Comments on: Why Elder Oaks’ Civil-Rights Analogy Works

By: ExMoHoMoDon

ExMoHoMoDon — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:25:29 +0000

BTW If Elder Oaks was so convinced that the campaign supporting Prop 8 was correct in its public pronouncements of legal doom for religious freedom etc., why didn’t HE put his face on the TV advertising paid for by the campaign? If as a lawyer, he really believed the flawed nonsense and scare tactics of the Yes on 8 campaign, he should have done the TV spots for them. The truth is, he knows that the advertising for Yes on 8 was base fear mongering with nary a legal leg to stand on–so Mormons were encouraged to give money to the PAC so that someone else could beat up the fags and the Church’s hands could be clean. Same tactic they used with Save Traditional Marriage PAC in Hawaii. Very canny but very dishonest. Elder Oaks did not as a lawyer want his name associated with the specious and dishonest Yes on 8 campaign–his reputation, the University of Chicago’s Law School’s , and BYU Law School’s reputations would have taken a hit too–not that BYU Law School’s reputation has that much to lose.

By: ExMoHoMoDon

ExMoHoMoDon — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:12:44 +0000

Checking in almost one month after I first made my prediction, I am in no way surprised that those crying about ‘persecution’ and ‘intimidation’ have not been able to name a single homosexual person or homosexual group accused or found guilty of any illegal act against any Mormon persons or property anyplace ever.

Clearly, there have been incidents of minor vandalism, and a white powder sent to 2 Mormon Temples. These things are wrong. But, these could easily have been done by FLDS zealots for example, to take advantage of the situation–they think the ‘Utah’ Church is apostate for not following DC 132. Not a single case of anything illegal has been conclusively linked to any homosexual person or group. If it ever is, it should be fully prosecuted under the law.

Elder Oaks has apparently forgotten that our legal system requires evidence and proof, not histrionics.

The primary tool used by pro equality groups supporting equal protection under the law for homosexuals has been financial boycotts and criticism in the public square–sometimes reasoned and respectful, sometimes inflammatory and disrespectful. Such is the noisy tumult of free speech and the cost of participation in the political process. If Mormons want to involve themselves in politics which they are welcome to do, then they should be prepared for things to get hot, and as Harry Truman said, ‘if (Mormons) can’t stand the heat then they should stay out of the kitchen’.

The Mormon penchant for seeing themselves as God’s Chosen and (therefore) persecuted is more than melodramatic. Overwhelmingly, homosexuals don’t care what silly hateful nonsense Mormons believe (like the whole Sons of Cain thing preached as doctrine for 150 years from BY to McConkie). We just want Mormons to leave us alone and we will claim our equal protection under the law in spite of you–so overwhelmingly we don’t care to make reconciliation or detente with you. We are very prepared for a long and protracted fight, after which most of us will be more than happy to ignore you so that we can pursue life with our families in peace. Yes, we have families–I have 3 sons–and I look forward to the day I can devote all of my time to them and leave Mormons to hate someone else for Jesus.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:07:06 +0000

An interesting article was just released on The Salt Tribune’s website (see http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_13611733# ). The article (entitled “Religious liberty and gay marriage: Is Oaks right? Yes and no”) provides an interesting overview of the tension between civil rights/equality and freedom of religion. Worth a read….

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:46:45 +0000

MiVu,

Are you kidding me? Any group or person has the right to oppose any legislation that is being presented for a vote and should be able to speak out without fear of adverse consequences!

Not at all. There are consequences to actions, and the abuse of the majority against the minority is replete with consequences that end up being, in many cases, quite violent to the majority who abused that position. This was not a vote on whether to rename the local federal office after some recent president. This was not a vote to place some land as a national park. This was a vote on fundamentally altering the lives of individual people. This vote had passion and emotion riding on it. Of course there would be consequences. In fact, I think this is quite healthy for a democratic society, that there are consequences for votes. It makes the vote making decision far more judicious and wise.

By: News of the day. [1] « Anticlimatic’s Blog

News of the day. [1] « Anticlimatic’s Blog — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:22:59 +0000

[...] Elder Oaks’ Civil-Rights Analogy Works — http://asoftanswer.com/2009/10/14/why-elder-oaks-civil-rights-analogy-works/comment-page-1/#comments [You may want to read the post and the comments on this [...]

