Mormons provide at least 40% of Prop 8 Funding

Timothy Kincaid

October 7th, 2008

Mormons for Proposition 8 have analyzed the donations to Yes on 8 over $1,000 and found that the largest contributing group is members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

  • Individual Donors, Mormon – 40.40% ($7,615,842.43)
  • Individual Donors, Other* – 29.94% ($5,643,497.71)
    *Includes “probable” Mormons not yet confirmed.
  • Non-Mormon Organizations – 29.66% ($5,592,015.24)

In other words, at least 57% of individual donations greater that $1,000 are from members of one denomination.

Yes on 8 has also selected as the face of the campaign one Richard Petersen, a Mormon law professor teaching at Pepperdine University.

(hat tip to Utah Reader and johnson)


October 7th, 2008

The Mormon donations are even more than this now. As of October 7th, the large individual donations identified as coming from Mormons account for 43% of all ($1,000+) donations ($8,326,892.58 of $19,471,720.54).

Laura Wright

October 9th, 2008

Same-sex marriage is a moral issue that has turned political. It is well known that Mormons are against same-sex marriage. Mormons consider marriage to be a sacred institution and as such, legalized same-sex marriage is an attack on one of the basic Mormon beliefs. So it stands to reason that Mormons would donate A LOT of money to protect their basic moral belief. As a Mormon living in Southern California, I never felt pressured by leaders in Salt Lake City to donate vast amounts of money or time to Prop. 8. Instead, I am honored to participate in such a landmark opportunity to make my voice heard. I am thrilled to hear that Mormons are big donators! That just shows that when we believe in something, we are VERY enthusiastic!


October 9th, 2008

Let me just flip that around. Same-sex marriage (where Prop 8 is concerned) is a political issue that has moral implications whether you believe in the heterosexist view of marriage or not. The government isn’t in the business to preach morality, but yet it does when it limits marriage to opposite-sex couples and denies it to same-sex couples. Morally, it is wrong to deny rights to law-abiding Americans who pay their taxes, hold down jobs, and raise families just the same as anyone else.

Frankly, I can’t see how this is good PR for the Mormon Church. The failure of the Romney ticket obviously was a moral blow to you all and now it seems as though you’re scavenging the wreckage for whatever pieces of integrity you might have left (Romney was dropped precisely because a great deal of Americans find Mormon theology either stupid or satanic).

Or perhaps this is a deflection from the attention you all received recently from the Texas raids where Fundamentalist Mormonism, taken to it’s logical extreme, showed many Americans what it looks like in it’s raw, ugly, child-abusing, misogynistic form.

Whatever this game plan is, this has presented us with a group of Utah Mormons attempting to seize control of the CA constitution.

As a Californian, you should be worried about this. That you’re not simply based on the fact that those who are imposing their will on us are your co-religionists is a sorry reflection on yourself and your duty as a good neighbor. Perhaps in the next election the majority should vote on the rights of Mormons, since you are also a somewhat scorned minority?

Mormons engaging in, what I call, an Ecumencalism of Evil won’t win over Evangelicals or Mainline Denominations who will for all time see you as nothing more than a garment-wearing cult of Joseph Smith, whom they view as false prophet.

Perhaps Scientologists will be next to bash queer folks and make it sound like it’s about “family, children, and society” as well?

Tom Cruise, are you listening?

Timothy Kincaid

October 9th, 2008

No, Laura.

Legalized same-sex marriage is NOT an attack on one of the basic Mormon beliefs. If the church were being required to observe such marriages you might have a point. But, unless I’m mistaken, the Mormon Church does not teach that all of society must adhere to Mormon theology on all points.

This is just an effort by you and your fellow church member to force your neighbors into compliance with your faith. You are being a bully, Laura, and a horrible neighbor. Heavenly Father would be shocked that you are not only refusing to treat your neighbor as yourself but are gloating about the effort.

Some people just aren’t comfortable with gay marriage. Ok, I can get that.

But you, Laura, are honored and thrilled and enthusiastic about treating others in a discriminatory and unfair way.

In other words, Laura, you are not a very good person.


October 9th, 2008

I have to wonder about the long term consequences of this very overt Mormon political activism in California.

I personally have gone from relatively neutral toward the Mormon Church to deeply, deeply suspicious. I happen to be a liberal Californian who has cringed in the past when I heard Conservative Christians call the LDS church a cult.

Mormons saw just how much contempt Conservative Christians have for them with Romney’s run. Aligning both Conservative Christians and liberals against the Mormon Church couldn’t possibly be helpful to them in the future.


October 9th, 2008

Go CA. Mormons! We are with you! We support the effort to defeat the radical homosexual agenda in CA and other states. Give more money and time to this. Lets stop this outrage.

Emily K

October 9th, 2008

LOLZ @ Chris the Troll


October 11th, 2008

I used to be Mormon: went on my mission to Russia and then went to BYU. Then I left the church because I didn’t believe anymore. I remember, when I was a member of the Mormon church, always being confused about what my stance on homosexuality ought to be(not my own; I am very straight and cannot get enough of my girlfriend.) I was against homosexuality and gay marriage, but only because I felt completely obligated to be so, that Heavenly Father wanted me to be against it. I never felt comfortable opposing it though; I didn’t think it was right to say some people’s natural feelings are wrong and they just have to deal w/ it for the rest of their lives. Several of my buddies from the mission, as well as one of my companions, turned out to be gay. And I talked with them about it, very curious to learn about their experiences.

If someone chooses to personally oppose homosexuality then that is their choice. But there is no reason that it should extend beyond personal beliefs. There is no reason that gays should not be able to marry. How does this destroy marriage and the family? Are kids really going to become gay because society now accepts gay marriage. I don’t remember anything about marriage being taught in school period, so I don’t think that public schools are going to institute a 7th period “Marriage” course for students. But even IF it were to be mentioned in school that same sex marriage is ok, kids already know that some men have sex with other men, and some women raise kids together. Kids will not think “oh, well since gays can get married now, I think I’ll become gay.” It only teaches children to be more accepting of other people.

Times are changing. We should no longer be afraid of what was once thought evil or disgusting. For some people it’s natural. We need to change with the times too.


October 11th, 2008

If only you were still active in the LDS Church. You are the type of Mormon the Church could use right now and you could be part of the “change” the Church needs.

But, I am glad to see you are thinking outside the dogma. I’m happy to be in the company of heteros like you.


October 14th, 2008

This thread is very disturbing to me. All of your attacks against the Mormon Church are completely hypocritical. Your rage, hurtful lies and name calling are deplorable and make you no different than the gay bashers, bigots and racists in this world. This country allows for freedom of expression and the right to have an opinion. It doesn’t mean that my opinion or your opinion is right; it just means we have a right to have one. You, me, Mormons, homosexuals. We all have that right. So why has this become a Mormon issue? Because they have donated a lot of money to a cause they believe in? How ridiculous is that?! The coalition to protect traditional marriage is made up of Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, etc. This has been a very organized and collaborative effort between people of many faiths to stand up for what we believe in. Yes the Mormon faithful may have donated the most money out of any one Christian denomination but 65-70% has come from other faiths that feel it is important to protect traditional marriage. So why has the Mormon Church been singled out? The reason is because those against prop 8 are losing ground and feel that stirring up controversy around the Mormons and some hidden agenda will scare supporters and fence sitters to their cause. Again, how does that make you any different from any other bigot out there? Why don’t you rise above it instead of being part of it? I am a Catholic by birth and have many Mormon friends as well as friends from other faiths, races and sexuality. Neither they nor I hate homosexuals. One of my most dear friends is gay! I love him dearly and we talk very openly about our points of view. Often times it can get heated. However, we agree to disagree. His sexuality does not change my feelings for him or how I view him just as my beliefs don’t change the way he feels about me. That’s what makes us American. Now on to the real issue. Prop 8 is NOT an equal rights issue! Homosexuals have equal rights under existing domestic partnership laws. As they should. I don’t believe that anyone should be discriminated against because of age, race, religion, ethnicity or sexuality! As a society we do however make clear distinctions with regard to gender. Is this right or is this wrong? Is this discrimination? No! Men and women are clearly different. Genetically, anatomically, etc. And because of those differences we call one sex male and the other female. That is why we separate men and women’s restrooms and showers. But according to your line of reasoning that is discrimination. So in order to allow all males and females equal rights we should just do away with gender separation all together since there are clearly large populations of gay, lesbian, transsexual, cross-dressing and even dual-sex individuals. So lets just all use the same restrooms and showers. Let’s let the high school and college football players’ shower with the cheerleaders and girls soccer team. Why not? We separate gender for a reason and it has and always will be that way because we should not and will not change the definition of male and female. “Marriage” is the word to describe the union between a man and a woman. It has been since the beginning of civilized humanity. All prop 8 is trying to do is to preserve that definition. Heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are two VERY different things. So stop trying to say it’s the same. It’s as different as men and women. Like I said earlier. Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals under existing law. If you don’t like the term “domestic partnership” or “civil union” then come up with a better word. But “Marriage” is taken.

P.S I hope you took notice that I did not use religion in my reasoning. My reasoning is purely secular and sociological.


October 14th, 2008

Chris, is “Sealed in the Temple” taken too? That’s only for Mormons and nobody else?

Excuse me, but whatever we want to call it, it’s still marriage. You don’t have exclusivity on what marriage means. Not in the United States.

I don’t think just because you have associations with gay people that they are your “friends”. They’re just acquaintances and I doubt they would like you as a “friend” if you say their love is not genuine and deserving the same rights as you.

That’s called discriminatory. There’s no way to justify Proposition 8 as not being anti-gay.

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2008


In addition to a tendency towards run-on paragraphs, you also don’t seem to read very well.

First, no one has said that Mormons cannot or should not contribute to causes they care about. And no one here is bashing Mormons. It won’t be allowed. But we will present the truth and if you don’t like what you read, it may be that you don’t like the facts behind it.

Second, it is not true that 65-70% of funds come from other churches. Identified Mormon contributions make up about half of all contributions at this time while those who monitor the contributions are convinced that the real percentage is much higher. And that is why we are singling them out – because one denomination is seeking to impose it marriage doctrine on secular society.

