No Longer Silent: Arizona Clergy Against Prop 102

Jim Burroway

October 17th, 2008

A large coalition of Phoenix-area clergy called No Longer Silent has released this video urging Christians to vote against Proposition 102, Arizona’s so-called “marriage amendment.”


October 17th, 2008

Sometimes, after being bashed over the head with all of the stuff the anti-gay fundamentalists do and say, I wonder if there is anything redeeming in organized religion.

Then I’m reminded of groups like No Longer Silent.



October 17th, 2008

WOW! That is amazing


October 17th, 2008

I’m glad that they put out this video.

Too bad that it’s only online and that few to none of the “mainstream” in Arizona will get to see it.

I was expecting to see some actual clergy members speaking out against Prop. 102 and not just slides with background music.

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!


October 17th, 2008

Something like this video is what I was expecting.

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!

Ben in Oakland

October 18th, 2008

I agree, eddie. we need to see more of those.


October 20th, 2008

This is a well made video but I have to disagree on this. Marriage is a divine institution. God made man and woman with a purpose. Marriage isn’t just about love. Anybody can love whoever they want. Marriage as defined as between one man and one woman is equal to everyone.

If two people want to make a similar commitment to each that is their right but to call it marriage would change what marriage is about. Marriage is about a man and a women and the power to create life. The union of two people of the same sex will never have the power to create life and this is just the cold hard facts of life – no discrimination there.

Timothy Kincaid

October 20th, 2008


Since what we are talking about is civil marriage, not the marriage that you get in your church, using religion is not a very convincing argument.

But I have to ask you, Micah, do you believe in freedom of religion?

Because if so, why are you trying to deny the Congregational Church in town from being able to perform the weddings that they wish. Why should they be forced to comply with the doctrines of your church? That doesn’t seem fair.

And what about the Reform Jews. Can’t a rabbi announce two Jews to be married if they want? Why are you denying Reform Jews from the marriages that are consistent with their faith? Should they worry that you next insist that only Christians can call their union “marriage”?


October 20th, 2008

In their Amicus Curiae Brief for “In Re Marriage Cases”, the Council for Secular Humanism wrote one of the best arguments against Micah’s claim, I.E. that the “State” sponsored and or recognized “civil” marriages are “holy unions” and therefore recognized by almighty God (Big news to those folks that only got married by the State, little did they know that they are also now married under the eyes of God, because the State is God, according to Micah):

“…the ban on same-sex marriage violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and also violates Article I, § 4, and Article XVI, § 5, of the
California Constitution.

No branch of government can favor believers over nonbelievers. No
branch of government can favor one religion over any other. All
government actions must have a secular purpose. The principal or primary
effect of government action must be to neither advance nor inhibit religion.
No government action is permitted to foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion. Courts must examine whether a claimed secular
purpose is a mere sham. All government actions that claim a secular
purpose, but are actually based upon religious doctrine, must be held

Ultimately, the ban on same sex-marriage is not grounded in any
foundation, other than religious belief. The ban is therefore
unconstitutional under the United States and California Constitutions.”

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!


October 23rd, 2008

It’s real simple. Some people’s worldview is aligned with the book of Leviticus. Others are aligned with the book of Matthew. If you’re a Leviticus person, vote YES. If you’re a Matthew person, vote NO. There is no wrong way to vote, since not everyone believes in the beatitudes.

Mark Forister

October 29th, 2008

Traditional marriages in the USA as depicted by Prop 102 end in divorce at the rate of 50% of 1st , 67% of 2nd, and 74% of 3rd marriages as sourced from the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology. Answer this, how can Prop 102 preserve traditional marriages by writing blatant discrimination into out state constitution, it can’t.


October 30th, 2008

So, to truly “protect” marriage, shouldn’t they place a ban on DIVORCE in the State’s Constitution?

Or maybe, that’s their (extreme right wing Christians) next step!

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!