By: cARTHAN

cARTHAN — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:35:10 +0000

Mormons In the Front
I have no love for religion and that is vividly obvious to anyone that knows me. That said, I can honestly say some more than other religions I find more reprehensible than others. Contrary to what might be inferred by the title of this piece, Mormon’s are not out in front on my overall list of loathsome religions,but they are on this issue.
I’ve pretty much ignored LDS unless it knocks on my door or approaches me in any other way. I worked for a Mormon once, we had issues. I don’t think it was because he was Mormon, he was a prick of the natural order, so it came naturally. He was a little pinched face guy with facial features I’d get caught up in instead of listening. He’d open his mouth to speak, but nothing came out for a good 10-15 seconds. His mouth and eye brows would do these contortions. It was almost like watching really fast time lapse photography. Odd. I remember my mother always taking out of state visitors up to see the Mormon church in the hills. I never understood why that was an attraction since we could never go inside, and our church was Baptist. I look up there occasionally now and I still hate the place, high above the flat lands on a hill it stands. A beacon to,…what?
Elder Oaks’ is attempting to draw an analogy between those that suffered during the civil rights movement, and those supporting prop 8. According to Oaks, those supporting prop 8 were fired, intimidated and boycotted because they were opponents of prop 8. He does say that the intimidation received by Blacks was worse. By inference I’m assuming he meant “comparable” as in lynchings, rapes, bombed churches, fire hoses, dogs, and locked up in prison suffered by Blacks and supporters. Needless to say, I disagree. One of us misses the point.
I believe the right to marry who you choose is a civil right. I do not believe the two issues can be compared. The movements, the emotion, the ingrained humanity, the foundation for the opposition and resulting impact can not be compared.
Oaks’ limits his supposition to the alleged “intimidation” received by opponents of prop 8. Again, I totally disagree. “Intimidated” with boycott, a business has a choice. “Intimidated with being fired, there is a choice and legal avenues. Intimidation did not kill 4 little girls in that church. Intimidation did not lynch thousands of Blacks, or drag them to their death, or burn their homes, or sic 90 pound dogs on women and children, or hose them with fire hoses. That is not intimidation, that is death by racism. Blacks had no choice, no rights, no safety net, no protection or no where to turn. Backlash from this issue can not be compared to the back lashes whipped Blacks suffered. Perhaps Oaks is saying the intimidation is born of homophobia? Blacks had no choice, they were Black and would remain Black regardless of ANY law.
Oaks’ comments still does not put the Mormon church at the top of my all time list, but it goes to the front of the line on this issue. As with most religious zealots, Oaks missed the point. I will say in deference to the front runner on my list, the Catholic church was very active during the civil rights movement but they are also confused over prop 8. I’ve never seen an LDS member on a civil rights picket line. Maybe I missed it.

By: WWWexler

WWWexler — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:45:19 +0000

MiVu…

You certainly seem quite indignant.

By what power do you derive the right to deprive a group to freely choose their spouse? And when you do that, why do you think you should be immune to the criticism that you have earned? And legal immunity, too? I don’t think so.

Were the Mormons trying to “get even” for losing polygamy in 1890?

If that issue were raised today I would support the Mormons on it because I do consider it a civil right even though I don’t necessarily support it. That’s the thing about America. We don’t have to agree with what other people do if we agree that other people are equal to us and have the same rights we do. If Mormons or any other group want to practice polygamy it has absolutely ZERO effect on my life. That’s the same thing with gay marriage. I don’t exactly understand “gayness”, but I know it exists and I can still respect and love people who are gay and also their right to be that way. That includes their right to choose their spouse and enjoy the same legal status that I enjoy with my wife.

And since I live in Iowa, one of 4 states that permits gay marriage, I can speak to this issue with some authority. Iowans are not going to take kindly to an influx of out-staters trying to mess with our laws. That’s because we UNDERSTAND what civil rights are and we “get it” that if a gay couple wants to get married, so what?

I wish there was a bit more tolerance.

-Wexler

By: MiVu

MiVu — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:06:36 +0000

“The church had every right to oppose gay marriage, but to expect that to be a consequence-free act seems rather naive.”
Are you kidding me? Any group or person has the right to oppose any legislation that is being presented for a vote and should be able to speak out without fear of adverse consequences! They should expect dissenting views and opposing opinions but anything beyond that is intimidation — there’s just no other word for it, especially because those who did the intimidating were clear on the fact that they were regrouping for more lawsuits. The message they wanted to send was clear — bow out, keep your wallets closed and your mouths shut or else. I have no doubt that those tactics will increase in scope and violence in the future especially because too many have looked the other way or justified those actions instead of sending a clear message that behavior like that can NEVER be tolerated for ANY reason in a free and open democratic society, period!

By: Ray

Ray — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:08:35 +0000

When the church signed on to not just help in the fight against gay marriage in California but to become the lightning rod, so to speak, for the anti-gay marriage movement, did the bretheren not understand what they were doing? The church had every right to oppose gay marriage, but to expect that to be a consequence-free act seems rather naive. Having done what it did, I would feel better if the church stood up and acknowledged what it did and took its lumps and not whine about how people are being mean to us.

As for the reference to civil rights, regardless of what he actually said or meant, I personally wish Elder Oaks had not brought that up, given the church’s indifference at best to civil rights during the 1960s and at worst its hostility. Other than Pres. Hugh B. Brown’s statement in conference in support of civil rights, and the pro-civil rights position of George Romney (which was not popular with some of the bretheren), I can’t think of anything the church did to further the expansion of civil rights in our country during the civil rights era.

By: WWWexler

WWWexler — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:36:55 +0000

Dan posted above:

“Tying gay marriage as a mortal threat to their existence ensures that emotions will get the best of them. Likewise with gay rights supporters, they see the inverse slippery slope. Losing gay marriage will empower religionists to press against those other gay rights like anti-discrimination laws. And gays will truly become a second class citizenship. Heck, maybe someday they will not get to vote, as voting may be tied to the worthiness of individuals based by a particular religion. Slippery slopes all around, Ardis. Both sides tie this conflict as a threat to their mortal existence. It’s a shame really because life does go on.”

Dan, tying gay marriage to their existence is not a slippery slope any more than tying marriage to your existence is for persons of the Mormon faith. Mormons believe that they should be able to choose their mate and marry them. Why should this right be afforded to one group and denied to another? There’s no slippery slope here for the LGBT community at all. There’s nothing that MAY lead to second class citizenship, it’s already been done by passing Prop 8.

In order to empathize with this imagine for a moment what it must have been like for the Mormons when the US Government told Mormons that they are not to be allowed to practice polygamy. I think that would be of similar equivalence, as it’s an equal imposition of “majority rule” that tells a minority how they can practice one of their most important religious and civil arrangements. It must have been horrible.

Well, this is what the Mormons just visited upon another group. I hope those who participated in it are satisfied, but please don’t cry “civil rights” or “religious discrimination” when you suffer blowback from it.

-Wexler