Third, your argument boils down to one thesis: that heterosexual marriage is different and superior to homosexual marriage. You may choose to believe that you are in a superior category and deserving of preferential treatment, but this is not an argument that will appeal to my reason. You see it as preserving the special status that you have always had, I see it as discrimination and based in notions that reek of inequality and injustice.

Fourth, you seem to think that gay people have equal rights. But then you say they should not have the right to marry. OK, if marriage and domestic partnership are “equal”, we’ll take marriage and YOU can have domestic partnership.

It’s sort of like when two kids share the last piece of pie. One cuts the pie and the other picks which piece they want – that ensures fairness. What you want is to cut the pie AND pick the piece thus insuring that you get more than me.

Finally, as cowboy noted, your gay friend doesn’t see you as a friend. We all know who our friends are and they are not the people who mistreat us and think that we are inferior. You are seeking to take rights away from this individual and that’s not something that a friend does. Ever.

This person must be very very polite or you are very very self-centered to think that your desire to harm him doesn’t change the way he feels about you. I think if you looked closer you’d see that you aren’t the kind of close friends that you are pretending.


October 14th, 2008


First off, there is a lot of Mormon bashing in this thread. Just look at the post by “Kevin”. But if that’s what you consider “presenting the facts” that’s fine. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion. I just think that it is very hypocritical.

I never said heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual marriage. I just said they are different. They are. It just amazes me that none of you have a logical argument other than waving your banner of equal rights and calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you a hater and evil.

I have not brought up any of the moral, ethical, or religious reasons why I don’t agree with the lifestyle. Nor will I because it’s not my place. Everyone has the right to live and believe the way they want. But to change the definition of an ancient tradition to accommodate a lifestyle preference is wrong. You have equal rights. You have your form of marriage called civil unions.

And how can you say my gay friend doesn’t view me as a friend? You don’t know me or him. Your assumption that he must not be my friend because we disagree about certain issues is exactly what is wrong with YOU and this Country. You just don’t see that you are the exact same as those on the far right. You’re just on the other side. But your scare tactics, name calling, lies, half truths and hypocrisies are no different than the religious right that you people categorize as haters, bigots, uneducated, self righteous and imposing their beliefs, values and doctrines on the masses. Look in the mirror buddy. You are the same. Only fighting for a different cause.


October 14th, 2008

Scare tactics?
Name calling?

Provide some examples, please, Chris.

I might suggest you bone up on the meaning of the phrase: “separate but equal” and what it entails in our history especially with regards to civil rights. It should not exist…not here in our democracy.


October 14th, 2008

Well, my take on this influx of Mormon monies into the Anti-Gay Marriage is that shortly after the Mormon scandal down in Texas with Warren Jeffs, the situation brought up the polygamy issue and the underage brides. I don’t know and don’t have access to the financial records of the the Mormon Church, but my assumption is that tithing is ‘WAY DOWN’. Just as contributions in most churches have gone down all across the nation, it wouldn’t be surprising that attendance and tithing in the Mormon Churches took a hit with the Jeffs’ story.

Rescuing ‘Traditional Marriage’ would be a big coup for the Mormon Church. And if you want to look at their involvement as a ‘form of advertising’,
it could be money well spent in the PR spin necessary to galvanize the Mormon base. Organized religions use ‘big ticket’ issues to bring together diverse folk. The Jeffs group is a splinter group of the Mormons, but the story again stirred the bias many folk have about the Mormons overall.

What is awful and gut wrenching in this situation, is the direct calls by church leaders to contribute to anti-gay issues.

But like in most situations, often times one oppressed group will look to join the oppressive actions of others just to gain some sort of favor or possible increased status. The other issue is that the Mormon Church may need to get their ‘tithing’ on the upswing and rebel rousing encacted.


October 14th, 2008

Sorry, Rusty, I don’t think the tithes are anyway affected by the news that happened in Texas with Warren Jeffs. Besides, it’s pure speculation because, as you say, you don’t have access to their bank accounts.

But, I see your point. In the non-Mormon eyes, there is little differentiation of main-stream Mormons and the polygamists.

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2008


I see that you have nothing new other than “you have your form and I say it’s equal”, though, obviously, it’s not a status that you would accept for yourself.

Those of us who favor “all men are created equal” and “equal protection under the law” need no other argument than that of equality. Because that, Chris, is the issue. One, I might add, that you just don’t want to address.

When person A is denied that which is granted to person B, you can lay out all the arguments you like. You can talk about tradition and values and “your form of” and all sorts of things. But it all comes back to treating person A differently from person B.

And those who like to think that they truly believe in equality and fairness get quite angry when it’s pointed out that, in fact, they oppose equality and fairness.

Two more points:

One: Sexual orientation is not a “lifestyle preference” any more than being Catholic or Republican or left-handed or red headed or tall or African-American or female is a “lifestyle preference”.

Same-sex attraction is an attribute of a person, one which is developed very early in life if not at or before birth.

I know it certainly feels better to say that you disapprove of someone’s “lifestyle preference” because that puts the onus on them for living up to your standards and thus earning your disapproval.

And saying that one disapproves of someone’s attributes sounds so very … well, whatever you think that makes you sound like.

Two: One does not behave in a cruel manner to those whom one values. One does not treat them inferior and seek to take away their rights.

Say what you like about your “friend”, but you can’t convince me that you value a person whom you mistreat. And I very much doubt that your “friend” has much use for you either after your cruel efforts towards him.

But it sure makes you feel noble to have an acquaintance that is gay, doesn’t it? I bet it makes you feel like you can justify your support for inequality and unfairness.

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2008


Warren Jeffs is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons).

His misbehavior probably did not impact the attendance or giving of real Mormons.

I don’t think that their involvement in this campaign is related to the Jeffs situation. I suspect that it has more to do with Mormon theology about celestial marriage than anything else and I believe that this has been expressed by church leaders.

Priya Lynn

October 14th, 2008

Timothy, being Catholic or Republican is a “lifestyle preference”. Its not innate to a person like sexual orientation, race, or gender.

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2008

No, Priya Lynn.

Both religion and party are choices. But they do not suggest a “lifestyle”. Vastly diverse persons with very widely divergent styles of living identify as Catholic or Republican.

Jason D

October 14th, 2008

“But to change the definition of an ancient tradition to accommodate a lifestyle preference is wrong.”

Right, like when we got rid of the tradition of slavery, just to accomodate someone’s idea that one race of people shouldn’t be owned by another. Hey some people had very deeply held beliefs that blacks were not really people, firmly held beliefs they attributed to their bible and to nature. Their rights were violated when their property was set free! Their rights were violated when they were forced to live in a world which said their former slaves were equal to them. Some of those slaves even liked being slaves, and they had masters who were really nice to them and treated them like family. But no, someone had to go and ruin the tradition because they thought it was “unfair” or something.

Or the time we got rid of that centuries old tradition of treating women like property, what the hell was up with that? I can’t imagine the pain and humiliation they felt when their wives were allowed to have them arrested for marital rape! Just to accomodate some women who wanted to live a lifestyle of their own choosing! Where did those ladies get the nerve!?

Or that time we got rid of that centuries old tradition of marrying-off little girls to old men. That was working so well, what gives?

And that Galileo activist, trying to get everyone on his side with his earth-revolves-around-the-sun agenda, totally ruining the traditional belief that the sun revolves around the earth.

Is nothing sacred anymore?


October 14th, 2008


Timothy this is what I discovered:
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations[1][2] and one of America’s largest practitioners of plural marriage.[3] The FLDS Church emerged in the early 1900s when its founding members left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The split occurred largely because of the LDS Church’s renunciation of polygamy and its decision to excommunicate practitioners of plural marriage.

Warren Steed Jeffs (born December 3, 1955) was the leader of a controversial polygamist sect known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church). wikipedia

Sorry my boo boo

But I do stand by my premise that the Mormon Church is using ‘Gay marriage’ as the catalyst to rally their followers and allowing for a very interesting PR stunt. If PROP 8 passes the MO’s will certainly take the credit.


October 14th, 2008

If Prop 8 passes in California, I just want to wipe that smirk off their faces. I will cross-cut-shred every Tab Choir CD/DVD I own…even the one where they sing with Renee Fleming. That’ll do it! That’ll teach them!

But, I don’t think this was a PR stunt for the LDS Church. That was not their motivation. I’m, frankly, surprised Mormons even worried about same-sex marriage until “The Letter” was read over the public address system in thousands of Ward Houses in California. It amazes me the devotion some people have to words printed on a letter. These people truly believe the Prophet of the Lord has spoken.

I think this political issue took on a life of its own after “The Letter” was announced.

But, I have confidence the smirk on November 5th will be on my face


October 14th, 2008

As a practising Mormon I can tell you that the reason we’re getting involved is because of obedience to God as directed by his Prophet. I can tell you first hand that this issue has been a difficult one for me and many other mormons to understand and get behind. But as a matter of faith, I’ve donated my time and money. I am empathetic to your cause but don’t expect you to understand my viewpoint. My reasons for supporting prop 8 have less to do with homosexuality and more to do with preserving traditional marraige.


October 14th, 2008

Crispy is the kind of Mormon you can have a decent debate with. I’d even buy/share a bucket of popcorn or Crispy Chicken (KFC) with he/she. Seriously! You, at least, have taken a look at the issue and debated it in your mind and then decided. I respect that. I am glad it was a difficult decision and I understand. At least you know the angst that is involved with this issue.

The silver lining with this whole ordeal is that we have attempted to make our point known and this Prop 8 and 102 and the Florida thing has given us a way to bring it to the forefront.

This will not go away after November 4th…nosiree.


October 14th, 2008

oh and…the best way to preserve traditional marriage is to let others participate in the same blessings and benefits.


October 14th, 2008

I am Mormon and haven’t given money to Yes on prop 8 but I have talked to many about voting Yes.

A few reasons I have switched my thoughts is because obivously gay or lesibans can sue anyone they want if we’re not totally behind them doing whatever they want.
To be able to sue someone because they believe in not marrying you or taking pictures of you wedding. Is wrong whatever happen to being able to refuse service to anyone.
Also the changing of the marriage lisence in CA is too much.
If a man & woman get married now. They can’t be bride and groom on the lisence anymore. They HAVE to be party A & party B. If they change that by crossing it out the marraige is invaild.

So now who’s rights are being taken away.

I have no children, but if I did I wouldn’t want to explain to them at the age of 5 someone elses views or beliefs.
I am upset however that my property taxes are paying for the forced education of same sex marriages. Since I don’t believe in it.
While I don’t want to put something in the consitution agaisn’t same sex marriage. I guess there is no other choice if judges can do whatever they want to overturn a desicion we “CA voters” already passed.


October 14th, 2008

It’s regurgitating the talking points from some Mormon pamphlet. Does YesMormon have any original thought?

Oh..that they have a form with a check box that says: Party A marries Party B and that somehow invalidates marriage? Get a thicker skin. Please.

If you don’t like treating gays and lesbians as equals and their taxes are paying for the same public schools your kids attend…then, by all means if you don’t like gays you can start your own school system. The Mormons have plenty of money to build and staff a PRIVATE school system.

And the judges can do whatever it takes to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Mormons should know that…it would have helped them from being expelled from Nauvoo, Illinois if they had Judges that would have protected their religious freedom. The “inspired” framers of the Constitution made sure branches of government are meant to keep checks and balances from abuse. The similarities you want for a government is akin to those in theocratic dark ages.

The BYU law professor you get this information from is likely to do more harm to his J. Ruben Clark law school than you care to realize. The joke will be on those who get an education at BYU. Their accreditation is in jeopardy.


October 14th, 2008

FYI… The California Dept. of Health will be changing their “civil” marriage form again. They are adding check boxes on both sides that read “Bride” and “Groom”, the applicants merely check off whichever applies to them. Hopefully this change will satisfy the complainers that didn’t like the ultimate, non-discriminatory “Party A” and “Party B” and now they can STFU! :-)

See this USA Today article.

California – Vote “NO” on Prop. 8!
Arizona – Vote “NO” on Prop. 102! AGAIN!
Florida – Vote “NO” on Amendment 2!
Connecticut – Vote “NO” on Question 1!

Timothy Kincaid

October 14th, 2008

They can’t be bride and groom on the lisence anymore. They HAVE to be party A & party B. If they change that by crossing it out the marraige is invaild.

You are mistaken. That policy has been reversed. Surely you read that, didn’t you? It was in all the papers.

But somehow I don’t think it would change your mind if everything you listed could be guaranteed not to happen. Because its not really about that. Those things are just a cover to provide an excuse for your political position.


October 15th, 2008

I believe that the reason most LDS people, including myself, support Prop 8 is that we believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Liberalizing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is one thing which we believe is wrong. But there is no logical argument used in favor of same-sex marriage which prevents this liberalization from extending in a multitude of directions, many of which would prove objectionable to opponents of Prop 8. This in itself is not evidence against same-sex unions. But it is evidence that the so-called bigotry held by people such as myself is also held by same-sex proponents toward unions that would be considered more marginal.


October 15th, 2008

I believe that the reason most LDS people, including myself, support Prop 8 is that we believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

Oh, well, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the Constitution — the basis of American law — is not “ordained of God.” It doesn’t say anywhere that religious beliefs form the basis of civil law, including marriage law. In fact, it says quite the opposite.

But there is no logical argument used in favor of same-sex marriage which prevents this liberalization from extending in a multitude of directions, many of which would prove objectionable to opponents of Prop 8.

What directions? Marriage between adults and children? Marriage between people and animals? Polygamy? A same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults of equal standing in their partnership. To assert that this will lead to marriage with people who can’t offer reasoned consent (children and animals) or to marriages that are inherently unequal (polygamy) is specious at best and stupid at worst.


October 16th, 2008

Those of you that are for gay marriage are being selfish. You are only thinking of yourself. You already have the legal right to be domestic partners, but no you cannot be satisfied. It is not that you want equal rights, you want more rights, you want to elimate other peoples rights! Force your ways on them. There are plenty of lawsuits proving that those of christian faith cannot be true to what they believe, because if they refuse to marry, or help with adoption, invitro fertilization etc. they will be sued by homosexuals that want to force them to do what they want…hum Sounds very SELFISH! SO YES TO PROP 8!

Marriage is ordained of God. God said homosexuality is a sin, just as adultery etc. Gods law is the only law that matters!

We all need to treat each other with love and kindness. Follow the Savior, he loved the sinner not the sin.

People of all christian faiths are making whatever efforts they can to protect marriage and the family from being destroyed.

People of the Mormon faith-The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints are exercising their rights and beliefs, stop making this about them, it is about what is right and wrong in God’s eyes!
God loves all people, for we are his children.

Stefano A

October 16th, 2008


It is quite clear that you have no respect for democracy, specifically to the constituional exclusion clause regarding church and state. Quite frankly, what you advocate is a theocracy.

Religious institutions or businesses that do not operate with public funding or as a public business are perfectly within their rights. For instance, a Catholic run and funded adoption agency that does not accept public funding is under no obligation to allow adoptive parents.

So not to be unduly harsh, but you’re talking out your ass.

Stefano A

October 16th, 2008


You argue traditional marriage is being undermined, however, nothing is undermining your traditional marriage. Your marriages and future heterosexual marriages are not being impacted in any way whatsoever. Further, all sides agree that the real threat to the institution of marriage is divorce, and the threat to families is lack of commitment and unstable relationships. You need to get past your religious issues and focus on doing more to encourage people to stand by their marrital commitments and parental responsibilities if you really want to stop what is undermining marriage and families.

You say children deserve two parents. We all agree that children are better off with two loving parents. But many children are in single-parent homes or foster care, and this measure won’t change that. Studies also show that children raised by a loving same-sex couple do just as well as two loving heterosexual parents. Gay and lesbian couples raise children, and allowing them to marry strengthens the family bonds just as it does for heterosexual couples.

As for religious objections, nothing requires churches to sanctify same-sex marriages — or any other marriage for that matter. In fact, there are strong state and federal constitutional protections for religious freedom, as there should be.

If you believe so strongly in the stabilizing affects of marriages on families, then teach your children that!

Teach your children that while you may be of a personal faith, and may personally not condone a homosexual relationship, you do value the commitment such a relationship entails and so do these gay and lesbian couples.

Teach your children that while they may be exposed to the reality of same-sex committed relationships in schools, and again that while personal faith does not condone the relationship, use the experience as a “teachable moment” to instruct your children about what it means to live in a democracy with religious freedom. What it means to live in a society in which Catholics can’t require Protestants to conform to their religious marrital sacramental beliefs or ceremonies, and Christians of any sect can’t require Jews to conform to the their religious marrital sacramental beliefs and ceremonies, and likewise for Muslims and people of other faiths such as Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and all the other various sects within these faiths.

While in my own family there are certainly heterosexual couples within the family various family members think is a “bad coupling” for a variety of reasons (individual racial prejudices, religious prejudices, dislike of one or the other partner’s “character) and so don’t necessarily approve or condone the marriage, but they all do approve and respect the couples’ commitments to each other and their responsibilities of marriage.

By all means, teach your children the importance of solidified long-term commitments to each other whether you personally approve of the relationship or not. But teach your children not to impose their faith on others as you don’t care for it when others try to impose their faith on you.

You see this as a movement toward societal acceptance of a group that you don’t think ought to exist. But the harsh reality for you is that regardless of whether Prop 8 passes or not, as a group we are not going to “go away”. It will not stop gay couples from being gay couples, or gay families with children from being gay families with children. What the passage of Prop 8 will do is not undermine marriage but undermine families, families of all types. Your attitudes will continue to alienate gay members from their family families and faith groups, it will continue to make it more difficult for gay couples to make decisions for each other and for the benefit of their children. How does that strengthen “family values”?

Yes, you see this as a movement toward societal acceptance of a group that you don’t think ought to exist, and because you live in a democracy with First Amendment rights you have a right to think and say that. But that right also has limits, it doesn’t give you the right to impose your own religious beliefs on others.

So teach your children your religious beliefs, but also teach them the shared value and respect for committed relationships regardless of sexual orientation, teach your children that currently marriage is of such low value to heterosexual couples that divorce rates have sky-rocketed — so teach them the value of how committed relationships of all types strengthen the family — and that while you disagree with homosexuality (for religious reasons) we share belief in the value of marriage so much that we are fighting for it while you take it for granted as a personal entitlement reserved only to members of your faith.

Teach your cildren the values and beliefs of our democracy.

Because I’ll tell you, your children as they grow up and enter into the larger world are not going to be fooled by your blatant attempt to impose your faith on others, but will see it for the intolerance and lack of respect many within the religious community claim to experience themselves. No your children as they become educated are not going to be fooled by your lack of respect for democractic ideals but see your actions for what it is, and sadly that realization may also cause them less respect for you and your faith. If you do not teach your children these things (respect for relationship commitments, tolerance of other belief systems, respect in the First Amendment) your children will grow up to have the same lack of respect for our democratic ideals, the same lack of respect for separation of church and state, and the same intolerance you are exhibiting that continues to breed not only the ongoing animosities you feel towards gays and lesbians, but the ongoing animosity experienced between religious groups and between denominational sects.

Jason D

October 16th, 2008

“Those of you that are for gay marriage are being selfish.”

Let’s see, our side wants to keep our rights, your side wants to take them away. Yes, Pandalady, we’re the selfish ones *eyeroll*

“You are only thinking of yourself. You already have the legal right to be domestic partners, but no you cannot be satisfied.”

Seperate but equal is NEVER equal. If marriage and domestic partnerships are equal, why don’t YOU take domestic partnerships and we’ll take marriage?

“It is not that you want equal rights, you want more rights, you want to elimate other peoples rights! Force your ways on them.”

This is a lie.

” There are plenty of lawsuits proving that those of christian faith cannot be true to what they believe, because if they refuse to marry, or help with adoption, invitro fertilization etc.”

What lawsuits? What are you talking about?

” they will be sued by homosexuals that want to force them to do what they want…hum Sounds very SELFISH! SO YES TO PROP 8!”

We don’t want to force anyone except THE GOVERNMENT to do it’s freaking job by upholding the constitution. The Majority DOES NOT trump the constitution. Those religious freedom rights you’re so fond of? They come from the constitution, so if we get to stop paying attention to the constitution, don’t be too surprised when YOUR religion comes up for a vote.

“Marriage is ordained of God. God said homosexuality is a sin, just as adultery etc. Gods law is the only law that matters!”

If you believe that, I invite you to move to a theocratic country and stop taking a shit on mine. Marriage, legal marriage, has nothing to do with God. It’s a contract. You want holy, talk to your church. But if you want a legal document, it’s the state. We’re dealing with the state, not the church.

“We all need to treat each other with love and kindness. Follow the Savior, he loved the sinner not the sin.”

NO, “we” don’t need to follow the Savior. That’s your bag, lady. You go ahead and follow your savior, but the first step would probably be to stop listening to your pastor and start reading what that Savior actually stood for. Here’s a hint, he hung out with prostitutes and the dregs of society, not pious selfish, legalistic people like yourself. You want to treat people with love and kindness? Voting NO on Prop 8 would be a good start. It’s not “kind” to force a kids’ parents out of their marriage. It’s not “kind” to unmarry several thousand people. It’s not “loving” to take away freedom.

“People of all christian faiths are making whatever efforts they can to protect marriage and the family from being destroyed.

People of the Mormon faith-The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints are exercising their rights and beliefs, stop making this about them, it is about what is right and wrong in God’s eyes!
God loves all people, for we are his children.”

NO. This is not about God. This has never been about God. God is the statue you hide behind. This reminds me of arguments my brother and I had “Mom said you had to make my bed.” This isn’t about God. God can speak perfectly well for him/herself. He/she certainly doesn’t need YOU to speak for him.
This is about government —which is not in the morality business. Government is in the equality business, the fairness business, the justice and safety business. Prop 8 wants to bring back inequality, Pro 8 is unfair, unjust and would be dangerous to all the couples affected.

We are talking about a legal contract, not God, not the church. You want God’s holy ceremony? Go to church. You want it to be legal? You have to talk to the state. That’s what we’re dealing with, the state. Stop bearing false witness, take the damn log out of your own eye, put down the stone becuase we KNOW you’re not free from sin and think about being a respectable human being for once instead of a busybody who cares more about stopping loving couples from being protected than making sure “all men are created equal” is more than just pretty words on paper.


October 20th, 2008

Here’s a comment by a Christian Minister who opposes same-sex marriage BUT IS VOTING NO ON PROP 8!

Timothy Kincaid

October 20th, 2008


I welcome support from Christian ministers but this strikes me as distasteful and ignorant. I’m not much impressed with arguments based in bigotry, whether it be anti-gay bigotry or anti-Mormon bigotry.


October 20th, 2008

Fundamentalist Christians must sit through church with either their fingers in their ears or they scream so loud and carry on their pagan-like rituals of going into trances and speaking spells that they aren’t comprehending basic Christian fundamentals (ironic, since they are “fundamentalists”).

If they would only “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and “give unto God what is God’s” they would back off of gay marriage as a civil right and mind their own business when it comes to religious belief. If they refuse to “give unto Caesar”, as in respecting the rule of civil law, and try to merge what is civil and what is holy then aren’t they the ones who are in jeopardy of hellfire?

I wonder.


October 23rd, 2008

It seems that this proposition has turned into what many political issues have become in recent days; the incessant and pointless arguing of what each side of the issue should believe. For some, it is a moral issue, and for others, it is a civil one. This misunderstanding between groups has obviously lead to a lot of finger pointing and name calling. I am under the impression that this sort of “discussion” should be left in grade school so real debate can continue.

To begin, let me please draw a parallel with an issue that is just as partisan. Abortion has from day one been argued as a moral issue from one side of the bench to a civil liberties issue by the other. But who is right or wrong? In my opinion (which amounts to a grand total of one vote by the way), neither is one or the other, but pushing your beliefs onto another person is where the real problem begins.

For Prop. 8, it begins and ends on both sides. By calling people hateful or bigoted for not agreeing with your view is dangerous ground to tread. For example, if it is truly a moral issue with one person, should they be considered hateful for not agreeing with it? True bigotry can be found in a country like Iran, where homosexuality until recently was a crime punishable by death. On the flip side, I also believe that marriage is a legal issue. With that said, religious groups should refrain from contributing anywhere near the amount of money they have so far. It is almost on the same coin of big business. Contributions of nearly $20 million dollars have been made to sway this vote one way. It is toeing the line, if not crossing it, of special interest groups enforcing their will through funding. That is why there should be a limit in California on campaign funds. But that is another issue entirely.

To end my discussion I imagine a little biographical information would add credibility. I am of voting age, and currently a student at a fairly liberal state institution in Southern California. A school that gets quite caught up in its democratic process too (we burned down a Bank of American thirty years ago during a riot protesting Vietnam). I am also a non-practicing member of the LDS church. Being raised in the Church has probably helped guide some moral compass I may have, but I would be lying to myself to say that my membership has shaped my identity. For some it may, but not for me. At any rate, my parents are dead set on which way their vote will go, but I’m still not so sure. If someone could please tell me exactly what rights would legally (and stress LEGALLY, please no more speculation on what could happen) be gained or loss, it would greatly inform me to make a better decision. Notice I never said the “right” one.


October 23rd, 2008

Jason D,

“What lawsuits? What are you talking about?”

I think she’s refering to some of the stuff outlined in this article at NPR:


“religious groups should refrain from contributing anywhere near the amount of money they have so far. It is almost on the same coin of big business. Contributions of nearly $20 million dollars have been made to sway this vote one way. It is toeing the line, if not crossing it, of special interest groups enforcing their will through funding. That is why there should be a limit in California on campaign funds.”

The LDS church has not donated any money to the pro prop 8 campaign. It has encouraged members to donate $ but no one is forced. I was asked to donate and did on my own but was not forced to. I know people who didn’t and there were no repercussions.


October 23rd, 2008

Well..the list could be quite lengthy, Robert. I’m not sure we should take the time to list them here. But, look at it this way: The minute a heterosexual couple gets a marriage license and a civil marriage, there are a myriad of automatic “rights” to their being a couple. A gay couple would have to use a cache of lawyers and accountants to begin getting the same “rights” right now.

There are the commonly known IRS, social-security and health insurance advantages a heterosexual couple is given automatically when they get married. But there are some examples of other advantages with being “married”:

Car Rental agreements generally will not charge extra for a driver who is a spouse.
AAA has advantages to households with spouses.
Car insurance coverage is better with a spouse rather than a roommate or a “life-partner”.
Certain insurance coverage is automatic when you go on your honeymoon and then thereafter.
Inheritance is automatic (though, everyone should have a will).

These should be automatic benefits with no extra legal haggling for gay/lesbian couples too…right?

Timothy Kincaid

October 23rd, 2008


To address legal rights:

First, were marriage and domestic partnerships truly identical and interchangeable institutions, there would be no issue of legal rights.

For example, marriage in a church and marriage before a justice of the peace offer exactly the same civil, social, and emotional benefits. This is because all parties – both in and without the relationship – see these two things as identical and because there are no state-enforced barriers as to who can participate in each.

Suppose, however, that the State were to say that only Christian church marriages would be recognized by the state and that Jews must have a justice of the peace, then these would be inequal. It could be said all day long that “Jews have the same rights” but it would not be true. They would be subjected to a separate legal status.

This is similar to what anti-gays are proposing. They claim that gays would “still have rights” because of domestic partnership laws, but the very act of restricting gay couples from marriage based only on the fact that they are gay couples makes such status inequal.

Second, all the above is moot because marriage and domestic partnerships are NOT indentical and interchangeable.

Most of the laws that allow interaction between couples and the State are the same. But the social and emotional benefits are tremendously different. As are the practical applications.

Take insurance, for example. While a couple that has filed state paperwork can apply for coverage, the process for acceptance has much higher requirements than those for marriage. And hospitals and other institutions are much delayed in their recognition of partership v. marriage.

They just aren’t the same.

But the biggest difference is in Federal recognition.

Currently the Federal government recognizes neither status. But I expect that to change in the near future. I predict that the Federal government will allow states to define who is married and who is not and will grant benefits and rights based on state determination.

Proposition 8 will prevent the federal government from allowing gay couples to have social security, immigration, and a thousand other Federal rights, benefits, and obligations.

san diego

October 25th, 2008

For those interested, here is the letter read to LDS members on June 29 2008 regarding Prop 8.

*Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families*

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Check out other official LDS opinions regarding prop 8 at:

Very interesting…


November 1st, 2008

It seems everyone and their cat knows how much wealth the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has. If prop. 8 is voted down wanna make bets how soon the church gets sued for monetary damage cause it won’t allow homosexual marriages to take place in the temple? BTW, LDS members not in good standing cannot be married in them too, but I doubt that’ll make much of a difference in the rush to the courts.

Jim Burroway

November 1st, 2008


Don’t be ridiculous. You’ve bought into Prop 8 proponents lies.

No lawsuit will go forward, simply because the government cannot tell any church who they must marry.

No synagogue has ever been forced to marry someone outside the Jewish faith. Same for Eastern Orthodox Church.

And the Catholic church has always refused to marry anyone who has been divorced but whose marriage hasn’t been annulled. There is not a judge in the land that has ever tried to order a priest to marry a couple just because there is a civil divorce decree and marriage license.

The First Amendment is very clear on this. There will be no rush to the courts simply because no lawyer in his right mind would ever take it. And no judge would ever side with someone whose clergy will not marry them.

That’s why we have Justices of the Peace.


November 8th, 2008

Ok mormons gave money to the campaign… but Californians as a whole voted not just mormons. The majority voted against gay marriage. You can point fingers all you want but it would seem that people of all faiths, backgrounds, cultures, etc don’t want to accept gay marriage. Sure mormons don’t accept it, that’s not the issue. The people of California voted against gay marriage so why not start there.

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, never shared)

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


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.