Friday, November 14, 2008

Prop 8 and Tolerance: Followup

I have two main followups for my original post Proposition 8 and Tolerance.

The first one concerns the gay friend who had messaged me on Facebook to tell me he was taking me off his friends list, apparently because I'm Mormon. At the time of the original post he had not responded to my response, but since then he has. His message read (in part):

Actually, I defriended you because I couldn't figure out how to block your discussions from my feed. After reading a few that really made me angry and hurt, I decided I didn't want them showing up on my page.

I wasn't actually accusing you of intolerance, or arguing my knowledge or lack thereof of what's going on across the country.

So - though he continues to remain anonymous - I need to point out that he's at least one example of a gay man who is not demonstrating any religious bigotry and willing to discuss the matter openly. For what it's worth, I respect the reasoning behind his decision to take me off his friends list, and as far as I know we're on good terms. Just not as far as Facebook knows.

The second concerns religious intolerance. As you might be able to tell just from the comments to my original post, the main line of attack from the gay rights community has been that Mormon opposition to Proposition 8 can not be attributed to anything else other than hatred and intolerance of and for homosexuals. Furthermore, homosexuals are "social outcasts" who are uniquely vulnerable to persecution from Mormons. It's David vs. Goliath.

This line of attack rings true with people because it fits a familiar narrative, not because it has any basis in fact. We're all used to the template of the rich, white, patriarchal Christians oppressing the naive, idealistic, vulnerable minority. In part because this has happened far too many times throughout history. I don't want to rehash all the crimes of Europeans throughout history. Instead I just want to point out that Mormons hardly qualify for that description.

For starters, there aren't enough of them. There are something like 12 - 14 million Mormons in the world, and less than 1/2 are in this country. So we're talking about less than 7 million Mormons in a population of 300 million. Hardly a majority. In addition, Mormons are not - for social or political purposes - part of the mainstream Christian community. They kick us out of their clubs and reject our baptisms even while they acknowledge each others. I'm not complaining. We don't accept theirs either. It just illustrates that you can't write off Mormons as part of a unified block of oppressive Christian hegemony. And finally, Mormons have a unique history of persecution themselves in this country. There have historically been laws against homosexual behavior. In the 19th century, Illinois declared that all Mormons had to leave the state or be exterminated. Leading homosexual advocates who pioneered the transition of gays as a culture out of the closet have been shot and killed (like Harvey Milk). The first Mormon prophet - Joseph Smith - was also shot and killed. Gay rights activists are currently fighting to change the definition of marriage to suit them. Mormons fought that battle in the 19th century and lost. The Church had to abandon polygamy or face destruction.

I'm not going to try and quantify the exact degree to which gays and Mormons qualify as social outcasts to see who gets the annual aware for "Most Persecuted". I am simply showing that the notion that gays are unequivocally more outcast than Mormons is, at best, questionable. So much for that part of the David vs. Goliath myth going on.

The second major contention is that Mormons hate gays. I've yet to see any evidence of this whatsoever. All of the Church's official pronouncements deny this, and in addition Mormons individually have (as far as I've been able to find in the press) expressed themselves carefully and thoughtfully. There may be no nice way to say "I don't think you qualify for marriage", but the Mormons are sure trying.

On the other hand, the response on the part of protesters without doubt qualifies as hatred. My wife sent me an email last night with the subject line "and the witch hunt begins". In it, she linked me to an article about Mormon Scott Eckern who has been chased out of his job at the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre after a threatened boycott due to his support (as a private citizen, without any connection to his job) for Proposition 8. How many homosexuals has the Mormon church tried to kick out of their jobs for opposing Proposition 8? Vandals are attacking Mormon meeting houses in California, Utah. (6 in Utah, another in California, and that's just one google search and the first 2 results). What buildings have Mormons defaced?

