And what a load of horse puckey it is. Here's my impertinent response to the high muckety-muck priesthood holders.
First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public DiscourseSince 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. People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights. These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.
Uh, Tom [Monson], Henry [Eyring] and Dieter [Uchtdorf] (I can call you that, right?), when you take away someone's civil rights, people do not take real kindly to that. You should have expected that there would be trouble. Don't you pay PR people big bucks to advise you on this stuff? From my reading of the proposition, your actions in promoting Yes on Proposition 8 FORCIBLY DIVORCED 18,000 couples. Not only that, people I know who had planned to get married in California now cannot do so. And you expect those people to just roll over and play dead? Dream on.
(more after the jump)The Church is keenly aware of the differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive matter. The reasons for this principled stand in defense of marriage have already been articulated elsewhere. However, some of what we have seen since Californians voted to pass Proposition 8 has been deeply disappointing.
Don't try to dignify what you did with the idea that it was "principled." NO, it was accomplished through lies and in some cases, attempts at intimidation. I myself gave money to No on Proposition 8 after the Yes people (made up primarily of Latter-day Saints, I might remind people) sent out blackmail letters to businesses that had given money to No on 8. As for the protests, when you run a campaign such as this, enlist all your footsoldiers, hold satellite conferences, call people to positions, shake down members for money, and basically go out and campaign both in church and out to pass this proposition, you should (AGAIN) not be surprised at the reaction. Of COURSE people are going to gravitate to the brightly lit, white buildings where the Church performs marriages that cannot be observed by non-members. It's a big, well-lit target. Again, why should you be surprised?
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.You know, up until today, when I read an article in Meridian magazine (an LDS magazine) by one Gary Lawrence, who was a hotshot in Yes on 8, I would have said, yeah, getting onto small individual donors like the manager of El Coyote is not a good idea. Then I read Mr. Lawrence's article (here: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/080711war.html ) and, frankly, it stinks. This man compared those of us who did not support Yes on 8 to those of Heavenly Father's children in the pre-existence who decided to follow Satan in the War in Heaven. That's just sick, twisted and demented. And that's just ONE example of the kind of rhetoric that's been brought to my attention. I'm sure there are many, many others, including the stuff said over the pulpit in hundreds of Mormon wards in California over the past several months.
We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other.
Yeah, the asshats who sent white powder to the temples are no better than terrorists and should be prosecuted. (Similarly, people who send white powder to abortion clinics should also be prosecuted.) However, people exercising their civil rights to protest (you know, the one you haven't gotten a chance to take away yet through initiative and referendum) are not going to be silenced by this faux plea. You, Tom, Henry, Dieter and the rest of the Council of Twelve, the General Authorities of the Church and the people who follow you unquestioningly, you brought it on yourself.
I'm going to tomorrow's protest. I haven't decided on my signs, but I'm leaning towards "Let's Vote On Your Marriage Next" and "Keep Your Doctrine Off My Covenants." In short, gentlemen, you brought this on yourself and, as the guy who forwarded your statement to me said, you made me angry all over again. You are either clueless or venal and in this moment I can't decide which.
--mirele
heterosexual female
former Mormon, resigned 9 Nov 2008
DC's Metro Weekly come a Q&A with a number of LGBT Civil Rights organizations' Executive Directors. Some of the questions from MW were:
- From your perspective, what is the most immediate effect of the presidential election on the GLBT community?- Since the 1990s, a small number of GLBT issues have consistently emerged at the federal legislative level: ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', ENDA, partner immigration, hate crimes and marriage equality. With a Democratic Congress and president, which of those issues do you believe should be prioritized?
- How do you believe the landscape will change for GLBT federal workers under the new administration? Will Obama's pledge to extend domestic-partner benefits to federal workers come through?
And, the one I'm really interested in:
- Will Congress be able to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA?
Not a surprise in one sense...only 3 of the 7 executive directors that answered any of the questions for this survey were quoted answering that particular ENDA question at all -- and 1 of those 3 quoted as answering that question was Mara Keisling of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE).
I'll hazard a guess as to why only 3 of 7 were quoted: My guess would be that the 4 of the 7 orgs that didn't answer that question either on their survey because they either didn't want to be on record on this subject, or didn't have very positive thoughts on the subject.
Of course, 1 of the 7 organizations whose executive director's answered questions for MW but didn't have an answer for the ENDA question was the soon to be the soon ex-executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Sammon. So, there's no surprise that there's no trans-positive statement coming from him -- I don't recall ever seeing a trans-positive statement from his organization.
Call me a today's pessimist on a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress. I hope it's just my angst over the No On Prop 8 campaign failing to win on election day that's fueling today's pessimism on my part -- hopefully, I'll be more optimistic on ENDA during 2009/2010's Congress.
Last Tuesday's historic election wasn't all good news for progressive politics. In California, voters passed Proposition 8, which created a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Its passage has ignited activism for equal rights across the country, including right here in North Carolina. A grassroots group called NC Against H8 is organizing a rally for equal rights in downtown Raleigh on Saturday. Organizer Will Elliott and blogger Pam Spaulding, editor of pamshouseblend.com, discuss why what's happening in California matters to everyone.
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment