Although they live a continent away from California, LDS Church members Gregory and JaLynn Prince, of Washington, D.C., still have felt the backlash from their church's involvement in the traditional marriage initiative known as Proposition 8.On the other hand, some the politicized and powerful reps in the LDS are welcoming the attention and the acknowledgment that the church's money machine and ability to marshal foot soldiers in the new culture wars is potent.Their daughter, Lauren, a Boston University student, has lost friends over the issue, while their son, an LDS missionary in San Bernardino, Calif., has had a disproportionate number of potential converts cancel appointments.
About two weeks ago, during a first-ever class on Mormonism at Wesley Theological Seminary, where the Princes have built bridges for years, students pointedly asked them: "What was your church thinking?"
"We are not taking sides on the issue, but the way this was done has hurt our people and the church's image," JaLynn Prince said. "It reminds me of the naive public relations strategy we had regarding the Equal Rights Amendment."
Gary Lawrence added his own optimistic view.You'll recall that in Chino Blanco's diary on Lawrence, this is a man who revels in his power at stripping a group of people of civil rights -- a group that his son Matthew belongs to."These protests will help us. It puts a spotlight on us," said Lawrence, a leader in the Proposition 8 campaign and author of How Americans View Mormonism: Seven Steps to Improve Our Image.
"Which is worse -- antagonism or apathy? I believe apathy is our bigger enemy."
Matthew Lawrence, in an e-mail interview with this diarist, said that although he is "extremely upset and frustrated" with his family and that he has "cut off communication with them," that "at the end of the day, I do love them." The elder Lawrence was also the Mormon Church's point man for the Prop 22 campaign in 2000. Matt says, "I love my family so much, but it's hard to not take this personally. We had a brief falling-out over Prop. 22, but that got mended. But two anti-gay initiatives in eight years, it's impossible not to feel attacked."
Yeah. Once you stop laughing or hitting your computer screen, you can read on...
The National Organization for Marriage (you know, the group headed up by Maggie Gallagher that's sole purpose is to deny marriage equality to LGBT folk) has launched a petition drive to thank the Mormon Church for its help (to the tune of over $20 million) in passing Prop 8.
Ugh.
The petition was created to:
stand together to say 'Enough!' to the campaign of hate and intimidation being waged against the LDS Church and other supporters of California's Proposition 8.
I'll gloss over the fact that this is the same bunch of folks who sent out blackmail letters to people who gave money to "No on 8" threatening them to donate or else. And it's supported by the groups who call for boycotts constantly against any business that does anything remotely pro-equality or pro-LGBT. And did I mention the threats to recall the Supreme Court in California from these guys if they don't rule the way the fundies want?
Yeah. The word hypocrisy comes to mind...
But they've had enough of the LGBT community standing up and saying that taking away rights is wrong. Maggie Gallagher said:
The answer is to organize together in defense not only of marriage, and God's truth about marriage, but in defense of basic, American decency about how we treat each other when we disagree.
Basic decency??? Really, Maggie? The fact that you get a paycheck to go and spout unfounded, horrific lies about gay people and our children and families seems to go beyond "basic, American decency."
But the biggest bit of irony (or just plain chutzpah) comes from the petition itself:
It is deeply unfair, and contrary to the best American traditions, that any faith community, much less a minority one, should be singled out and attacked in this way by powerful, well-funded political forces determined to "make them pay" for participating in the normal political processes of democracy.
Wow. It is really awful when a minority is singled out and attacked by powerful, well-funded political forces determined to "make them pay." Just ask the LGBT community. Wait, that's probably not what you meant, huh? Funny how that works...
Check out the petition and the names of the supporters on AboveTheHate.com (why can't I type that without rolling my eyes...). The list includes Dr. James Dobson and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Bishop Harry Jackson, and John Stemberger of Florida's Yes2Marriage Campaign- you know, the folks who have more than a passing familiarity with hate.
Yeah, it seems like it might be hard for the rightwing fundies to "rise above the hate" when their entire existence is built on hate and bigotry.
(Special hat tip to our friends over at Good As You)
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Well that didn't take long.
I was waiting for a religious right group to answer back to yesterday's ruling in Miami,FL that the state prohibition on gay adoption was unconstitutional.
And leave it to the Liberty Counsel to push the talking points that will most likely been seen on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes as well as World Net Daily, One News Now and everywhere else that the conservative/religious right echo chamber resonate. I am going to point out the parts I found "interesting":
Miami, FL – Today, an activist Miami State Court Judge ruled that a 1977 Florida law that bans homosexual adoption is unconstitutional. (First thing's first. Smear the judge for not ruling the way Liberty Counsel felt she should. According to the Liberty Counsel, she didn't rule objectively. Somebody put roots on her.)
Earlier this month voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried heterosexuals and homosexuals from adopting children. (Notice that turn of phrase. In legitimate articles, I have read this phrase to say "voters in Arkansas passed a law which bans unmarried couples, whether they be heterosexual or gay, from adopting children." The way the Liberty Counsel claims, it looks like the Arkansas law bans gays from adopting outright.)
In September, the Kentucky Court of Appeals strongly rebuked an activist lower family court for permitting a lesbian woman to illegally “adopt” her female companion’s child, in clear violation of both Kentucky law and the Kentucky Constitution. The higher court reaffirmed that in Kentucky, stepparent adoptions are only legal when the stepparent is married to a biological parent and that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. (This is true. The Kentucky Court of Appeals did say that stepparent adoptions are allowed only when the stepmother or father is married to the biological parent. But that has nothing to do with the Florida case. The Florida case deals with Frank Gill, a man who wanted to adopt two foster childen he had been raising for four years.)
Most states ban homosexual adoption through legislation, regulation, or court precedent. These states ban adoption by homosexuals because the best interest of children is served by placing them in homes with a mom and a dad or where there is a likelihood of a mom and a dad. A homosexual home automatically excludes one gender, either the mom or the dad. Only a handful of states actually permit homosexual adoption. (The big lie!!! In most states, the orientation of the potential adoptive parent is not an issue i.e. the state does not ask about orientation. Florida was the only state that outright banned gay adoption. However some states may be moving the way of Arkansas and making it difficult for lgbt couples to adopt children. One guess which organization will be helping to nudge them along.)
There is a vague mention of "studies" that show that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father.
This talking point is faulty for two reasons - 1. How many of these "studies" measured heterosexual households to same-sex households? From what I understand, none did.
2. Also, the talking point does not address the fact that across the nation, there is a waiting list filled with children waiting to be adopted. The notion that "children do best in a home with a mother and a father" is an empty talking point because it does not address the fact that these "homes" are not present to adopt these children.
Also - I noticed how the Liberty Counsel omitted the George A. Rekers testimony, probably because it was embarrassing to their side. Rekers testified for the ban and said that he would look into banning adoption for Native Americans.
Expect the religious right to try and not mention Rekers's testimony. Don't let them get away with it.
Now everyone can get on with their holiday travels and the like. Have a happy Thanksgiving!
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment