 1997, only to be repealed on Jan. 13, 1998 after a prominent LDS official asked Bishops to, in turn, ask their congregations to attend the city counsel meeting where the ordinance was discussed. Yes, it was killed. Explicitly at the direction of the LDS church. I remember it well. I suggest you change the post to read “The Church supported Salt Lake City’s CURRENT gay right’s ordinance.”
As to Prop 8 involvement by the LDS church, here’s an excerpt of a document read into the trial record, not paraphrased:
(Speaking of Mormon involvement) “As you know from the First Presidency this campaign is entirely under the direction of the priesthood…”
“Priesthood leaders will call each stake and leaders by zip code within each ward—potentially working not only with LDS but also non-LDS volunteers.”
“Entirely under the direction of the priesthood,” huh? Sounds like direct LDS church involvement to me.
Click on my sig for a 1997 memo from Loren C. Dunn to Elder Ballard about plans to join up with the Catholic church in California to pass anti-gay marriage referenda. Also notice the worry about domestic partnerships.
I’m thrilled the Mormon church has allowed an anti-discrimination act in Salt Lake City to be passed (completely exempting the Mormon church from the ordinance), don’t get me wrong. I just find your whitewashing of the last 15 or so years of history to be a bit disturbing.
January 24, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Early reviews are coming in …
http://bit.ly/5AyIkS
http://bit.ly/58RVcc
“Don’t dismiss this passionate activist documentary as merely anti-Mormon propaganda (as spokespeople for the LDS Church have). Director Reed Cowan, a former Salt Lake City TV reporter, mounts a staggering amount of evidence of how the LDS Church has organized for decades to pass anti-gay-marriage ballot measures in many states — notably California’s infamous Prop. 8 — using front groups to disguise Mormon involvement. But beyond the secret memos and video messages from church leaders, Cowan brings emotional power by interviewing gays and lesbians (many of them ex-Mormon) about the pain the church’s actions have caused. It’s a vital, important cry for an open dialogue.”
January 24, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Sorry, Chino–it is what it is . . .
January 25, 2010 at 12:28 am
Says who? A bunch of folks who haven’t even seen it yet? Talk about yer garden-variety ‘hysteria’ 😉
January 24, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Guy,
While we obviously have different experiences with documentaries (ain’t ever seen one without an agenda), I do not give a crap about this one. My comment was meant to be a compliment to you about your persistance.
January 24, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Chris, I understand where you’re coming from and took your comment as you described it; but, I was just curious whether you thought the film was a balanced documentary on the Church’s position. Look, I like some of Michael Moore’s stuff–but I can’t say they’re good, balanced documentaries. When I think of documentary I think history channel or PBS, or the like.
January 25, 2010 at 9:16 am
Guy, do you actually think that programming on The History Channel and PBS is “objective?” What about the recent PBS documentary on “The Mormons?” I’ve encountered several LDS members who considered that documentary to be a “hit piece” on the LDS church. While I’m a big fan of The History Channel, I’ve certainly taken exception at the claims made in some of their documentaries. They’ve done one on Freemasonry, for example, which includes some truly sensationalized distortions. They’ve also done one on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which some LDS would definitely take exception to.
Honestly, Guy, it sounds as if you’re taking the position that only a positive portrayal of the LDS church can be considered “objective.” Either that, or you’re standing the issue on its head, declaring it axiomatic that any “objective” treatment of the LDS church will unquestionably result in a positive portrayal. Neither of these are supportable, though the latter can be seen as a statement of faith–albeit a rather bold, extremist one.
January 24, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Guy, Straight couples 65 years old and older can have domestic partnerships. If a straight couple you knew had a domestic partnership, would you consider them living in sin? Could they get a temple recommend?
January 25, 2010 at 9:31 am
This is really an excellent question, djinn. Thus far, it appears that LDS disciplinary councils have been “on hold” for LDS members who are legally married to a same-sex partner. In other words, LDS leaders haven’t entirely determined how to handle that situation (perhaps because for many years, their rhetoric was that homosexual activity was sinful because it was out of wedlock).
Personally, I’d be surprised if LDS leaders considered sexual activity legitimate within a “domestic partnership” or “civil union.”
January 25, 2010 at 11:51 am
I don’t think Guy Murray can answer my question, above, because it starkly points out the actual difference between a marriage and a civil union in terms that he can understand.
I also think that Mr. Murray is an honest, decent guy, so perhaps he’ll change his mind as to whether or not there is a difference between civil unions and marriages.
I also notice that although responding to many other thread commenters, he has not touched my post where I point out that there was a previous gay equality ordinance passed in SLC squelched by the LDS church, and that actual non-paraphrased evidence in the current CA district Prop.8 trial states direct LDS management. Guy? Are you out there?
January 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Guy is a sissy! Nanny nanny boo boo.
January 25, 2010 at 12:43 am
The fact remains that more CALIFORNIANS than there are Mormons in the entire United States VOTED for Prop 8. Seems to me that the only haters around are those who were slapped by legitimate CALIFORNIA residents.
Get over it. You L O S T.
Maybe this filmmaker should devote his time to more important things like documenting California’s plummet into red ink, or how much of that red ink is related to ‘global warming’ projects.
January 25, 2010 at 6:30 am
Uh, it was a very close vote. Why should we get over a civil right that was taken away from a minority group? We will keep fighting until justice prevails.
January 25, 2010 at 2:40 am
I have no idea about this film as I haven’t seen it, so I laugh out loud at those whose knickers are in a twist over a film they haven’t seen. I do know as former Hawaii resident and a current CA resident that the Mormon Church is the most well financed and hate filled enemy homosexual Americans have.
January 25, 2010 at 9:02 am
The next battle will be for the US to recognize Fundamentalist Polygamy practices. See how those pro-Same-sex marriage idiots will handle it.
January 25, 2010 at 9:37 am
I can’t speak for “idiots,” Jaytee, but for the rest of us who favor marriage equality, mutually consenting adults should be able to choose to enter into plural marriage. I still believe U.S. v. Reynolds was an injustice and an insult to religious liberty. The Supreme Court justices who issued that ruling are, in my not entirely humble opinion, almost singlehandedly responsible for the sort of abuses (child brides, “lost boys,” welfare fraud, etc.) we now see among the FLDS and other similar groups.
January 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Polygamy seems the wrong bogeyman to raise in front of an (at least partially) LDS audience, many of us whom have polygamous ancestors. Some of us knew ancestors that were children of polygamous unions.
January 25, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Polygamy is very different from gay marriage. It’s fine if people want to debate it but polygamy has led to child brides, lost boys, and welfare fraud. Gay marriage is just like staight marriage but with same gender.
January 25, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Mitch,
You are absolutely wrong. The anti-prop8 lawyers’ main argument is that gays and Lesbians have the “constitutional right” to marry their partners. If the main argument here is the so-called “rights” of individuals to marry whatever sex they preferred then that argument is applicable to those who have more than one wife. They don’t any other arguments: No moral arguments, etc. If the definition of marriage is not outlined according to these Anti-prop 8 lawyers (one man one wife), why is it then that Polygamists are wrong to marry more than one wife if marriage is undefined? See where the anti-Prop8 lawyers are taking us?
January 25, 2010 at 9:24 pm
No, I am not wrong. Gay marriage is very different from polygamy. Two adult women getting married is very different than two women wanting to mary the same man at the same time. We should not deny gays the legal right to marry if we are against polygamy. This was the same arguement used against interracial marriage.
January 25, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Nick Literski: I love your posts. Thank you for thought provoking, intelligent, rational arguments. I can’t say I ever disagree with you.
As a California resident, I was disgusted and TOTALLY offended by the preaching of Prop 8 from the pulpit and the ‘hard sell’ us Californians had to endure every single Sunday. There was an entire combined Sunday School lesson taught on how to organize for this purpose. I walked out after about 20 mins– I couldn’t even listen anymore. Driving around my neighborhood, there were my fellow ward members waiving signs for Prop 8. There we were EVERY SINGLE Sacrament meeting asking for money. Phone calls from ward members asking for money. It was disturbing and I lost so much respect for the church.
I am LDS but I do not associate myself with Prop 8 and, in my unhumble opinion, the damage it did the church is unimaginable.
January 25, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Guy, insisting your opinion is fact doesn’t make it so and that’s what I was responding to — your OPINION that the church has reached out more to the gay community than it has to the church. Facts in documented cases where the church has opposed legislation (including civil unions which the church declared it’s not opposed to during and after Prop 8), ordinances, etc. show otherwise.
Blake, you should be thankful for all the countless abuse we Mormons have been hit with since Prop 8. It’s only further evidence that the Church must be true! Why else would everybody be picking on us?!
Bill, I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on what we each think the church should do to reach out to the gay community. But since you took the time to ask, I’ll try to respond. Yes, I do believe there are compassionate leaders that do show acceptance and love. But what does that mean or do for an active member who wants to enjoy all the blessings, rights and privileges of the gospel, but can’t because they’re gay. Oh, I know, they can IF they’re willing to deny themselves of any relationship that could offer intimacy, comfort, and companionship. It’s like we’re inviting them to a 5-star restaurant only to insist they take a table in the back where they’ll be served last after the more worthy patrons and offered a limited menu at a far higher cost. So what would I like to see the church do — invite them in and offer them every blessing available to every other worthy member of the gospel. God is no respecter of persons, why are we? Why have we done that — and done so in His name — to people of different skin color, gender, and gender preference?
January 26, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I’m honestly trying to understand your point of view. I am. But, your sarcasm doesn’t help. You dismiss “acceptance and love” of compassionate leaders as nothing here. That is reaching out. Reaching out in the only way that really touches actual lives, in my opinion.
You want the Church to change doctrine. I don’t think it’s mere semantics to disagree with you when you say that one can’t enjoy “all the blessings, rights and privileges of the gospel . . . because they are gay.” There is no prohibition from such things for gay members. I know several who enjoy all those things. And, they are gay.
And, your restaurant analogy is off a bit. You want to condemn the restaurant because you want something that is not on the menu. They aren’t giving you a “limited menu at the back of the restaurant.” You are invited to sit where you want. Next to the married people, the single, the widowed, the ill, the divorced. Next to “families” with no parents and families with one parent and those who desire intimacy but will never have it because they are disabled or mentally ill or simply unlucky or unattractive. All those people who also want more than what they have in this life. You are offered the same menu as everyone else, but you want a special menu. You want the restaurant to cater to you. That’s not what the restaurant does, however. It offers the gospel. Its supplier only supplies one gospel. And, it’s the Savior who helps to fit that gospel to each diner. He can make it enjoyable for all. I believe that.
But, you want to dictate what the restaurant should serve. And, because it doesn’t serve what you want, you criticize it. That’s your right, I suppose. But, it doesn’t make sense to me. Why would you want into a restaurant that apparently serves food that you don’t like? I’m asking that question sincerely. Because that’s part of what I don’t understand. I don’t want you to go to another restaurant. I’d love to have your company in this one, but to have you there and criticizing the food, when you know what is and what isn’t offered seems . . . I don’t know, pointless.
I’ve never understood what the phrase, God is no respecter of persons means. God seems to me to pick and choose. He loves us as his children, but he sets conditions for our return. At times he seems to favor certain groups of people. If you believe the bible, then He certainly favored the Israelites for centuries. He restricted the priesthood back then. Even the Savior didn’t preach vigorously to the gentiles. And, what if there really is something eternal about gender. And, what if there really is a reason God wants us to become Gods and Goddesses together, male and female. What if there is a benefit to that that He can see but we can’t completely?
Thanks for your response. I do try to understand. I can’t change the gospel. I can only reach out on an individual basis. And, that was my original point. There are members and leaders who try to reach out. The “sum total” of our reaching out wasn’t the Church’s non-opposition to that ordinance. There is more. And, you dismiss it as meaningless. By the way, I also don’t know of any reaching out by the the gay community where I live toward the Church. They judge me and hate me for merely being a member. They said terrible things to me and defaced the building where I attend during the Prop 8 mess. No members or leaders that I know made signs that made fun of gays or that mocked them. I saw plenty of signs mocking my beliefs from the other side.
I’ve rambled on. I apologize for that. It’s a difficult issue and one that I try very hard to understand and be empathetic about. Thanks for responding. I don’t know your background, but I appreciated what you had to say and your willingness to engage in a dialogue.
January 27, 2010 at 8:23 am
Let’s take your restaurant menu analogy to its real extent in regard to Prop 8. In this case, the owners of one restaurant (LDS) have determined that chicken fried steak is bad for you, so they won’t put it on their menu, and won’t serve it, even if you make a special request. That’s all well and good, of course.
Unfortunately, the owners of this one restaurant have taken matters much further. Since they think chicken fried steak is bad for you, they have decided to do “all they can” to use the force of legislation to prevent any other restaurant from serving chicken fried steak, and even to make the possession or consumption of chicken fried steak illegal for all citizens—not just this one restaurant’s customers.
January 25, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Guy,
The church was entirely within its rights to do what it did: namely, to be by far the most influential and active organization mobilizing money and support for prop 8.
But it’s also understandable that this makes some people angry, and people are entirely within their rights to criticize the church for its actions.
I don’t understand why you attempt to minimize the role of the church by saying, for example, that it was only “one of a plethora of churches” (rather than the most active church by far), or that the money was given by “individual” Mormons, as if the church had not directly asked for these donations (including asking for specific amounts). I would think you would be proud of the church’s role.
January 25, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Mitch,
How do you define marriage then? Between a man and a woman or woman and a woman? Are you going to tell me that the definition of marriage now is “woman and a woman”? That doesn’t make sense. I raised this because Anti-Prop 8 argued that marriage is not defined by law to be the union between a woman and a man. So if its undefined, then so be it. Let the Polygamists marry more women then. It would be ridiculous if anti-Prop-8 think that Polygamists don’t have the rights as Lesbian and Gays!
January 26, 2010 at 7:03 am
No, the two are very different. The arguement here is not about polygamy. Gays have a legal right to be married. Your fear tactic about polygamy entering the door is a poor defense. We shouldn’t worry about the definition of marriage since marriage has changed over time. Abraham’s first child was not from his married wife, and it was he who God gave the covenant to. Jacob, later became Israel, married two sisters, and it was he who the tribes came from. Silly to try and define marriage as “that’s the way it has always been” because it just isn’t true.
January 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Where in the constitution does it says “Gays have the legal right to be married and not Polygamists?” You obviously didn’t read the pro-Same-Sex marriage arguments, which I’ve referred to all along. Let me try again: In trying to repeal the definition of marriage as outlined in the Prop8 (ie One man/One woman), Pro-samesex lawyers argued that the constitution doesn’t in any way define marriage to be between a man and a woman. They argued that gays and lesbians have the same right(s) as do male and female when it comes to marriage, and that the Prop8 is illegal in its own definition.
Now, how is this argument not applicable to Polygamists? If Pro-samesex lawyers argued that the definition is not there, where on earth did you get your ideas that polygamists aren’t entitled to the same argument? Are you going to apply the prop8 arguments that the Pro-samesex lawyers called “bias” and “discriminatory?”
Besides, this is not about the Bible anymore, does it? Pro-samesex lawyers have trashed the Bible calling it as a piece of garbage that perpetuated discrimination in all levels.
I still haven’t see any credible arguments from you. I don’t see how these pro-samesex lawyers would define marriage if Polygamists bring their own case to room using the anti-Prop8 arguments that married is not defined in the Federal law nor the CA law.
January 26, 2010 at 11:15 am
This is the first time I’ve been to this website. I did see the film at Sundance on Sunday 1/24/10. I must say that I didn’t think the film itself was very well done. They seemed to be focused more on those that were already in support of their cause rather than those that are fence-sitters or are against homosexuality. Personally, I have a lot of friends that are gay (I was sitting next to one at the film, and I have an aunt who just had a baby with her partner in January– she is adorable by the way!)
Anyways, is anyone really surprised that the LDS church fought so strongly against gay marriage? Even if they were involved for a long time it only makes it evident that they were more prepared than the opposition. They came together for a common purpose and strongly pushed the issue because it was a very important one. They fought “better” than the gay community. Instead of pouting about it and putting out anti-mormon propoganda why doesn’t the gay community figure out how to fighter “better” and be more prepared for the next time. This won’t be the last time something like this happens. The Mormon church will probably be involved and will most definitely be ready.
January 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Corie, I think the gay community can actually pout and also prepare to fight better next time. I have my doubts that the Church will ask it’s California members to go through this again. I think the Church was a little surprised by the negative publicity. I don’t live in California but some members I know that worked for 8 said it was a real grind that they don’t want to go through again. Since the most anti-gay-marriage people are often well rooted in their religion, I doubt that on balance it helped missionary work, but that’s only my suspicion. Yes, the fundamentalist Christians are on our side of the question, but they still think we’re going to burn in hell for eternity.
January 26, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I think that if the issue is presented again then the church leaders would ask its members to be involved again, possibly just as strongly as before. They are not going to back down on the issue or lessen their strength against it. It’s a catch-22, each side wants the other to give up their beliefs, but neither is willing to do so.
January 31, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Well Corie, we’ll see. I don’t think were speaking about hypotheticals, because this is going to come up again and probably very soon.
January 28, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Guy, I notice you’ve read the comments (twice, at least) since I asked you if a 65+ Mormon couple that had a domestic partnership would 1) be considered living in sin and 2) be allowed to go to the temple.
But yet, you haven’t answered. Why not?
February 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm
RE: #22 djinn
I’m not Guy, but the current Handbook of Instructions is clear that sexual intercourse is only acceptable between a man and woman who are legally and lawfully married. The Church already has congregations in countries that allow same sex marriages, in those countries only a heterosexual type of the various legal marriage options is recognized as being temple acceptable. At the point a Church member who is a partner in a heterosexual domestic partnership asks to receive a temple recommend the Bishop/Stake President will have to make a decision about whether the partnership qualifies as a legal marriage. I suspect he/they will call Church headquarters for guidance (but might just say no without checking). A possible precedent is to look at how the Church views common law marriages. Typically the Church does not consider them to be valid, even though the law (in some jurisdictions) does. My *guess* is that the Church would not accept such a relationship as being a legal marriage.
February 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Thank you, John Harvey, for your answer. I guess there are differences between a domestic partnership and a marriage. Or why the fuss?
February 2, 2010 at 4:18 pm
More Anti-Mormon Shenanigans for Guy’s Consideration:
Shameful.
February 23, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Guy,
1. Proposition 8 isn’t/wasn’t the Church’s Proposition–the People of California placed it on the ballot, and voted in favor of it. Yes, Mormons (individually) contributed vast sum of money toward the proposition–so that makes them bigots and hateful because they exercise Constitutional rights of religion, expression and voting?
I believe so, just as anyone that gave money to pass separate but equal laws or anti interracial marriage laws were bigots. Even though they claimed they were doing so to support their religion and exercising their Constitutional rights.
2. California couples can and do register as domestic partners under one of the most sweeping domestic partnership laws in the country. Under those laws they enjoy the same legal rights as married persons in California law.
Very crafty wording “in California law” Domestic partnerships lack over 900 federal rights attached to marriage and according to the Supreme court one our most important institutions and rights as Americans. Our church worked to destroy these marriages and by extension these families. In doing so our leaders have violated their own injunction and asked us to do the same:
“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
3. The Church was only one of a plethora of churches supporting the proposition.
Plethora may be too strong of a word, but I will give you that we were not the only church. Your statement clouds the truth that our membership was directed by the leaders of the church to become the driving force for prop. 8. Our membership gave over 70% of the money. So the rest of this plethora kinda wimped out.
4. The Church does not teach anyone to hate anyone else, under any circumstances.
You are technically right. The church does not verbally teach to hate. What do their actions teach?
As a life long member I have seen plenty of homophobic and hateful things said from the pulpit and in Sunday school. I have heard some many people tell me that is not the church it is the people. The church can not control all of their people form teaching hateful things in the church. This apparently is true, but they can get them to spend millions to take away the constitutional right to marry from this group of people they can not stop their members from teaching hateful things about.
5. The Church supported Salt Lake City’s first gay right’s ordinance–and rightly so; however, they were not obligated to do so, and without the Church’s support may not have eventually passed.
Yes, you are correct the Church is not obligated by anything, but the moral obligation to do what is right. Is it not the right thing to stand up and say that it is wrong to kick someone out of their home or fire them from their job because of who they are? Yet, the Church stands silently by while the Utah legislature plays political games to keep these very injustices legal.
“The MSNBC article says Cowan begged the Church for participation in his endeavor. Why on earth would the Church do that, given the tenor and tone of Mr. Cowan’s presentation?”
I think the evidence brought forward during the prop 8 trial explains why the church did not want a film made about their efforts in prop. 8. They sent e-mails not only directing the campaign, but also directing how to keep their involvement a secret.
February 23, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Blake,
“And on top of that the LDS Church doesn’t make propaganda films about gays. I suggest that we not ignore the fact that gays have protested, fired Mormons and boycotted their businesses.”
All of the commercials the LDS Church made during prop 8 were not only propaganda, but were at best misrepresentation of the facts if not just simply disingenuous. Unfortunately, the church’s “the Devine Institution of marriage” the document they published to justify the Church’s action during prop. 8 was lifted directly from the document Six Consequences of Gay Marriage Which was shown by Morris A. Thurston an itinerate Law prof. at BYU law school to be full of faults hoods and have no legitimacy. So yes the LDS Church does and has created much propaganda about gays and gay marriage.
The second part of your statement is taken completely out of context. During the campaign leaders in the prop 8 campaign who happened to be local Mormon leaders wrote letters to businesses that contributed to the anti prop 8 campaign that if they did not equal their contribution to the prop 8 campaign they would be boycotted by religious people. In response yes businesses that donated to the prop 8 campaign some owned by Mormons where boycotted. I ask you if a place of business gave money to make your marriage illegal would you do business with them?
Also completely separate issue. When the Utah legislature works hard for two years in a raw to keep it legal to fire gay people in Utah regardless of sexual behavior, do you wonder why some people talk about firing Mormons? This all talked about in a hypothetical nature. It is illegal to fire Mormons just because they are Mormons, remember. It is only legal to fire you for who you are if you are gay.
February 23, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Angel of Vengeance,
“Get over it. You L O S T.”
Fortunately, the civil rights movement did not get over losing the to Jim Crow laws!!!!!!!!!
February 27, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Technically the Mormon Church doesn’t make ‘propaganda’ films about homosexuals. They pay others to do it. Both in Hawaii and California Mormons gave support and money to PACs that made derogatory, inflammatory and often completely untrue claims to sell Prop 8 in CA and to stop same sex marriage in HI. If the Mormon Church really believes all the propaganda they pay others to produce, why don’t they put their name and the faces and voices of their lawyers, like Dallin Oaks, on all the material produced to support Prop 8? Because they know the arguments are false, not legally tenable and would further erode the credibility of BYU’s Law School. (Jay Bybee, anyone?) They have a well documented tactic of trying to distance the Mormon Church from the results of what their money and support produces. Effective but dishonest. I couldn’t possibly care less if the Mormon Church ‘reaches out’ to me–I neither seek the approval of this so called Church nor do I–as an American–need their good graces to eventually obtain equal protection under the law. Mormons are now and forever my enemy and all I want is for them to leave me alone. When they have moved on to another ‘enemy’ (don’t forget, Boyd Packer said that homosexuals were the ‘enemy’ before I said the same about Mormons) I will enjoy the supreme pleasure of ignoring the Mormons and their smug, hateful self righteousness. I look forward to that day. Until then, this is not over.
