Based on Proposition 8′s passing, it’s obvious the sentiment here in California is to uphold the longstanding description of marriage. To try to obtain a favorable decision from the courts now would only further inflame the majority who voted to pass Prop. 8. That would only lead to a further backlash. The People don’t like to be told their voice has no power.
In all fairness to the “No on 8″ crowd, the time is not right to change the definition of marriage. Taking their lumps, biding their time and making their alleged case to the majority will do more to help their cause than the hostile outbursts, protests and boycotts. Enjoy the rights you’ve got and be patient for tomorrow.
Nov. 4 was a day another group of people could only dream of just 25 years ago. When Barack Obama was declared the winner and 44th president of the United States, it wasn’t the result of a lawsuit or pressure by attorneys. It was the culmination of a successful campaign, by an articulate candidate, to a country willing to accept him.
Blacks certainly waited a lot longer than one generation to see this happen, and have suffered a great deal more for their civil rights. That’s what truly makes this the greatest country ever conceived — that if you want something and are willing to work at it long enough, it could happen. Frankly, I’m outraged the gay community would even pretend to compare themselves with them.
I admit I voted for Prop. 8– and when this issue comes up for vote again, I’ll vote the same way– but I would have been just as vocal against any proponents of Prop. 8 trying to go to court to gain an advantage over the voice of the majority had it been defeated. If McCain won the presidential election, how would you have felt if the Obama camp went to court saying the majority vote didn’t count and we should be fair to the black candidate? I value the power of elections that much. You need to shake it off and work for the future. What you’re doing now is only losing supporters you already have.
19 responses so far ↓
1 Jim // Nov 18, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Good points. I also wonder if the media attention actually is favorable for the church. I’m sure some disagree with the decision and the church’s stance, but I hope that lots of people would be impressed that the church and its members stand up for what they believe is right.
As a resident of CA, you would know better than me to what extent the church was involved and to what extent this involvement may have influenced the vote, but based on the LDS population alone, for the life of me I can’t understand how any sane person could “blame” the church for the passing of the proposition.
2 David // Nov 18, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Jim,
It’s true the Church membership was a small fraction of the overall voting population, but it’s also true that they ran an extremely efficient, organized, tireless front-line in the Prop 8 campaign. The systematic distribution of signs, knocking on doors and rallies on street corners created a most beautiful, potent machine. I don’t think the Saints should be all demure and say, “Who, little ol’ us?”– They did a lot to make this thing pass, and may have very well pushed it over the top.
At the same time, I don’t buy that 70%+ of the black community voted for Prop 8 because they were “lied to by the Mormons”. So, uh, what are you trying to say there, that most of the African-American community are too gullible to make an intelligent decision? You’re blaming us because they didn’t join you in a tearful round of “We Shall Overcome?” Please.
3 cheryl // Nov 19, 2008 at 2:33 am
David-
This is the best post I’ve read in response to the No on Prop 8 backlash. Thank you!
And just fyi:
“King’s youngest daughter Bernice said the following at a conference in Auckland, New Zealand:
‘I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions.’”
And like you said, if the No on 8 are trying to convince the nation that the black vote was “misinformed”, aren’t they being appallingly racist in assuming they are “not as smart” or “easily duped”?
The hypocrisy blows me away (and I haven’t even mentioned the violence and vandalism).
4 Chris H. // Nov 19, 2008 at 3:15 am
Corretta Scott King prior to her death, MLK’s son Dexter have supported same-sex marriage, so I would not read to much into Bernice’s comments as being definitive statements about her father.
5 xoxoxoxo // Nov 19, 2008 at 5:11 am
There’s a wise saying out there somewhere that I’m too lazy to look up so I can quote it perfectly, but it basically says that if you want to know the “truth” about the character of a person, watch how they handle defeat.
I find it most ironic that the group of people who so vehemently rebuked even the suggestion that same-sex marriages MIGHT wreak havoc on society and religion is the same group of people who are wreaking havoc on society and a specific religion. Things that make ya go hummmmmmmm.
Good to hear from ya kid. Was beginning to wonder if you’d been tarred and feathered and buried under a pile of signs….
6 Nick Literski // Nov 19, 2008 at 5:17 am
That’s an interesting quote from Bernice King. On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow, Corretta Scott King (who arguably understood her late husband’s views at least as well as any of their children did!), condemned efforts to ban marriage equality.
From the report in USA Today:
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday. “Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,” she said. “A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-king-marriage_x.htm
7 David // Nov 19, 2008 at 5:23 am
With all due respect to the King family (not the Mormon one): 1) Four decades later, we don’t know what MLK would have said, and 2) He wasn’t a prophet.
8 Karron // Nov 19, 2008 at 6:17 am
Amen to the last statement David. When I see all the whining and screaming going on by the losers of prop 8 I do two things, feel anger that they would desecrate a sacred place (LDS and other religious institutions) and I laugh at how infantile and childish the protesters sound. Strident and vile, they all look like failing college wonks who have been smoking too much dope and really don’t know why they are there, but it is fun to act out and scream at people.