The protests outside Mormon temples are often being described as "peaceful", but that's not the impression of one of the LAPD officers assigned to assist in crowd control. Meridian Magazine (which, incidentally, has hacked and redirected to a gay porn video) has a story from Paul Bishop (a Mormon) where he describes some of what he has seen before Prop 8 was passed, and in the protests that resulted.

Before:

During the Proposition 8 rally, as I stood with my wife and friends waving Yes On 8 signs and waving to the passing rush hour traffic, I learned several things. I learned supporters of both Yes On 8 and No On 8 liked to honk their horns. I learned the way to tell the difference is the No On 8 supporters usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb.

I learned at the rally several of our ward members had received hate mail after their names, religious affiliation, contribution amounts, and addresses were published on a website inciting No On 8 supporters to target the listed individuals. Their houses and cars had been vandalized, their campaign support signs stolen, and opposition signs planted in their place.

Election day in California saw numerous No On 8 activists distributing literature and vocalizing at polling sites in clear violation of election laws. Police were called, 100 yard distances from the polling places were paced off, yet the agitation continued.

After:

The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground. Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.

As if a hate-filled mobs (and the Mormons know a few things about hate-filled mobs) beating down anyone who stood up for the Mormons wasn't enough, here's how some LAPD officers feel about the protests:

In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple. Imagine my surprise, when angry protesters began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, “I hope they burn that place to the ground.”

Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, “They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all.”

Read the article for yourself. Scroll through and look at all the pictures of the peaceful protesters and their demonstrations in the name of love.

How does Mr. Bishop react to this outpouring of hatred directed at his own faith? He quotes one of our Apostles:

Challenges to our faith are not new. Nor are they likely to go away anytime soon. But, as Elder Hales reminds us, “True disciples of Christ see opportunity in the midst of opposition. We can take advantage of such opportunities in many ways: a kind letter to the editor, a conversation with a friend, a comment on a blog, or a reassuring word to one who has made a disparaging comment. We can answer with love those who have been influenced by misinformation and prejudice – who are ‘kept from the truth because they know not where to find it' (D&C 123:12). I assure you that to answer our accusers in this way is never weakness. It is Christian courage in action.”

So much for a secret, subterranean Mormon army.

All of this was enough, when I read about it last night, to convince me my next post needed to be on this issue. But when I got to work this morning, I found out that the vitriol and hatred continues unabated. The AP News is reporting that fake anthrax has been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah. As my coworker (not Mormon) said: "At least it wasn't real anthrax." In Littleton, Colorado some kind soul left a Book of Mormon on a church doorstep. In flames. (Dakota Voice) Are there Mormons out there burning rainbow flags? Are there gays out there burning the Koran? I don't really have the heart to go around digging up all the various ways my faith has been insulted and denigrated over the last few weeks so I'm going to leave the anti-Mormon incidents there.

Despite all this, we still get articles that read like this:

That they hate us and they want us (L.G.B.T people) wiped of the face of the earth by any means necessary. Oddly enough I have a little respect for the god hates fags church. Because they’re honest on where they stand when it comes to us. They would like us to kindly drop dead...Once upon a time these monsters had no problem openly pointing to the parts of the bible that say kill gay people and saying it over and over as loudly as possible. Why not as much now? Why did Mormons stop preaching that being dark skinned meant that you had the mark of cain and where hell bound unless you are a slave to a white person. Did African Americans win them over with their sunny disposition. Nope! Being racist looked bad and Mormon colleges needed more atheletes. Luckily you can still make a buck from hating queers.

So the objective is not to actually substantiate allegation of Mormon hatred for gays, but just express outrage at the hatred we assume exists and use that as justification for burning the holy books, lying about their religion (the alleged preaching in the paragraph above is totally false), and beating up bystanders who try to prevent the desecration of their holy buildings.

Overall I'm not seeing a huge rush to defend Mormons from all this vitriol. At least one Catholic bishop has stood up against the hatred, and I found an editorial in Human Events that pointed out the hypocrisy of expressing hatred for people because (you claim) they hate you. The title is to-the-point: Same-Sex Movement Demands Tolerance But Won't Show Any, and in it Gary Bauer describes some additional examples of how the gay movement responds to perceived hatred (not all of it directed at Mormons this time):

At Mount Hope Church in Michigan, a radical homosexual group disrupted an evangelical church service last Sunday. The activists rushed the pulpit, throwing condoms and buckets of glitter, using noisemakers and megaphones to scream at churchgoers and frighten children. Women ran to the pulpit and began to kiss; others shouted, “Jesus was gay!” Protests erupted outside Mormon temples in Utah and Seattle to protest the church’s support for the California marriage amendment.

Three hundred gay activists picketed outside Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, in protest of the pastor’s support for Prop. 8. Other large protests were held in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego. Several arrests were made at rallies across California.

In perhaps the most hideous response, an elderly woman holding a cross to show her support for the California marriage amendment was attacked by an angry mob of protestors at a same-sex marriage protest. The 69-year-old woman’s cross was torn from her hands, trampled on and destroyed by the crazed protestors. Police are considering pressing assault charges.

Can anyone really read these facts and come to the conclusion that it is the Yes on Prop 8 crowd that behaves hatefully? Or that the gays are "social outcasts"? A powerless minority of victims?

I would be remiss if I didn't conclude this article by bringing up my first point again. After my friend's initially caustic email to me, he expressed himself in a civil and even friendly way. Most gay-rights groups are calling for an end to the violent and hate-filled portions of the protests (although whether that is out of concern for Mormons or concern for publicity I am unsure of at this point). But the fact remains that the movement behind Yes on Prop 8 has acted peacefully, legally, and civilly. The movement behind No on Prop 8 has acted violently, illegally, and in total disregard for civil debate.

The David vs. Goliath image may suit gay-rights PR, but it does not suit the facts.

This post is a followup to the original post Propostion 8 and Tolerance from 11/5/2008.

Follow Up: Meridian Magazine has a new article on this topic: The Hypocrisy of the Tolerance Movement:

Though opponents of Prop. 8 who seek for same-sex marriage tout that they are the movement of tolerance, their actions mark them as hypocrites, as they send the message through protests, property vandalism and singling out donors for vilification that anybody getting in their way had better watch out. Payback and punishment will follow for those who have exercised their right of political expression to support traditional marriage.

This, of course, is designed to inhibit and terrorize anyone who opposes redefining marriage, chilling not only discussion of the issues, but political opposition altogether. At the very least, those who support that marriage is between a man and a woman are labelled hateful and bigoted.


A particularly easy target for abuse, perhaps because they are a minority, has been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...

In the past few days, thousands of people have besieged LDS temples in Los Angeles , Manhattan , San Diego , and Salt Lake . Freeway ramps were closed leading to the Oakland temple because of angry protesters. Two days after the election, fearing for the safety of members, LDS officials had to temporarily suspend services at the Los Angeles temple because of the threatening crowds. More protests at LDS temples are planned and at least one website is calling for the LDS temple in Los Angeles to be a permanent protest site.

The protesters bear signs like: “Mormon scum”; “Mormon money, Mormon lies”; “Go back to Utah ”; “Latter-day H8”: “Religious bigots”. They scrawled graffiti on the walls surrounding the temple lot, calling Latter-day Saints “liars” and chanted, “Stop Mormon hate.”


This was a mirror of the sort of threats that appeared on homosexual blogs toward religious people who supported Prop 8. A blogger wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. ... As far as mormons and catholics ... I warn them to watch their backs." Another blogger wrote, “Burn their [expletive deleted] churches to the ground and then tax the charred embers.”

The AP has reported that there's a growing call amongst opponents of Prop 8, gay rights activists and others to boycott the entire state of Utah to punish the Mormon Church and Utah 's vibrant tourism industry.

Under the mantra “Tax LDS now, hate on your own dime,” a petition is also afoot to gather support to challenge the tax-exempt status of the LDS church...

What is more pointed is Prop 8 opponents have created a website called antigayblacklist.com that lists donors to Prop 8 and where they work. The call is to boycott their businesses...

This should all serve as a wakeup call to religious people across this nation:

Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote in 2004, during the same-sex marriage debate in Massachusetts, ''the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance, and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination...The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along."

18 comments:

Bobbie 11/14/2008 10:22 AM  

Excellent post and thoughtful commentary, Nathaniel. I don't believe you and I necessarily see eye to eye on everything politically, but that you express yourself with respect and research is inarguable. I took private issue with Prop 8 for reasons I'm sure you can guess. But when I see the angry back-lash of radical gay-rights proponents, I'm incredibly sad on so many different levels. As a race, we've hardly evolved at all over the last 2000 years, have we?

Jeff from Merced, CA,  11/14/2008 11:51 AM  

Two quick points...Mormons gave more than $22,000,000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign -- more than 75 percent of the total dollars contributed to the "Yes" campaign. Those funds (and the other unreported support from the Mormon Church played a huge part in Prop. 8 passing.

Second, what would be your reaction voters in California or Utah decided (through the initiatve process) that:

1. white and non-white could not marry.

2. Latinos could not hold any professional jobs.

3. Asians could not own property.

4. The Mormon religion was banned, but you could be Hindu, Catholic or Jewish.

5. Women were not allowed to received equal pay for equal pay.

You and many others would (rightfully so) be totally outraged at the blatant discrimination...but that is how it feels for voters in California to take away my right to marry.

when do I, as a gay man, get to vote on the validity of your hetrosexual marriage or your right to practice your religion?

The Duelist,  11/14/2008 1:11 PM  

"You and many others would (rightfully so) be totally outraged at the blatant discrimination...but that is how it feels for voters in California to take away my right to marry."

And what part of this outrage justifies assault, vandalism, and other terrorizing tactics of mob rule?
I'm sorry, but there's one side in this debate that's acting in a way that shows love, respect, and human decency.
And then there's your side, Jeff.

The Duelist,  11/14/2008 1:29 PM  

A good article addressing this from the other side:

http://volokh.com/posts/1226172636.shtml

the Stormin Mormon 11/14/2008 1:50 PM  

@bobbie - I haven't really paid much attention to the gay marriage debate in the last couple of years. It's not something I've felt very strongly on politically, but recent events are making me re-evaluate what had been an almost neutral stance on the issue.

@jeff - No numbers I've found put the Mormon donation at more tha 40%, and given the ludicruous rumors that circulate the internet continually about my church I'm going to be skeptical of this unfounded, undocumented "unreported support from the Mormon Church" claim. You're welcome to make these claims, but unsubstantiated as they are, you can hardly expect people to just take your word on it.

Regarding your second point:
1. Race, gender, etc. are determined genetically. Sexuality is not. So right off the bat your connection with those issues is tenuous at best. The best analogy you could come up is Mormons and polygamy. The law said we could not practiced it, and so we stopped.
2. Banning a religion is also clearly a bad analogy. Gays do not wish to have a seperate institution. They wish to redefine a common institution used by everyone in this country. As such, they are not merely off by themselves practicing their own beliefs, but are in fact attempting to co-opt public institutions.

This is actually the reason I'm starting to shift from almost neutrality to outright opposition to gay marriage. I'm a Mormon, but I don't live in California (or Utah) and so I haven't paid much attention to Prop 8 up until now. But seeing the way my faith has been villified is convincing me that the gay rights movement is not - as the rhetoric would have us believe - about merely leaving them alone to live their own lives. They are clearly not content to fight for their own rights (as they see them) but are in fact intolerant of any viewpoint that is not compatible with their own.

This puts the lie to gay-rights propoganda about tolerance for each other's differences. Clearly they mean to exclude the Mormon (and Catholic, and Jewish, and Muslim, etc.) viewpoints form society.

That's not something I can remain passive about.

@the duelist - Excellent article. Thanks for the link on another perspective about this debate. So far I'm mostly blogging about the way my Church has been treated. Although I'm starting to have misgivings about the gay-rights movement as a whole, I'm still unsure about that issue, and it's important for me to see other viewpoints.

But I prefer the alternative vies to be intelligent and civilized which is not the sense I'm getting from the gay rights movement at this point.

Webster,  11/14/2008 3:34 PM  

Read this -- and then get back to me on that tolerance stuff, won't you?

http://www.queerty.com/a-message-to-the-haters-gay-boycotts-protests-are-not-intolerant-20081114/

the Stormin Mormon 11/14/2008 4:20 PM  

@Webster

What do you think you're proving? First of all you're illustrating one of my main points: the gay rights movement does not tolerate dissent. If you disagree you are a "hater" as per the headline of the article "A Message to the Haters" and the first paragraph:

"First off, thanks for your comments– it shows you're willing to engage in a discussion, even if sometimes "discussion" seems more like "angry rant"."

So yeah - more examples of the gay-rights scorched-earth tactics. Either you're with us, or you're a bigot. There's no middle ground, no possibility of compromise, no viewpoint but ours will be accepted.

Fantastic.

And as far as the actual gist of the article goes: I never claimed that any protests at all would be bigoted. But targetting Mormons exclusively? Yes. Beating up old women? Yes. Beating up people (non-Mormons) who try to take defacing signs off the temple? Yeah.

You're not actually allaying anyone's concerns.

The Duelist,  11/14/2008 5:24 PM  

"Read this -- and then get back to me on that tolerance stuff, won't you?"

What a ridiculously bad article.
"It's okay if we destroy property and beat people up, because someone that we choose to associate with you has done that to someone that we associate with ourselves in the past!" Talk about intolerant and stupid.

One point in the article I'll agree with -- there's nothing wrong with boycotting a business for any reason you choose. Boycotting is a perfectly legitimate way to get your message across.

The rest of it was prejudiced crap.

JP2E 11/14/2008 6:56 PM  

Great debate!
(Please understand that debate is considered honorable and thoughtful, not mindles attacks and angry rhetoric)
I approach this entire subject from a slightly different angle.
As a member of the church (LDS / Mormon) I view the concept of no gay behavior as a choice of individuals who wish to be members in good standing, and who probably hold these views to begin with. I also believe that members in good standing show respect and christian charity to those who hold differing views. I interact routinely with clients and co-workers who are at peace with the idea of respecting each others viewpoints.
As a libertarian, I understand the idea of voting ones belif system or coscience. I DO have a problem with ANY proposition that "limits or denies" a personal choice or freedom.
I am not gay, nor do I fully understand the lifestyle. I do respect the free choice, or recognition of the understanding that someone comes to realize that they are born and develop in that manner.
I was born, and have developed a certain level of faith and understanding of myself and the world. I could not vote for a proposition that DENIED anyone a right (or in this case a priveledge), but I would also tend to vote to not support recognizing an official marriage.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but is not. If two people wish to share their retirement or insurance benefits, they should be permited to do so. If one of the members of a "couple" wishes to allow their partner to be listed as a power of attorney, they should also be fre to do so.
I suppose that to sum up;I believe in rendering to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and rendering to God what is God's.
I do not support gay marriage, but I would not be comfortable voting to deny anyone their attempt at achieving it.
I also believe that many people would welcome an opportunity to discuss their faith without being targeted as some sort of bigot.
Sounds like fence sitting, but it works for me...

Bot 11/14/2008 8:33 PM  

The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage groups ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie."

The same groups now charging it’s a lie (public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not) — were just in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.

From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?

the Stormin Mormon 11/14/2008 10:26 PM  

@Bot - Thanks for that important and essential post.

@Jim - *That* (what Bot just posted) is what, in combination with these vicious attacks on my faith, has tipped from the "fence sitter" category to the "anti-gay marriage" category. My own libertarian ideals, much like yours, made it impossible for me to really take a position on this one way or the other.

