Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

The No on 8 Campaign is Worried

Timothy Kincaid

October 7th, 2008

Internal polling prepared for the No on 8 campaign shows that this proposition is neck and neck, perhaps even ahead. The anti-gay advertising is flooding the airwaves and their lies are working.

“We have the messages, our advertising is compelling, but polling tells us that it is not being seen or heard as much as the Yes side, and that needs to change,” Lake says in the memo.

Geoff Kors concluded: “The proponents will continue to mislead the public, and we can’t let their lies stick. And if we can’t get the resources into this campaign – both in dollars and volunteer hours – we will lose. Right now the fundraising gap is $6million. That’s the challenge, but I believe once the community understands how tight this race is, they will dig deep and give to our efforts. I’m comfortable that our best fundraising weeks are those ahead of us. We need everyone to pitch in right now.”

I believe that the Box Turtle Bulletin reader is not complacent. I believe that you are neither selfish nor lazy. I believe that you care enough to pull out your wallet, volunteer your time (if Californian), and make a difference.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

L. Junius Brutus
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

And according to the LA Times, they’ve spent all but 1 million of the 15 million they raised, without it seeming to have much effect in the polls. Sigh.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage7-2008oct07,0,7906965.story

Heads need to roll (not literally) if this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is screwed up and we’re set back 2 decades.

Hoping for a new Field Poll here.

Jim Burroway
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

The fault, I think is not with the No on Prop 8 folks. They are being outspent by the opposition 2:1. This means that Californians are seeing twice as many radio and television ads in favor of Prop 8, and there are media markets in California where “Yes” ads are running but “No” ads aren’t.

When you’re being outfunded 2:1, you simply cannot expect to move ahead.

This is why its important to give and stop grumbling. Something, I think, we’re all too good at. And something that our opponents aren’t doing.

Even though I am neck-deep in fighting Prop 102 in Arizona, I have decided to make a donation to No on 8 because this is a fight we cannot lose.

Trevor
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

If it passes it will be time to leave the bloated corpse of the US.

Timothy Kincaid
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

Moving to another country would cost thousands of dollars. A $1,000 contribution to the No on 8 campaign today would be a great investment.

C’mon, folks. They take credit cards.

Sapphocrat
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

We have GOT to do something about reforming the California initiative process, beginning with capping or stopping the flood of money from out-of-state special interest groups.

I can’t believe it, but for the first time, I think the haters might win this one. And if they do, they’ll get more than they asked for — they’ll get me to give up on ever attaining equality in this stupid country. We can never win as long as there are more haters, with more money — and there always will be. (Don’t even get me started about the appalling apathy within the LGBT “community” doing its damage.)

OK, rant off. My wife and I have killed ourselves to pull together $1,300 (we are not rich, and in truth live very much on the edge of financial disaster) for No On 8, and I have no idea where I can cut back in order to make another donation, but I will, today.

I just don’t think it’s going to do any good. I hate saying that, but the bastards have already won: They’ve broken my spirit.

Tara TASW
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

We have four weeks to fight. Donate, volunteer, write that letter to the editor, talk to family & friends who might be undecided.

And marvel at the absurdity of the Mormon Church lecturing anyone on “traditional” marrriage.

Kevin
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

If Prop 8 passes, it’s not because we didn’t try to stop it – so try to keep your spirits up Sapphocrat. You’ve done nothing wrong and everything right and this battle has not been lost yet. Why don’t we look at this glass as half-full? Look at the numbers of young people who are growing up believing homophobia is wrong. When I was young, “gay = sick” was still the norm amongst my peers. As the Jesse Helms of the world die out, so too will their ignorant prejudices. The goals of LGBT equality aren’t an American issue – this is a global issue. Let’s look at our movement through the lens of global freedom, because that’s what our stage is. Though it’s very hard to see from the middle of a battlefield, victory is close and certain. Look! The marriage equality fight is now at the Iowa Supreme Court. And soon it will be at Supreme Courts all over the US. And soon it will be at the US Supreme Court. Could we even have dreamed this 10 years ago? NO! So, don’t allow setbacks, real or imagined, to distract you from our gains. We WILL overcome.

Kevin
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

Can I also say one more thing? Okay…I’ve worked on election issues in the past and here’s what I’ve learned: polling be damned – what counts is how many of YOUR PEOPLE you get to the polls to vote vs. the other side. It doesn’t matter if the majority agrees or doesn’t agree with whatever issue is out there. What matters is that fraction of citizens eligible and registered to vote, actually do. Many elections are decided by 15% of the population. Let’s look at California: this November election will no doubt discourage some social conservatives (at least those who aren’t elderly) from voting since it’s pretty well assumed that Obama has the state in the bag. Senior citizens vote more consistantly and consistantly vote conservative, so count on them to vote for Prop 8. However, progressive voters may also stay home if they don’t see the importance of voting in a presidential race where Obama winning is a given. WE have to get progressives to vote ANYWAY. We should encourage early voting to get “slacker” (I say that with love) progressives who tend to skip election day to cast their vote. The mantra, repeat after me: VOTE EARLY! Again, it’s not how many people agree with us – it’s how many of our people we turn out to vote!

John
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

This is indeed a battle that must be won. Pick a group helping to defeat this and make a contribution, however large you can afford. This isn’t exactly a great time for me financially but I believe this is worth it in the long run.

Eddie89
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

I was recently laid off from my employer, ASU, and I still managed to contribute to all three campaigns, Prop. 8, Prop. 102 and Amendment 2.

I wish I was one of the super rich and be able to boast of making a $1 Million dollar contribution to all three campaigns, but that’s not reality.

So, you may think that $5, $10, $20 won’t make a difference to the fight, but collectively it WILL!!! That’s how we can win this! If EVERYONE gives a few bucks! Not hundreds, thousands or millions. Unless you can afford to do that, of course! :-)

Give a little and then spread the word. Leave a comment that you did so to encourage others to give as well.

Some money is better than no money.

California – Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona – Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida – Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!

Trevor
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

Thousands of dollars to move vs.: a lifetime of misery? Small price to pay for dumping the self-important religious empire and obtaining the true freedom that America now only claims to stand for.

L. Junius Brutus
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

Trevor, they want to get rid of you. You need to fight them and beat them.

Timothy Kincaid
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

Eddie,

You’re right, every small amount helps. There are at least 10 million gay men and women in this country. If each gave the cost of a cocktail, we’d have more than enough money to fight all three initiatives.

Emily K
October 7th, 2008 | LINK

I’m a poor artist living below the poverty line. I’m currently applying for welfare and will most likely qualify with flying colors.

But I donated $10. To put this in perspective, that’s about 15% of my weekly food budget. But I can make room for it. I also emailed some friends and family about contributing. I’m doing my meager best. :¬\

Sapphocrat
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Thanks, everyone, especially you, Kevin, for the Knute Rockne. I’ll do my best until they take me away on the trains.

I’m just tired — I’ve been fighting this war for nearly 30 years. (That’s another part of it: frustration with well-meaning but empty encouragement from bystanders such as, “I’m sure you’ll have full equality within the next 20 years!” Who knows who’s got 20 years left? Del Martin’s death really drove that — and the random quirks of timing — home even further. I think Del’s death has affected me a lot more than I realize.)

Oh, and btw, I forgot to mention: Because of BTB, my wife and I made two $102 donations to the Arizona campaign. Not only would we have felt terrible if we hadn’t, but we wanted to let our brothers and sisters in Arizona know that their battle is our battle. Every battle for family is.

We were both floored (in a great way) to receive handwritten thank-you cards in the mail within a week. Wow! I know I’m going to keep those cards, for good. Maybe someday I can show them to some kid who grew up never realizing there was a time we couldn’t marry the people we loved.

Willie Hewes
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

If the opposition’s argument is based on lies (and it is), you shouldn’t need to have as much coverage as them.

Surely all you need is to dismantle the lies and show them for what they are, once, for them to lose their power?

In what kind of democracy does the side that has the most money always win?

Kevin
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Willie,

The problem with lies is that, told often enough, lies become “truth”.

Think of how many people believe some of those urban legends floating around out there.

Lies have to be confronted constantly, and even then the risk is that people will still believe convenient lies rather than harder-to-accept truths.

Anthony Falzarano
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Marrioge can only be defined by God. Because He invented it. Tolerance of homosexual people cannot mean acceptance of the gay lifestyle! The gay activists are really not the true friend of the homosexual person. They are using homosexual person as a pawn to achive their agenda which is to attempt to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church! You can abandon the ship of the gay political movement by jumping on to the “rescue liferaft called the ex-gay movement. Our website parentsandfriends.20m.com wil give you details. May God Bless and protect you, Anthony

Eddie89
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Dear Mr. “False”arano (pun intended);

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

In this country there are civil rights that apply equally to all citizens. Supposed to, anyway. We are asking for the “State” to give us ALL, 100%, of the “legal” rights, benefits and protections that opposite sex couples receive when they get married.

I don’t care one iota what your church thinks or approves or disapproves of. Since I am not a member of it. I seek no “holy” blessing on my “civil” marriage. That’s your deal, not mine.

If the States are going to be in the “marriage” business, then they are required to not discriminate on the basis of the couples gender.

Hence why it is wrong to write discrimination into any Constitution.

Eddie89
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Emily K – You R-O-C-K!!!

“I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

What goes around comes around.

Eddie89
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Oh, I forgot to add:

California – Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona – Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida – Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!

Kevin
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Anthony,

Whatever you believe theologically, that is your right. We’re not concerned with convincing conservative Christians to believe in something they find offensive.

As a progressive Christian, I find many conservative Christian points of view deeply offensive and anti-Christian. However, I’m not obligated by law to attend churches whose theology I disagree with. Yet, why should I allow those churches I disagree with dictate to me via the Federal and State government what I should believe when it comes to marriage?

Is this (marriage inequality) not a violation of my religious beliefs? In my religious view, I believe God is a God of love and that “sums up” the “law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40), and that God’s love and blessing extends to same-sex couples.

You and I will disagree on matters of theology, but the government has an obligation to treat all citizens the same, irregardless of religious belief or differences. That is the promise of America: Freedom and Equality under the Constitution, irrespective of creed.

I’m proud that we have such a Constitution, because having one prevents people like you from imposing your dogma on people like me.

Lastly, I ask that you re-read the Synoptic Gospels and learn Jesus’s philosophy of generocity and love – and then act like a disciple of Christ before you reach out to condemn, judge, or commit murder in your heart against your neighbors.

Trevor
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

I believe I’ve heard the name Falzarano before, perhaps on this very website. Regardless Anthony’s post is representative of exactly the type of ignorance we’re fighting against. I fully intend to fight these people till the bitter end but we may have to realize that there may be no way to beat such an intractable foe. Escape might be the only viable option then. That or be sent to the forced “reparative therapy” camps.

Kevin
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Anthony’s profile at Ex-Gay Watch:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/03/profile-anthony/

Trevor
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Ahh no wonder Falzarano has such a chip on his shoulder: misdirected rage.

rusty
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Mildred Loving, the woman involved in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case on interracial marriage, wrote a letter, supporting same-sex marriage.

http://centerblue.org/2008/05/08/mildred-loving-on-gay-marriage/

“My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.”

Loving continues:

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

With over an estimated 11000 gay marriages already in California, it won’t be long until gay marriage will come to pass as being ‘nothing special’. If 8 does pass, there are many people out there who will not let their committments be tossed aside. It may not happen in ’08, ’09 or even 10.

But it will happen.

The Mormons have taken on 8 in an attempt to clear their ‘name’ in light of the recent Mormon scandal.

AJD
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

I just donated $35 to the California campaign, and I’m glad I did my little part. Still, these polls are really discouraging and disappointing.

The campaigns in Florida and Arizona are important, but what makes the one in California important is what it would represent if the amendment passed: If such an amendment passes in that liberal and bellwether a state, then it could pass anywhere. The people who support these amendments would be emboldened to launch campaigns in other states with strong gay-rights protections as well, and they would probably win.

Someone mentioned above that “we shall overcome” and that homophobia is becoming increasingly uncool among younger generations. That’s nice, but it’s not very encouraging because the whole point of these amendments is that they’re meant to ensure that no matter how liberal successive generations become, marriage between two members of the same sex will be permanently illegal.

The only way to overturn one of the amendments is to a) pass an amendment that overturns it or b) get the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it. Neither is likely to happen in the near future. If an amendment to ban gay marriage can pass, then it’s unlikely an amendment to un-ban it will, and the Supreme Court would probably uphold it.

I don’t want to wait 20 years for me and the man I love to enjoy the rights that heterosexual couples take for granted, nor do I want to have to settle for something that offers only a fraction of those rights. And the fact that this is being discussed, while gay equaled disgusting a few decades ago doesn’t give me hope either for the simple reason that other countries have already legalized gay marriage and granted many other protections for gay rights.

It pains me to say that I agree with Trevor. It says a lot about this country that we tout ourselves as the greatest, freest country on earth, yet we’re the ones who go out of our way to thwart gay rights while Canada moves forward on them. I’ve been insincerely saying this a lot since the ’04 elections, but if this thing passes in California, I’m going to seriously start making plans to leave the country.

As for the lying of the campaign, I have never understood why we accept lying in political campaigns in this country. Yeah, I know, we have the noble and high-minded idea that the “marketplace of ideas” will sort the whole thing out, but as we can see, that’s not happening. The liars are winning for the simple reason that they have more money.

Lying in political campaigns should be illegal. If the FDA can go after a drug company for merely appearing to misrepresent the safety or efficacy of a drug, and if a car company doesn’t get to mislead consumers about its cars’ gas mileage, then why should a group like the Yes on 8 campaign get to misrepresent itself to voters? In many ways, a constitutional amendment that wins on the strength of mendacity does far more damage than a fraudulently marketed drug because at least the drug can be pulled from the market and its users compensated.

I always like to say, “People is an idiot.” The sorts of people who can be swayed by dishonest advertising are — let’s be honest — morons, as are the people who supported this amendment to begin with. I have no qualms about saying that.

I don’t oppose this amendment just because I’m gay. I oppose it because there’s no scientific evidence that legal same-sex marriage will cause the downfall of civilization as we know it or that gay people can’t be parents. I also oppose it on the grounds of simple fairness and the Golden Rule. But some people are convinced that God will rain fire and brimstone on California if the amendment passes, while others can watch a video of Gavin Newsom making some ominous statement and immediately scream, “Oh my God! We have to stop those fags and dykes from marrying or we’re all gonna die! Ahhhhhhh!”

If this amendment passes, it will mark the triumph of irrationality, bigotry, gullibility and ignorance in America. It will be yet another milestone in the crumbling of the American empire. It will mean that as much as we love to tell ourselves that we’re a free, democratic and great nation, we don’t like to live up to our promises when it comes to “those types of people.”

AJD
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Correction:

“[S]ome people are convinced that God will rain fire and brimstone on California if the amendment passes.”

Obviously, I meant to write, “if the amendment doesn’t pass.”

Rob
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

AJD

Feel free to move up here (to Canada). We have a much better attitude of looking at people as people first. As well, fundamentalists don’t get a lot of traction up here. We tend to take a rather jaundiced view of oppression based on crackpot notions. Of course the other advantage is that we seem to have a much clearer separation of church and state. It is such a shame that the U.S seems to be sliding into a theocratic idiocracy.

Kevin
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

AJD,

I would ask that you take everything with a little historical perspective and rationality. If this Amendment passes, it will no more mark America as a place of ignorance, bigotry, etc than those who claimed America was doomed whenever Bush was elected (both times).

Like it or not, we have an imperfect democracy. Like it or not, that democracy is always in flux and sometimes it favors us and sometimes it doesn’t.

How messed up is it that the majority is voting on the civil rights of the minority? And yet, that’s how the system works. You say you can’t wait for change, but how long did those who came before us wait? How long did Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon, Harry Hay, etc. wait? Think of all we’ve gained that Harvey Milk didn’t live to see. What makes your life more important than those who came before us, those who had no choice but to wait.

I am not Jewish. However, look at the thousands of years the Jews have been persecuted throughout the world, culminating in one of the worst inhumanities to man in the 20th century. We are also persecuted and we need to come to terms with that.

It may be convenient to forget that we are a persecuted people on our all-gay celebrity cruises, or circuit parties, in our urban safe havens, or unrealistic representations of us in the media. But the sooner we accept that we are living in persecution and learn to think of our liberation in terms of decades or centuries, the better off we’ll be for this fight.

When or if Prop 8 passes, nothing about our determination to be equal will have changed and yes, we are in this to the bitter end.

You, however, are free to move to Canada or Denmark and watch us fight the battles you abandoned us with.

Ben in Oakland
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Personally, I haven’t wondered just several times if this whole thing isn’t an attempt by the mormon Church to buy some respectability among other denominations, using gay people as their pawn. As an episocpalian friend of mine said, “You know, they’re not REALLY Christians.” And the babtists think they’re a cult. Otherwise, it would be Romney Mccain.

Maybe I’m just too cynical.

AJD
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Kevin,

First of all, the thing about George Bush doesn’t compare because unlike a constitutional amendment, Bush only has power for a limited amount of time. A constitutional amendment can last forever.

The thing is, I am looking at this from a historical perspective. Fifty years after Harry Hay, thirty years after Harvey Milk, a majority of U.S. states have banned gay marriage, and it may very well be banned in one of its most culturally influential states. All of the progress that those people made is being slowly reversed. Meanwhile, Canada has legalized same-sex marriage, and only 14 years after the end of Apartheid, so has South Africa.

In this regard, to call our democracy “imperfect” is a gross understatement. America’s version of democracy has always favored those with the loudest voices, the greatest numbers and the most money, while giving the silenced, the minority and the poor the finger. That’s why we always take decades to achieve what other countries did a long time ago — Denmark abolished sodomy laws in 1933, but it took us another 70 years to do the same. This is not the mark of a robust democracy; it’s the mark of a country that favors the kid with the most marbles.

If Prop 8 passes, it probably won’t reduce determination to achieve equality — it’ll just reduce the amount of equality that can be achieved. If that happens, expect to see a new wave of challenges to gay rights by emboldened fundamentalist Christians, and expect quite a few of them to be successful, maybe even at the federal level. It’s going to take at least a generation to undo the damage that’s been done already, to say nothing of what it will take if Prop 8 passes.

But I do agree with you on one thing: Gay people need to realize they’re persecuted. From the wimpiness the big gay rights groups, one would think that we were protected by federal anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws and were well on our way to full marriage rights across the land. It’s always frustrated me that the religious right says the nastiest, meanest most mendacious things about us, yet all we get from HRC et al is the equivalent of a kid telling a bully “Stop it, you meanie!” Sometimes, you really have to fight fire with fire. Martin Luther King and Gandhi achieved what they did because they made it clear to racist Southern whites and British imperialists: If you mess with us, we’ll gladly mess with you. I really think that a big reason why the religious right keeps walking all over us is because we’re such easy targets. These people are bullies, and bullies don’t leave you alone when met with high-minded pleas to fairness and equality — they do when you stand up and knock them on their asses.

Trevor
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

@Kevin, we were doomed after the first and second term of the Bush administration…we just didn’t know it yet.

Mark F.
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Of course it will be bad if this thing passes, but keep in mind that the current Domestic Partner laws will not be affected. But I plan on sending some money to “No on 8″ next Friday.

Sapphocrat
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

Ben in Oakland: You’re not “too cynical” at all. That this is “an attempt by the mormon Church to buy some respectability among other denominations” has been discussed many times (sorry, no links handy, but some deep Googling will turn up some enlightening debates) — and I believe it’s true.

What else can Thomas Monson’s real motive be? I’ve gone ’round and ’round endlessly on my own blog with pro-8 Mormons who simply cannot offer even the lamest reason for following Monson’s edict — which clearly violates some of the most treasured tenets in the Mormon Doctrines and Convenants.

I ask them, over and over: “What do you get out of this? Knowing you will not ‘turn’ us straight, you will not make us Mormons, you will not stop us from loving each other, and you don’t really believe you will win extra points in the ‘celestial kingdom’ for this — what do you get out of it?”

Not a one can answer. They cannot comprehend that they are just patsys, chumps, fall guys for the LDS church — and the LDS church will not admit that it is sucking up to the worst of the radical Christian Right (led by Dobson) in a bid for legitimacy.

There is no other conclusion I can come to but yours, Ben.

The bittersweet irony is that when all this is over, the radical Christian extremists will go right back to demonizing the Mormons as a non-Christian cult.

Individual Mormons are pimping themselves out for their church, and their church is pimping itself out for a guy who leaves in the middle of the night and will never call to say, “Thanks for a great ****.”

cowboy
October 8th, 2008 | LINK

I’m sorry but I don’t think the Mormons are sucking up to anyone. Mormons are fiercely defiant and sometimes relish the distinction of being the Church of Jesus Christ. They are the only true Church, you know. They could not care less about Dobson’s or any other religion’s views about them. They don’t need nor care for any capitulation with any other religion.

What would put a burr under their saddle is: 1) saying they are mere puppets to the pronouncements of their First Presidency…ergo: they’re a cult. 2) they cannot explain the racial bigotry in their history nor has any Mormon authority apologized for it. 3) success is not measured with the amount of tithing they collect.

What we are witnessing is the power of said Church. The Mormons are proud of their efforts in this issue. It’s their show of strength. It’s a demonstration of their might and organizational skills and regardless of the outcome in this election they will strut their stuff long after this is all part of history.

This might be a time to construct the differences between a Saint in the Mormon church or a member in a cult. There’s likely not to be much difference.

Matilda
October 9th, 2008 | LINK

Hey folks, we’re not haters. We have the same moral compass as have successful civiliations during the past 8,000 years. What’s wrong with that?

Timothy Kincaid
October 9th, 2008 | LINK

Matilda,

When Christians persecuted Jews during the inquisition they had the same moral compass as the past 1500 years. When men denied women the right to make decisions about their own lives – much less to vote – they had the same moral compass as all civilization. When white people bought and sold black people as property they had the same moral compass as sucessful civilizations for all recorded time.

Oppressors will find a way to justify their cruelty and the most convenient is always an appeal to history.

The facts are simple, Matilda. You want to deny other humans the rights that you wish to enjoy for yourself.

You can dress it up as “a moral compass” but it comes down to inequal treatment. And that, Matilda, suggests to me that your moral compass is pointing in a most immoral direction.

AJD
October 9th, 2008 | LINK

Matilda wrote:

Hey folks, we’re not haters. We have the same moral compass as have successful civiliations during the past 8,000 years. What’s wrong with that?

You need to read up on your history, then.

Throughout history, most cultures have tolerated or even encouraged same-sex relations to some degree or another. China, a civilization that has lasted for 4,000 years (measuring from the Shang Dynasty) tolerated sex between men and, at some points, even same-sex marriages throughout most of its history. There are plenty of examples throughout the Mediterranean world and India as well.

The idea that it is “immoral” for two men or two women to have sex with each other originated among the Abrahamic religions and spread throughout the world by way of missionary activity and/or colonialism.

Trevor
October 9th, 2008 | LINK

Time to feed the lions Matilda…

Kevin
October 9th, 2008 | LINK

Wow! Tracing back to 6,000 BCE! Talk about generalizations! What’s stopping her from going back to 7, 8, or 9,000 BCE? Were the Maglemosians just chopped liver? I ask you!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglemosian

Sapphocrat
October 9th, 2008 | LINK

cowboy:

“… What would put a burr under their saddle is: 1) saying they are mere puppets to the pronouncements of their First Presidency…ergo: they’re a cult. 2) they cannot explain the racial bigotry in their history nor has any Mormon authority apologized for it. 3) success is not measured with the amount of tithing they collect.”

It’s funny (not), cowboy, but I do hammer them incessantly on Point #1 (without actually calling them a cult).

I also hound them endlessly about point #2, and of course, they can never defend the indefensible. They just sidestep the “Curse of Ham” issue, deflect, and try a different approach.

Point #3, that’s excellent — I’ll remember it. Thanks!

Here’s the thing: I can say almost anything to the individual Mormons who take me on at my blog — I can get hostile, I can play armchair psychologist, I can even mock them with cracks about “magic underwear” — but they’ll hang in there and fight (not well, but they do fight).

Yet, there seems to be only surefire way to make them run for the hills and never communicate with me again: Debunking every last one of the “Six Consequences” lies they all repeat as if they were Paula Prentiss malfunctioning in “The Stepford Wives.” They cannot absorb hard facts, with hard backup links/sources. Their circuits completely overload, and they run as if their butts were on fire.

That gives me a tiny (very tiny) glimmer of hope: If these new ads from No On 8 (which I’m just about to go watch) do what they say they’re going to do — dissect each lie — then we’ve still got a chance. Nobody likes to be lied to, and it’s human nature to shoot the bird at the liar(s).

The individual Mormon patsys can’t handle the truth — but everybody else who has no vested interest in the reputation of the LDS church (and your garden-variety, A&P Protestant who doesn’t think of the Mormons as “real Christians” anyway) are going to feel stung… if, of course, they actually see the new No On 8 ads.

For my part (and I swear, I’m not bragging about this, but feeling bad that I’m really, truly tapped out for the moment and can’t do more), I followed through on my commitment the other day to give past hurting: As Shivaya is my witness, I donated my entire month’s income (by credit card, as I don’t get paid until next week) to No On 8, Equality for All.

Stage whisper to Emily K: I hope you don’t mind that I alluded to your donation when I blogged about mine; that you could spare so much was the thing that pushed me over the edge to donate a month’s income. And I thank you for that.

In my mind, your $10 is worth far more than the four figures I kicked in. Far more.

Emily K
October 10th, 2008 | LINK

Wow, Kevin and Sapphocrat, I’m so honored and warmed by your comments regarding me. :¬D I didn’t expect that donating my little sum would have such a big effect. I’m really glad that I was blog-worthy. it’s always flattering to see that.

Also I wasn’t meaning to show off my poverty or something. I mean I’m very poor but my parents are quite comfortable and also very generous in helping me – but I’m predicting a great turn-around by December. So I’m not without hope.

It’s just, I could’ve spent $10 either buying a new DVD, or some fancy food, or any other number of indulgences, or i could’ve spent it on donating to this worthy cause. So instead of buying something for myself, I donated to the cause. And now I feel not only good for donating but even better for just the act in and of itself. I DEFINITELY got my $10-worth, and more. :¬)

Tamara
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Sapphocrat: Just so you know, there is more money coming to the No on 8 funds from out of state sources (38%), compared to only 23% of funds from out of state coming in to the Yes on 8 campaign. If you were to put a cap on out-of-state contributions, it would hurt your cause more.

Tara: The Mormon Church ONLY supports traditional marriage and absolutely nothing else!

Willies Hewes: I challenge you to tell us what the lies are that you are referring to.

Eddie: Homosexuals already have all the rights through Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions AND all people have the right to enter into heterosexual marriages; what homosexuals are trying to do now is change the definition of marriage from what it has been since the beginning of time to a social experiment.

Kevin:
God’s love extends to same-sex couples but NOT His blessing. He loves everyone, but same-sex sexual relationships are opposed to His plan of salvation for all of his children, which depends on families: man + woman + children. The proof? The biological make-up of all humankind!

Rusty: There was no recent “Mormon” Scandal. The polygamous cult in Texas is not Mormon and was never Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that is supporting Proposition 8 is doing so on grounds of protecting traditional marriage, families, and children…and God’s plan of salvation–not to cover up anything.

Lastly, there is more money pouring into Yes on 8…not because you aren’t trying hard enough, but because the majority of Californians believe that men and women were born to be together and that that institution of marriage is worth protecting. There is no hatred, discrimination, or bigotry–just wholehearted conviction that marriage is sacred and needs to be left alone!

Timothy Kincaid
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

Tamara,

I’ll answer for Willie:

The Yes on 8 ad lies are well documented. Here, for example, is the analysis of the Sacramento Bee’s Adwatch:

The ad contends the court ruling opens the way for people to be sued over personal beliefs, but California law already prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

As for churches losing their tax status, the Supreme Court ruling stated “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples.”

California law also prohibits public schools from teaching students anything about health and family issues against the will of their parents.

In other words, the ad is based on lies. This may explain why conservative rural newspapers are joining urban liberal newspapers in rejecting these arguments.

Also, “what homosexuals are now trying to do now is” keep the right of equal treatment under the law as granted to them by their constitution. I should know, I’m part of the process.

It really is foolish and amazingly arrogant to try and tell people what they are “trying to do”. And as for hatred, discrimination, and bigotry, I find it astonishing how little self-awareness you possess.

Tamara
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

[Editor - normally we do not edit comments for content. But Tamara is making a number of claims that are blatantly false, something not allowed at this site so I am electing editorial privelege and interject fact. - Timothy]

Timothy,
Are you aware of what has happened in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage was legalized there? First of all, people have been sued over personal beliefs and religious beliefs. A church was sued for not allowing a lesbian marriage to take place on its property. They lost the suit, and also lost some of their tax-exempt status.

[This is factually incorrect. In New Jersey (not Massachusetts) a church owned a pavilion on a boardwalk. Because they designated this as a public place open to all, they received certain property tax exemptions. They chose to deny access to certain citizens based on sexual orientation and the State of New Jersey revoked their priveleges. The church did not lose its 401(c)(3) tax-exempt status and the pavilion is now treated like any other private church-owned venues in the state. This had nothing to do with legal gay marriage - obviously - as New Jersey does not recognize same-sex marriage.]

The Catholic Charities Adoption Agency was told they had to adopt children to homosexual couples, even against their religious beliefs against doing so, or lose their license. They chose to shut down.