Maturity doesn’t play into their plans. Having a tantrum and being hysterical to get attention isn’t going to get them anywhere in the process. They just look like fools.
What they don’t seem to get is that the majority ruled and they don’t want same sex marriage. They already have civil unions, that give them all the same rights as married heterosexuals. If they feel they need God’s blessing (like that will ever really happen) they can go through with some sort of ceremony at some church where they do that sort of thing.
It seems that logic has flown right out the nearest window and everyone wants to have an emotional meltdown instead of a calm conversation about any of this.
9 xoxoxoxo // Nov 19, 2008 at 7:01 am
I sense we’re coming to the end of a time when “calm” conversations were possible between adversarial parties. And prophecy does not indicate that things get BETTER from this point on.
The stakes are higher now, the consequences more pronounced, and both sides are determined. But in the end, everything belongs to God-you and I, gays, marriage, this planet, all of it. He organized it, He put things in motion, and He knew the outcome before there was a beginning.
Ultimately, we all knew we’d be better off…more advanced than we would have been no matter how badly we screwed up mortality and our country–and that no matter how bad things would get, the end would justify the means.
10 Chris H. // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I was not whining. Just do not drag the name of one the greatest people in American history into it. Do not dare defile him. He may not have been President of the LDS Church, but his was surely a prophet in the biblical sense.
You all won. Good for you. Do not make it worse.
11 xoxoxoxo // Nov 19, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Chris,
No one here has shown any disrespect to Martin Luther King, and the original poster quoted his daughter’s opinion, not his.
12 David // Nov 19, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Chris,
Again, I respect Rev. King, and I wasn’t trying to belittle his place in the betterment of America. I just don’t think bringing him into the Prop. 8 discussion was apropos. It’s true, he was a champion for civil rights, but he was also a dedicated minister, so who knows what he would have to say about this issue? Other black ministers preached “yes” on 8, so… who knows?
From an LDS (biblical) perspective, saying the gay community is entitled to the institution of marriage is like saying all the Old Testament tribes other than the Levites were entitled to the priesthood, or that anyone is entitled to go into the temple. The Lord didn’t see it that way and His people complied. “Entitlement” has nothing to do with it.
I repeat, this is from the Church’s perspective.
I’m with you as far as not wanting to exacerbate the issue, but we’re not the ones vandalizing houses of prayer and boycotting innocent standbyers. Who, Chris, is really making it worse?
13 Chris H. // Nov 19, 2008 at 6:57 pm
“I’m with you as far as not wanting to exacerbate the issue, but we’re not the ones vandalizing houses of prayer and boycotting innocent standbyers.”
That is like associating all pro-Prop. 8 people with gay bashers.
I think a study of MLK’s thought would be informative. He was clearly a radical liberal by the time of his death (that is good in my eyes).
I was refering to the biblical role of prophet. Clearly the Old Testament is a pre-enlightenment text. It contains no discussion of individual rights whatsoever.
14 David // Nov 19, 2008 at 7:05 pm
xoxoxoxo,
Good to hear from ya kid. Was beginning to wonder if you’d been tarred and feathered and buried under a pile of signs….
It’s good to be back. Whatcha say we move on and turn to something light the next time?
15 Karron // Nov 19, 2008 at 7:23 pm
David,
I am all for moving on, seems to me that too many are stuck in the past two weeks. I could use a good laugh or two.
Anyone ready to be a glutton at Thanksgiving? It is patriotic to do so, I saw a sign that said so the other day. Should have bought it for my yard.
16 David // Nov 19, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Karron,
By chance, did it say “Yes, I 8″?
17 Karron // Nov 20, 2008 at 4:19 am
LOL . .. too funny David. I have GOT to share that . . . giggle . . . snicker . . . snort…
18 xoxoxoxo // Nov 20, 2008 at 5:45 am
Oooooooooooooooooh man! *rolls eyes so hard she falls over backwards* Do ALL Jews have the same sense of humor? You know…the really-honey-you-are-not-funny-but-we-have-to-humor-you-because-we-love-you kind? I had HOPED it was JUST my FIL, but the hubby seems to have inherited it as well…and now this…
But hey! That’s a good way to recycle all them signs! Maybe we Mormons would make lemonade out of lemons if we “go green” with them.
19 David // Nov 20, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Here’s some food for thought:
“The one case where the court did nix an initiative as a “revision” involved major changes to the state’s Bill of Rights, says Gerald Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University. Since it’s so rare for these cases to succeed, he doubts the challengers will prevail.
“If the court does consider Proposition 8 to be a revision, they would have to admit that their original ruling in the marriage case was also a revision of the constitution, adds Mr. Uelmen. That would put the justices in the awkward position of, in effect, telling voters: “We can revise it, and you can’t.” Those justices would face a serious challenge when they come up for confirmation, he says.
“He acknowledges that there’s outrage in the gay community and elsewhere that a minority’s rights can be taken away by a simple majority vote. However, same-sex marriage “is not a right that has been enshrined in our Constitution for 200 years, it’s a right that’s only existed for three or four months since the decision of the California Supreme Court.”
You must log in to post a comment.