October 30th, 2008

What the? This video did nothing. I hope they didn’t waste money on this. Or you know what? I hope they did, because it doesn’t do anything to help the campaign. VOTE YES ON PROP 102!

Pissed off Arizonan

November 1st, 2008

I really fear that PROP 102 is going to pass with all of its support. It really makes me sick that so many people want to continue this kind of old fashioned discrimination. I hope enough people will be able to think for themselves and vote NO on PROP 102. How can the same religious person who believes in ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘judge’ not support such hate. Do people actually think that allowing gays to get married will ruin the purity of their own marriage? Is this really because homosexuals make so many people feel “icky”? How long is it going to take for people to finally really accept each other. I may not be gay, but I have friends and family who are, and I want their rights protected. Please vote NO on PROP 102! DO NOT let your religion make you hate your fellow man in the same way that has started wars since the beginning of time.

I'm Voting Yes!

November 2nd, 2008

A vote “yes” does not mean a vote for hate. It is not about being less tolerant. My sister does many things that I do not agree with, based on my religious beliefs. I love her dearly, and instead of telling her it is OK, I can still tell her that what she is doing is a sin. I beleive one can truly love the sinner and hate the sin. We are talking about all of God’s children here. I know he loves all of us, but He certainly does not condone the sins we commit. I beleive it is wrong to mask the face of sin in the word “tolerance.” I am tolerant of my sister, but I do not condone her actions. For some reason, today, to tolerate means to agree with, which is not the correct meaning of the word. I get along fine with my sister, and we can talk about many meaningful things, but, there are instances when it is time to respectrfully disagree. I see no hate in that, nor do I see any intolerance.


November 2nd, 2008

Micah –

I’m curious to know what you think about sterile or infertile men and women marrying. What about elderly men and women? They can’t create life, right? Are you seriously saying that anyone who doesn’t contribute to our skyrocketing over-population shouldn’t be allowed to marry and that marriage is solely about procreation?

L. Junius Brutus

November 2nd, 2008

To “I’m Voting Yes!”,

It seems pretty clear to me that you only preach about love, but practice its exact opposite. Maybe talking about love tires you so much that practicing it would be too much of a bother.

Ken R

November 2nd, 2008

“I’m voting Yes!” – yes, it is hate and intolerance no matter how you look at it. Majority of proponents of Prop 102 demand that their religious views concerning traditional marriage be the law of the land. What’s next? What other laws are you willing to pass in the name of your biblical worldview to stifle those that do not believe as you do? Why haven’t conservative Christians tried to pass laws against no fault divorce? Jesus spoke out against it except in cases of adultery by either party. Is it because support within your own congregations are rather lacking? This only shows the sad truth about the hypocrisy within these churches. I used to be amazed by Christians like you that would clamor that gay people bow to the will of professing biblical Christians because they think they have it completely right and that God was only on their side. Time and reading just shows how wrong they are.

There is no such thing as love the sinner hate the sin. In truth when confronted they admit they really do think lesser of gay people and then drag out Scripture to hammer away at us to prove it. Scripture is not the be all and end all of God. He is still speaking to us. Many Christians like yourself just don’t hear him or refuse to budge from the “biblical truth” you have been taught. If it isn’t in Scripture it must be rejected! He is in fact STILL revealing himself to the world.

Yes, it is discrimination I’m voting Yes! No one has a right to take another person’s rights away. That is not Christ-like at all.

Michael Lunday

November 3rd, 2008

Voting No on 102

Thank you so much for doing this video. I wish there had been more public viewing opportunities other than the internet but I also know in my heart that Love is practiced and has to come from the heart not $6 million dollars of out of state money from the far right so called Christian Coalition. The last time I looked Christians are suppose to love thy neighbor. There will be a judgement day and we will all be judged by only one person and it will not be by the far right. Tomorrow will be history in the making by electing Obama and I too hope in the near future that we will all be able to have the same rights and not discriminate against one another.

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.