I was unaware how crazy it has been in California:
- Angry protestors harass temple patrons in Oakland. [update: possibly bogus, possibly not, see comments below]
- A car blazoned with “Bigots live here” outside an LDS home.
- Letters with death threats have been sent to many LDS homes.
I am not aware of attacks against those who oppose Prop 8 and hope there haven’t been any. But it’s ironic that those who claim Proposition 8 is all about hate seem to have plenty to share.
That said, I hope people don’t use this an an excuse to target gays and lesbians or to retaliate in any way. Too often in politics, a beleagured party hypes up its own martyrdom and some even fake attacks on its own side to provoke more outrage and sympathy (I’m not suggesting that’s the case here).
Regardless of the very troubling actions by an ugly few, it’s important to stick to facts and keep doing what is right.
As frustrating and alarming as these attacks can be, reading Elder Robert D. Hales’ conference talk, “Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship” adds some valuable perspective.
Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to “love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]” (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.
The Prophet Joseph Smith demonstrated this courage throughout his life. Though he “suffer[ed] severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious” (Joseph Smith—History 1:27), he did not retaliate or give in to hatred. Like all true disciples of Christ, he stood with the Savior by loving others in a tolerant and compassionate way. That is Christian courage.
When we do not retaliate—when we turn the other cheek and resist feelings of anger—we too stand with the Savior. We show forth His love, which is the only power that can subdue the adversary and answer our accusers without accusing them in return. That is not weakness. That is Christian courage.
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: civility, same-gender marriage
-
I love it, it is not the gays getting persecuted but those poor Mormons. Nice spin. You and Guy Murray should be commended for you ability to make being anti-gay rights look as if it is the same thing as Christians being thrown to the lions. Gag.
“I am not aware of attacks against those who oppose Prop 8 and hope there haven’t been any. ” Prop. 8 IS the attack.
-
Chris -
You seem to be good at spin yourself.
How is a democratic ballot process that requires a majority vote to restore the traditional definition of marriage as it was before four people decided to change it four months ago an attack?
-
And please re-read my post.
I was suggesting that it’s NOT like being thrown to the lions and some perspective is needed.
-
David, your first response to Chris is no doubt well-intentioned and reflects your belief. But as an active, temple-worthy member of the Church, I have run out of patience with my fellow Saints repeating this myth that “four activist judges ignored the will of the people and imposed their own beliefs” on a suffering majority. It is just not true. Here are the facts.
One of the jobs of a supreme court justice, at the state or federal level, is to decide whether any given statute complies with the state or federal constitution. To the extent the statute does not, the supreme court will rule that it is invalid. That principle of American jurisprudence has been well established for over two centuries.
The California Supreme Court did exactly that in this case. In an exhaustive, thoroughly researched and nationally praised opinion, a majority of California justices–virtually all of whom are moderate to conservative Republicans, mind you, and NOT “judicial activists” with a left-wing agenda–compared a statute defining marriage to the state constitution and found that the statute did not comply with constitutional requirements. It’s as simple as that.
This was not a group of left-wing judicial loons looking to hijack the legal process. It was not a bunch of aging Berkeley radicals determined to ride roughshod over a democratic result. It was a group of conservative judges doing their job. The fact is that in their experienced and educated legal opinions, the statute confining marriage to one man and one woman did not comply with the California Constitution. It therefore could not remain valid.
If you don’t like that result, then change the constitution, and that’s exactly what Prop 8 is trying to do. But PLEASE spare us the myths about renegade judges deliberately ignoring the people’s will. If the people’s will is to prevail all the time regardless of the law, then why have constitutions or courts at all? Why not continue to keep African-Americans in the back of the bus or seated at separate lunch counters? Why not go ahead and just destroy the LDS Church because of polygamy? Popular opinion is often not correct, kind, or virtuous. We have checks and balances in the system for a reason. Judges have a crucial role in that system. Please stop accusing the California Supreme Court of doing something it did not do.
-
David,
Sorry, I overreacted. I was thinking of some other discussion I have been following and I obviously misread your intent (I should know better). The propostion itself is not an attack on gays, though I think that much of the rhetoric used by those supporting the proposition is.
At this point I am just curious to see how it turns out. The polling seems inconsistent thus far.
Again, I apologize.
Jay,
Interesting. I tend to agree. -
How is a democratic ballot process that requires a majority vote to restore the traditional definition of marriage as it was before four people decided to change it four months ago an attack?
Prop 8, if it passes, will nullify thousands of gay marriages. That, my friend, is an attack on the rights and dignity of not only those who have married, but every gay person and every gay family in California–and, given the importance of California to this country’s politics and culture, well beyond.
To deny rights via ballot is profoundly anti-American.
-
“To deny rights via ballot is profoundly anti-American.”
Why does it have to be American or anti-American. While I agree with you, I think we should avoid trying to sound too much like Sarah Palin in our arguments.
-
I actually meant to write un-American and anti-family, not anti-American. But I take your point.
That said, the story of America is one of expanding, not contracting, civil liberty. Prop 8 is a direct attack on my community, a bald attempt to write “separate but equal” into a state constitution.
-
Is the SUV parked in violation of traffic laws? If not, then I see no problem here. As long as the family’s property rights are not being violated, this is merely free speech.
-
Also, according to the link, the donation was made on the 20th and the SUV showed up within 24 hours. Even the Sec of State records aren’t updated that quickly. I submit that it is quite possible the family had the SUV placed to ensure news coverage.
-
David,
I have doubts about the story about protesters at the Oakland temple. I live in the Oakland stake, and some people around here have been unable to verify the story. One member called the temple, and the workers there didn’t know anything about any protests.
-
Chris –
I’m glad you don’t think I was trying to play the “victim” card like so many do. Thanks.
Jay –
Having gone to law school I have some understanding of what courts are supposed to do. I think the issue is our our conflicting interpretations of the law and how the court is supposed to apply it. I didn’t demonize the court or use the labels you seem to be putting in my mouth.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to sell me on the legitimacy of the decision. No court nor its decisions are beyond reproach. Obviously you are very impressed by the Court’s decision and its reasoning. But unlike what you suggest, there are plenty of us (including many legal scholars) who are not as impressed. Many of the justices may have been Republican-appointed but they or at least this decision is as “conservative” as the state’s governor.
The fact is that by a vote of four to three the Court suddenly realized that the state constitution demanded that same-gender marriage was a state constitutional right. You can slather as much praise as you want on the decision but it still stands that a bare majority of one vote overturned the 2000 state referendum and abruptly discovered a new right that wasn’t there before.
Can you appreciate how troublesome it is when a court suddenly discovers a new right in a constitution? With no public and democratic participation?
I know gay marriage advocates hate this question but I would like a serious explanation as to why the court’s reasoning would prevent polygamy from being legal. It is apparent to me that as soon as our understanding of equality and fairness and sufficiently “evolved” we will extend the right to polygamous marriage as well. I give it ten years.
And going to Chris William’s point. the Court was so hasty and reckless in its disregard for a measure and fair process, it denied a stay in its decision to see how the proposition will play out. Now if it passes what will happen to those who have married in the meantime? I sincerely feel for those people.
Phouchg –
There was no suggestion that parking the car was illegal, just mean-spirited. Of course, if the same thing was done to gays, I’m sure it would be called a hate crime and sufficiently denounced. I agree its free speech and ugly as it is, it should be protected.
ed –
That’s too bad if it is a false story (in the sense that someone is pushing lies, I’m glad if it didn’t happen) but a good reminder that these accounts should be taken with a grain salt, especially as they are passed via email.
-
“…these accounts should be taken with a grain salt, especially as they are passed via email.”
Then why post them?
-
David B -
I’m skeptical now but from I’ve seen it’s still ed’s word against several blogs that I hold to be trustworthy. However, having now seen that these blogs may be repeating the same email I may not have repeated it myself (I updated the post with a disclaimer).
I’d like to think Latter-day Saints are better than this but I realize they are capable of shenanigans too. Hence my post above.
-
@ Jay and David H.
I think we might be talking past each other here.
Perhaps I’m wrong (if so, please correct me), but I don’t think the frustrating thing for Jay about the “4 activist judges” is the RULING they came to–rather, it’s the way in which the Yes campaign has used the term to somehow imply that this was a smoke-and-mirrors operation carried out by rogue judges without authority or mandate to do so. In other words, disagreeing with the judges is one thing; spinning it into misleading rhetoric is another.
-
To clarify, I’m not saying the story about the temple is necessarily “bogus,” in the sense of being wholly fabricated. It’s also possible that something like that really happened, but that the email is exagerated and gives the wrong impression.
If indeed there were any protests at or around the temple, they don’t appear to have been big or long-lasting enough to have attracted any other corroborating accounts, or even any awareness by the workers at the temple itself.
-
“How is a democratic ballot process that requires a majority vote to restore the traditional definition of marriage as it was before four people decided to change it four months ago an attack?”
Dave,
I’m with Jay — that’s a gross mischaracterization of the judicial process, and something which you as an attorney should know better.
Judges are _supposed_ to interpret and apply laws. And you know this. Sure, they’re four people — four people appointed by our democratic process with the job of doing exactly what they did.
When people (like you!) afterwards say that they are just “four people deciding to change it,” that undermines the entire system of rule of law. I mean, if you really prefer a system in which judges do not have power to interpret law, by all means, support a transition to such a system. (Many civil-law countries have a much more limited role for their judiciary.) But in the mean time, our country’s judicial system is one in which judges legitimately have the power to make sweeping changes to law where the Constitution requires. (See, e.g., Brown v. Board.)
To implicitly question the court’s legitimacy by calling it merely “four people deciding to change the law,” is below you.
-
“I know gay marriage advocates hate this question but I would like a serious explanation as to why the court’s reasoning would prevent polygamy from being legal. It is apparent to me that as soon as our understanding of equality and fairness and sufficiently “evolved” we will extend the right to polygamous marriage as well. I give it ten years.”
Well, the short answer is because _In Re Marriage Cases_ explicitly says that it does not apply to polygamy.
On a broader level, you’re right that some future decision might extend a similar right to polygamy. I didn’t find the court’s no-polygamy footnote to be particularly well-reasoned. But it is, at present, law.
-
Kaimi –
Perhaps not being in California, I just don’t appreciate the tone of the arguments out there but I am at a loss to understand what is so outrageous with my comments. They’re certainly not original.
I didn’t say the court was illegitimate but I can question the decision and its reasoning. Neither did I suggest that California shouldn’t abide by the decision should Prop 8 fail.
Why is it so provocative to criticize the court’s interpretation of the law? And speaking of which, what law did they interpret? Reading between the lines to generate a right to gay marriage is not interpretation but fabrication. You may not agree, but as a law professor surely you can appreciate that some people have serious questions when judges take it upon themselves to make these sweeping changes and claim they are found in the Constitution.
And spotlighting that the radical redefinition of marriage was made by four people rather than the legislature or the people of California is not undermining the system. I’m confident our judicial system is strong enough to withstand some mild comments made on an obscure blog.
I may not have expressed myself clearly so let me quote the dissent from In re Marriage Cases:
Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage—an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law—is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.
I don’t think I said anything that differently. So if what I said is that contemptible and “below” me please direct some of your outrage at the three dissenting justices.
-
@ David; Others
As a person out here in California who is heavily involved with the debate, I have seen this argument repeated ad nauseum; I will repeat what I wrote in a comment earlier–we’re all talking past each other.
It is not the “four judges” statement that generates eye-rolls and scoffs out here; rather, it’s the “four *activist* judges” statement that causes this. This is not because they’re not activists, (maybe they are) but because the term “activist”, as it has been used by the Yes campaign, is a very loaded term.
The Yes campaign used that term very heavily in the beginning–endlessly, to be honest. The way it came across was “4 rogue, activist judges have usurped power and subverted authority and generally broken many rules and destroyed the will of the people!”
Is that what really happened? No. There can be plenty of healthy debate about the validity of the judges’ decision *in the case*, but not much about the legitimacy of their decision to look *at the case* in the first place.
-
“YES ON 8? people– four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.—sent 30 odd letters to people who had donated to No on 8, saying that their names would be published as being against traditional marriage unless they made equivalent donations to Yes on 8. “But News 8 couldn’t find anything from No on 8 supporters demanding money from Yes on 8 supporters.”
http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.144185.html
Perhaps this comment better fits here
-
David:
I too am an attorney, was on law review, have been in practice for a while, and think I also “have some understanding of what courts are supposed to do.”
I agree that you and I have conflicting interpretations of the law and how the court is supposed to apply it. The problem I see with your approach is that it seems to go against over 200 years of settled precedent since Marbury v. Madison that a supreme court has not only the right but the obligation to review new statutes to decide their constitutionality, whether at state or federal levels. Many of your remarks suggest that you believe this is wrong.
I also agree that “no court nor its decisions are beyond reproach.” And I recognize that you and some legal scholars are “not as impressed” with the California Supreme Court’s decision. The same was said about Brown v. Board of Education, especially by those who liked Plessy v. Ferguson. No lawyer or group of legal scholars are beyond reproach either, and there will never be unanimity on anything among them. Saying that “courts are sometimes wrong” as a general proposition does nothing to address specific questions of why you think the California Supreme Court was wrong in this case.