April 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm
I am LDS. 5th generation and active.
If the gays wish to live together in whatever arrangment the may like, other than marriage, that is their prerogative.
Marriage is for one man and one woman. End of discussion as far as I am concerned.
The LDS church can and will become involved politically and publicly as to moral issues. If they give money, use of resources and etc. that is and LDS prerogative.
Get used to it. We are not going to change to suit gays.
April 4, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Goody for you. Believe and practice whatever you choose. The Constitution allows you to do that. It also allows me equal protection under the law, which refers to civil marriage only. You can continue to discriminate against gays or black people or whomever you will, and it makes no difference to me. I am only interested in secular law. You who are ‘God’s Chosen in the Only True Church’ can continue to hate or exclude whomever you choose and I will be more than thrilled to ignore you once I have obtained equal protection under the law. ‘Sons of Cain’ ring any bells?
April 4, 2010 at 10:45 pm
So get used to that.
April 4, 2010 at 11:28 pm
BTW you might want to reread DC132 about the new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage. One man, many women is actually the LDS model, unless the 132 section has been repealed.
April 5, 2010 at 8:02 am
Bob Powelson,
“Marriage is for one man and one woman. End of discussion as far as I am concerned.” Interesting statement, I wonder what Brother Brigham would have said in response.
“The LDS church can and will become involved politically and publicly as to moral issues. If they give money, use of resources and etc. that is and LDS prerogative.”
It was also our church’s prerogative to fight interracial marriage and integration, which was also seen as moral issues.
In 1954 in a talk to BYU Elder Mark E. Peterson said:
“[The Negro] is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a café where white people sit. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar….[I]t appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is the objective and we must face it….Remember the little statement that they used to say about sin, “First we pity, then endure, then embrace.””
In 1946 in a talk to the YWMIA conference J Rueben Clark of the first presidency said:
”We should hate nobody, and having said that, I wish to urge a word of caution, particularly to you young girls. It is sought today in certain quarters to break down all race prejudice, and at the end of the road, which they who urge this see, is intermarriage. That is what it finally comes to. Now, you should hate nobody; you should give to every man and every woman, no matter what the color of his or her skin may be, full civil rights. You should treat them as brothers and sisters, but do not ever let that wicked virus get into your systems that brotherhood either permits or entitles you to mix races which are inconsistent.”
In 1947 a letter to members in CA the first presidency George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. Mckay said in part:
“No special effort has ever been made to proselyte among the Negro race, and social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes should certainly not be encouraged because of leading to intermarriage, which the Lord has forbidden.
This move which has now received some popular approval of trying to break down social barriers between the Whites and the Blacks is one that should not be encouraged because inevitably it means the mixing of the races if carried to its logical conclusion.”
Brigham Young spoke on this subject often he said among other things:
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
Sometimes we as members and even our leaders make assumptions about Gods opinion on a subject. Fortunately, mostly the leaders and the membership make these assumptions based solidly on the scriptures or on direct revelation. If you actually look instead of assume you will find that gay marriage is in the same boat as our church’s treatment of blacks.
August 22, 2010 at 10:53 am
After reading some of the above I am confused. I didn’t know the church reached out to anybody based on sexual preference or that was even a question that was asked. I don’t speak for the church but it is my understanding that they reach out to children of God (Which is everybody). Membership requires obediance to rules similar to being a citizen of this nation wherein we are required to obey rules and laws. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman among all cultures within the confines of this country. Now, becaus a small minority wants to redefine the word we are all expected to allow it or we are deemed bigots. Laws regarding marriage have always existed. Are they unconsitutional? For example, family members cannot intermarry. There are age restrictions. There are mental capacity restrictions. With this as the history how can you claim it is an issue of constitutional magnitude. The state defines marriage. Further, to compare the claim that the church is similar to the KKK and that homosexuals suffer a denial of their civil rights on this issue to the same degree as blacks is ignorance at it’s highest level.