[This is factually incorrect and had nothing to do with legal marriage whatsoever. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities of Boston had long placed adoptions with whomever was qualified, including gay couples. Pressure from the Vatican caused a change in policy to exclude gay persons and couples. However, state non-discrimination laws prevented them from discriminating based on sexual orientation in the civil placement of children for adoption. They considered seeking an exemption, but were also concerned about the loss of funding from foundations and charity contribution sources such as the United Way that have non-discrimination policies. So they chose to stop placing adoptions altogether.]

David Parker was arrested when he requested that he be notified when his kindergarten-aged son was to be exposed to homosexual training in class, so that he could take his child out of school. [This is false. Parker was insisting that his son Jacob not be exposed in any manner to the existance of same-sex couples, including from other children who may have same-sex parents. He was arrested when he refused to leave a school building at the end of the day when the administration would not meet his impossible demands. Parker later manufactured a story that his child has attacked for his religious belief, a story that was debunked and severly damaged his credibility.] Mr. Parker was held in jail overnight and fined…a fight he is still battling. [David Parker's battle is over. After a string of losses, the US Supreme Court declined to review his case.]

The school districts in Massachusetts have ruled that they are no longer responsible to tell parents when there will be sexual education in classes, nor is parental permission required. [This is a baseless claim. The courts noted that books are available to parents in advance and have ruled that "inclusion of books that included gay people or relationships did not violate the parents' First Amendment right to free exercise of religion".]

It is a very valid concern for most parents that we be allowed the right to teach our children. It is also a great concern for Christians that we be allowed to speak what we believe and act upon it. We see these rights being taken away from us, despite what the federal constitution says. Any homosexuals will not be fighting for us to get these rights back!

There are no rights to homosexual marriage. California’s Supreme Court judges were not in a position to do what they do…and they were the only ones who ever presumed to give that right to homosexuals. [Both houses of the California legislature voted for legal same-sex marriage. The Governor vetoed the legislation stating that due to a previous initiative that it was the place of the courts to decide. He has endorsed the decision of the courts. All three branches of California government have now approved of same-sex marriage.] You sound as if homosexuality marriage rights have been around since creation…but if you’re going back to creation, you will see that the creation of Adam and Eve did not leave a place for homosexuality. Just because someone wants something…even if they want it desperately…it does not make it right.

Jason D
October 11th, 2008 | LINK

“but because the majority of Californians believe that men and women were born to be together”

Nothing in our battle is trying to keep men and women apart. We do not wish to change your marriages, your relationships, or to prevent them from being legally protected under the law.

Can you say the same about us?

” and that that institution of marriage is worth protecting.”

If it were being attacked, you could make this claim. It is not being attacked. Words can have more than one definition. In fact, since 2004, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has included same-sex marriage in it’s set of definitions for marriage.
Marriage as it has been, has been an exclusive club, “straights only!”. I doubt that the only reason that marriage is special is because tab A fits into slot B. There are far too many exceptions to the “rules” regarding marriage to tell gays “sorry no exception for you!”. There is no rational, and certainly no constitutional basis for denying marriage licenses and legal recognition to same sex couples. We do the same things other committed couples do. We live together, we fight about money, some raise kids, some do not, we take care of each other (in sickness and in health) some stay together a life time, some can’t seem to find the right person. Fundamentally we are no different than you, and there is no legally recognized reason why we should be.

” There is no hatred, discrimination, or bigotry–just wholehearted conviction that marriage is sacred and needs to be left alone!”

Then LEAVE IT ALONE. Let us continue getting married. Once again, this is not something that “might happen” or “could change” or something that can be “prevented”: it already happened. Thousands of gay couples have gotten married.

M. A. R. R. I. E. D.

YOU may not consider them “real” marriages, but I doubt those couples care what you think so long as they have their PERFECTLY LEGAL licenses. Think whatever you like, say whatever you like, but the government has an obligation to treat us equally.
This is not now, nor has it ever been about kids or religion. To borrow from Ben, it’s about old fashioned bigotry given a thin veneer or respectability by hiding behind faith.

A sample of anti-gay lies | TRiG's links
May 4th, 2012 | LINK

[...] is an oldie. It’s from a 2008 discussion of California’s Proposition 8. But Timothy Kincaid’s excellent takedown of a string of anti-gay lies is well worth [...]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.