Your stated that “by a vote of four to three the Court suddenly realized that the state constitution demanded that same-gender marriage was a state constitutional right” and that this “bare majority of one vote overturned the 2000 state referendum and abruptly discovered a new right that wasn’t there before.” Fine. But as a lawyer you should know that a court’s tally of votes doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the substance of whether the majority’s reasoning was correct or not. That’s another red herring. Come on, counselor. If you don’t like the result, then argue with its analysis, but don’t do the soundbyte thing and suggest it was wrong just because it wasn’t unanimous.
You asked if I could “appreciate how troublesome it is when a court suddenly discovers a new right in a constitution? With no public and democratic participation?” I am a little surprised by this utilitarian approach. So we are supposed to stop a court from doing its job because a decision makes a change in the law which some might not expect? Because it’s too “troublesome” to deal with the consequences? Tell that to Rosa Parks.
You asked for “a serious explanation as to why the court’s reasoning would prevent polygamy from being legal” and suggested we’re only ten years away from “evolving” to accepting polygamy as well. To which I say: so what? Kaimi is correct to point out that the opinion in In Re Marriage Cases expressly excludes its extension to polygamy, but beyond that, as I recall, the same LDS Church which is now pushing one man-one woman marriage previously fought nearly to the death to preserve its right to perform polygamous marriages, and some of its leaders from that period, sustained at the time as prophets, seers and revelators, are on record as suggesting monogamy was not only contrary to the order of heaven but actually Satanic. So if polygamy comes back, why should we be surprised? Doctrinally it’s never been officially repudiated, just shelved. Believing Mormons can’t object to polygamy on theological grounds because their leaders have repeatedly stated that when God commands or permits polygamy, it’s okay. Official Declaration #1 says only that Wilford Woodruff’s “advice” to the Church was to refrain from any marriages that violated the law. If polygamy becomes legal and Reynolds is overturned, then how could the LDS Church possibly object? Granted, today’s Relief Society might erupt in open rebellion, but that’s a separate issue. I find it ironic almost to the point of laughability that Mormons seem so frantic about the possibility of polygamy being revived when their great-great grandparents went to prison and risked the destruction of the Church rather than give up what their descendants now seem to fear so much.
You said “the Court was so hasty and reckless in its disregard for a measure and fair process, it denied a stay in its decision to see how the proposition will play out. Now if it passes what will happen to those who have married in the meantime?”
The Court denied a stay because there was no legal justification for it, and it said so. Simple as that. And if Proposition 8 passes, what will happen to those who’ve married in the meantime? That’s pretty simple too. Their marriages will be voided, and the Church will have cemented its position in the eyes of countless non-Mormons as discriminatory, homophobic, retrogressive, and willing to coerce its members to donate millions to take away someone else’s constitutional rights. I’m not saying I believe any of that myself, but that is what many, many people will think of the Church, and not just in California. This will be a worldwide perception. I would not want to be a missionary in California if Prop 8 passes.
-
Can you appreciate how troublesome it is when a court suddenly discovers a new right in a constitution?
I’m trying to imagine how a court slowly, deliberately and gradually discovers a “new right” in a constitution. I’m coming up blank.
Maybe it’s not a new right. Maybe it’s an old right that’s been there all along, but we’ve just been unwilling to look it in the face for what it is.
-
P.S.
To David’s comment, yes, absolutely, I am frustrated by the apparent knee-jerk willingness of so many in the Church to adopt the pejorative rhetoric of “renegade” or “activist” judges in an attempt to spin the decision as the calculated attempt of agenda-driven zealots to overrule the people’s will. Mormons have enough PR problems as it is, and suggesting such things in public makes us look like paranoid, unthinking automatons. I can’t help wondering if that image is contributing to declining conversion stats in the US.
Well said, David. It is one thing to disagree with the substance of a judicial ruling and to offer solid analysis in dissent. It is quite another to use loaded adjectives in order to whip up hysteria and spread misconceptions and half-truths. Neither side is guiltless on this point, but Mormons are supposed to try to hold themselves to a higher standard.
-
“YES ON 8? people… sent 30 odd letters to people who had donated to No on 8, saying that their names would be published as being against traditional marriage unless they made equivalent donations to Yes on 8.”
That’s about the saddest thing I’ve seen in this whole Prop 8 debate.
“You donated money to the ‘no’ campaign? Well, then, we’re going to out both you and your business as being [insert sneering tone of voice here] ‘GAY LOVERS’ and ‘PRO-QUEER’, unless you give us money, too! Mu-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaa!”
I wonder if the “latter-day saint” who put his name on that effort will be called up by his stake president for behavior not fitting a member of the Church. Probably not, since he didn’t promote a calendar of shirtless missionaries… (not that that’s OK, but there’s certainly a question of perspective here, IMO).
-
This is disgusting how the entire conflict of political ideas has been turned to a mud slinging process. WE ARE NOW NO BETTER THAN CANIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICES. (pardon the joke) I for one want 8 to pass. However I would not be caught slinging mud like we are seeing here. It is interesting that some of you would pose your mud slinging adventures as knowledge of the world of law around you. Please Desist from using legal jargon to sling mud. And that goes for both sides. We are like little children who know how to use big words. Anyways now that I have vented I feel better.
-
Don’t forget about the “Yes on 8″ people using children that surprised their teacher by showing up at the courthouse steps after her wedding (it should go without saying to another woman) without permission in an Yes on 8 ad. Parents are incensed.
-
Eric, your accusations that others are simply slinging mud but dressing it up in “legal jargon” would have more credibility if you took the time to give examples and to show why the legal analysis in this thread is actually just “mud slinging.” When you do that, your comments will be worth considering.
-
I am the original poster of the story you referenced about the woman (Susanne) being harassed while going to her Stake Temple Night. When you stated that it was possibly bogus, I did everything in my power to find out. The moderator of the email group she originally posted her story on has confirmed the validity. See the comments on the post at http://preservingmarriage.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-side-is-right-and-one-side-is-wrong.html
I just hate seeing a link to our site with the phrase “possibly bogus”
-
Thanks Heather.
I amended the “possibly bogus” disclaimer slightly with a link to your comment.
I didn’t mean to disparage your post but I do think it’s important to take a single email that gets spread around with at least a grain of salt.
I don’t mean that as an attack on your credibility.
-
http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/message.html?id=4162527
“Author: empleh
Date: Oct 24, 03:12pm
Category: Current EventsI am a security officer at the Oakland, CA Temple and was in the meeting with the Temple Recorder, Head Engineer, Head of Security, and the engineering department. One of the main points of this meeting was regarding this e-mail and story that has been circulating.
This story is indeed exaggerated and innaccurate. Brother Newport did not receive any notice from anyone in the Temple (Patron or worker) about sisters crying or being upset in any manner. As for the traffic, the off ramp is often congested because of the traffic, the protestors were not responisible for the back up and they were not jumping out in front of vehicles. They were crossing the road back and forth at a walking pace when vehicles were already stopped.
As for police involvement, they were notified of a different matter regarding protestors at an off-ramp and responded immediately.As for my personal opinion on the matter, I say we should be careful not to be like those no on 8 prostestors by lying or deceiving others into what they are like. That is there number one tool, lying and deceiving about the matter and people they are opposing.
Please be careful with what you pass on. (Official statements are OK.) ”
From Cougarboard, fwiw, saying the protest incident didn’t happen.
-
This “new right” stuff is plain political hogwash promulgated by those who have less understanding of the Constitution than the Bible. As citizens of this country maybe you should try to correct that deficiency.
14th Amendment, which California operates under.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.What Pro 8 does is create a second class of citizens.
-
Actually, prop 8 does not create a second class of citizens, it only defines the word marriage. All California citizens have the same rights and obligations according to the laws. For example, a drug addict should not be given the right to take drugs just because he is a minority. And we as a people have the obligation to determine what kinds of behaviors are appropriate and good for society.
-
Peter,
A gay couple and a drug addict. nice perjorative conflation there. Was that intentional? Do you equate gays with drug addicts? Aside from a corrupt and nonsensical apples and oranges example, that’s just plain sick and mean-spirited.
As to second class citizenship, the term does apply since in effect law-abiding gays and non-gays are accorded different rights. You and I have a special right to marry, gay couples don’t. Can’t get any plainer than that.
-
I guess marcus is right about the second class citizens, gay have more rights than straights. that means the straights are the second class.
-
“gay have more rights than straights.”
Sorry, but that might be the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
-
What I still fail to understand is a huge flurry at the end. ,
-
Muslim minority population reaches over a mere 2%, jihad begins. ,
39 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2008/10/22/more-proposition-8-attacks-and-a-deep-breath/trackback/