The church has done nothing more than try to do what California voters did in two elections, and that is to simply allow marriage to maintain its traditional role.
Two percent of Californian’s are LDS. Fifty per cent or more of them are inactive. I think the gay community should find someone else to blame for their inability, thus far, persuade the public that their relationships constitute marriage in the traditional form.
August 22, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Jim,
“After reading some of the above I am confused. I didn’t know the church reached out to anybody based on sexual preference or that was even a question that was asked.”
Maybe this is why three times the homosexual men in the church commit suicide than straight men.
“Membership requires obediance to rules similar to being a citizen of this nation wherein we are required to obey rules and laws.”
Prop 8 had nothing to do with rules for membership in the church.
“Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman among all cultures within the confines of this country.”
Yes and in the 1950’s marriage had always been legally defined as between people of the same race.
“Now, becaus a small minority wants to redefine the word we are all expected to allow it or we are deemed bigots.”
Just as when the church apposed interracial marriage was seen as based on bigotry, because it has not clear coherent reasoning or moral logic. There is lots of ways to justify bigotry against interracial marriage from the scriptures none that make any real moral since other than a cultural issues at the time. It is true you can quote isolated scriptures to justify bigotry against same-sex couples and families to deny them rights, but those scriptures are not only surprisingly few, but are scriptural sources that the brethren disregard on so many other issues. In fact there is much less scriptural support for this prejudice than there was for our bigotry against interracial marriage.
“Laws regarding marriage have always existed. Are they unconsitutional? For example, family members cannot intermarry. There are age restrictions. There are mental capacity restrictions.”
Yes these laws do exist with the exception of the mental capacity. I work with developmentally disabled adults. They are allowed to marry if they choice. With all of your examples we can show with no problem at all that they not only harm to society, but we can not prove that it harms the individuals in question and their families to deny them the right to marry. If you read any of the trial transcripts from the prop 8 trial even the expert witnesses hired to support prop 8 testified that not only does gay marriage does not harm traditional marriage at all, but denying the right to marry to these couples greatly harms their children. I know the pro 8 campaign said other wise, but the trail also reviled that this was not only hyperbole but based on lies.
“Further, to compare the claim that the church is similar to the KKK and that homosexuals suffer a denial of their civil rights on this issue to the same degree as blacks is ignorance at it’s highest level.”
The opposite is actually the case.
“The church has done nothing more than try to do what California voters did in two elections, and that is to simply allow marriage to maintain its traditional role.”
Actually both times California voters voted to illegality these marriages they were influenced by the church in the same way political action committees influence voters. The difference is political action committees do so transparently regulated by law. Churches on the other hand barred from excurting large influence on political campaigns because they can hide behind a veil of secrecy and not disclose their finances.
“Two percent of Californian’s are LDS. Fifty per cent or more of them are inactive.”
So how did they come up with 70 % of the millions it took to pass prop 8?
August 22, 2010 at 11:48 pm
The Mormon Church has learned and used a fundamental truth in its continuing campaign against homosexual Americans: fear mongering and lying work really well. Prop 8 was based and sold on a pack of lies and fear mongering. When the reasons for passing Prop 8 were put under the scrutiny of judicial overview, witnesses ran away and what was left was just more fear mongering. Fortunately, our legal system worked, and Prop 8 was overturned, since its proponents could come up with nothing but more of the same, not facts or any real reasons for denying homosexual Americans equal protection under the law. If Mormon Church leaders were so sure about the BS their members paid for in the Prop 8 campaign, why didn’t any of them testify in the court proceedings? Where was Dallin Oaks?
August 23, 2010 at 7:33 am
“If Mormon Church leaders were so sure about the BS their members paid for in the Prop 8 campaign, why didn’t any of them testify in the court proceedings? Where was Dallin Oaks?”
Apparently lying and lying under oath are two different things.