But what I'm realizing is that the notion that the gay rights agenda wants to secure the right to marry and then just stop and let everyone do their thing without further interference is an utter sham.

First of all - as Bot pointed out - it has been the practice of the gay rights movement to first secure the right to marry under the premise that this would have no impact on those who do not wish to participate. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one. However, no sooner have they established this right than they forget all about "live and let live" and immediately being the process of attempting to proactively force their agenda into schools. Suddenly "live and let live" (what they've asked from us all along) is not good enough, and nothing short of mandatory teaching of children that having two mommies is just as good as a mommy and a daddy is acceptable.

Secondly - if their past legal history is not enough of an indication just look at the protests. These protests go well beyond merely saying "we have a right to marry", and instead specifically denounce any who oppose that right as hateful bigots. Remind me again - where did laws agains hate crimes come from? Even if we didn't have their past behavior in other states as a guide, it should be obvious to anyone watching these protests that there is no way they are going to secure the right to marry and then settle down peacably.

Until they have dismantled and demolished every institution which does not accept that equal status of homosexual relationship to heterosexual relationships they will not stop. And that means that churches like the Mormon church as well as traditional Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim churches will never be left alone by the gay rights movement.

The idea that gay marriage does not represent a threat to the institution of heterosexual marriage is a myth. Whether inherently or simply as a result of the radicals in the gay-rights movement, they have decided that the unique status of heterosexual marriage - which defines it as an institution - must be demolished.

For that reason (and I'm still mulling this over), I'm swinging from the more easy going "do whatever you want" to the more defensive "leave my church, my faith, and my institutions alone."

If gays wish to create their own social-legal traditions then God bless them. But I'm not willing to give up on an institution I consider the bedrock of our nation and its principles.

the Stormin Mormon 11/14/2008 10:27 PM  

@bot - Can you get me sources for that? This is really important, and I have a lot of otherwise libertarian friends who need to hear about this in order to better understand the nature of the gay marriage debate.

brett,  11/15/2008 4:39 AM  

Jeff from merced:

Elton John is against gay marriage. So is he a hateful bigot? Why don’t gays attack and boycott Elton John?

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

And what about the 3 judges on the California supreme court that voted against legalizing gay marriage. Are they just bigots and hate mongers? Then why aren’t those judges being forced out? Where is the outrage against those 3 judges? Or is it possible they have expertise in the law and know that gay marriage is not a civil right?

This new “law” barely passed 4 against 3. That doesn’t mean it is suddenly correct.

brett,  11/15/2008 4:42 AM  

Gays already have every single right that heterosexuals have. And they can have a civil union. But to call gay committed relationships the same thing as heterosexual committed relationships (ie, marriage) is false.

They are not the same. Nature recognizes this as the consequences are not the same. Two men or two women together do not produce children as a man and a woman do. Nature makes the rules.

Don't try to call gay committments the same as heterosexual ones. There is a difference and no amount of pretending they are the same will make it so!

La Muse Poetique 11/15/2008 11:24 AM  

The comments in that queerty blog gave me a headache.

"Tolerance: Accepting only those views we deem acceptable."

That's the gist I got...

libhom 11/15/2008 4:12 PM  

Every statement by the LDS on lgbt people has been viciously hateful and bigoted. You know that.

brett,  11/15/2008 4:20 PM  

So no one for gay marriage has an answer to my question about Elton John? Again, is Elton John a hate mongering homophobe? Or is just a self-loathing gay man?

Or is it that he is reasonable and see's that there is a difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual one?

This is not hateful. It is a legitimate questions which no one on any blog I've posted on has been able to answer.

the Stormin Mormon 11/15/2008 4:37 PM  

@libhom - I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I really can't.

FWIW - here's what an actual Mormon statement on the issue looks like. It's from the official site of the LDS Church:

"We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

And also:

"Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

Is that what hate speech looks like these days?

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes

@brett - Well, I sort of answered it two years ago, but I'm opposed to gay marriage so that probably doesn't count. :-)