“We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination,

therefore, our family will vote against Prop 8.” — Barbara Young

Loved the gravestones, Barb.

RIP inequality, Nov. 4

RIP

May discrimination

be a thing of the past,

May hate and fear

be gone at last

RIP prop 8!

Those who forget

the past

are condemned

to repeat it.

No to 8!!!

And omens don’t get much clearer than Steve’s #8 getting retired last month, do they?

Thank you for doing the right thing and standing up for all families.

And this one’s special because a few years from now my daughter is gonna look a lot like Lily:

And Steve, thank you for the reminder that Family Comes First.

Always.

AP: Former 49er Steve Young voting No on Prop. 8

SF Chronicle: Steve Young lines up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

CBS5: Steve Young’s Home Displays ‘No On 8’ Signs

RIP prop 8!

Chino Blanco

*******************************************************************

* The following email landed in my inbox a few hours ago. *

*******************************************************************

Good Morning All,

I have spent some time working on these thoughts.  Please take some time reading them.  I hope you will feel inclined to pass them on to others not on this list.  The Brethren asked us to use the internet to share our thoughts and feelings during this election cycle.  This is my contribution.

Thank you in advance,

Brian L.

Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Citizen of the United States of America

On the night of Wednesday the 22nd of October the youth of our ward showed their willingness to follow their priesthood leaders by placing nearly 300 signs for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.  Fifty more signs were placed that night by others.  Less than twelve hours later all 350 signs had been taken, stolen, vandalized or destroyed.  I have had 4 signs stolen from my front yard and feel the need to take them in at night to prevent further theft.  In my mind this election is no longer about gay marriage.  It is no longer about fancy commuter trains or open space preserves.  It is no longer about the Office of the President of the United States of America.  It is about FREEDOM and LIBERTY.  The freedom to speak, worship and teach the truth.  Who’s civil rights are being trampled on with the stealing of 350 expressions of free speech?  Who lacks tolerance?  None of this is new.  As the saying goes, “Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”  Many voters this year will cast their votes based on misinformation and lies.  It saddens and angers me to think that so few have so much power to determine the future of our country.

When Elder Perry spoke in our last Stake conference he reminded us of the covenant we live under in this country.  He reminded us of the blessings promised, and the associated consequences.

Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. . . . But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord . . . . behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of Him that is just shall rest upon them.  Yea, He will bring other nations unto them, and He will give unto them power, and He will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and He will cause them to be scattered and smitten. . . And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence. (2 Nephi 1:9-12)

I am amazed and saddened as I learn of increasing numbers of the members of the LDS Church here and across the country who endorse candidates that do not stand for the ideals and morals of the gospel and deliberately and publicly speak out against the direction of the prophet.  In 87 B.C., only five years after King Mosiah instituted a system of judges to govern his people a man rose to power attempting to overthrow that system and the freedoms it provided.  Amlici was described as being, “. . . a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world . . .”  He wanted to be king and he convinced many to follow him gaining much influence and power.

Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.  Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God. . . And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people. (Alma 2:1-7)

The Nephites knew the question was not merely one of politics, but threatened their freedoms accorded them by God.  When instituting the system of judges King Mosiah said, “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law-to do your business by the voice of the people.  And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.“  (Mosiah 29:26-27)  The time has come to see which side the voice of the people chooses.

God has given us great blessings and freedoms.  It is not up to us to willingly give them up. In the early days of the LDS Church in Missouri during the height of persecution, some saints tried to sell their property rather than lose it to the mob for nothing.  Joseph Smith received the instruction that, “Let not that which I have appointed be polluted by mine enemies, by the consent of those who call themselves after my name;  For this is a very sore and grievous sin against me, and against my people, in consequence of those things which I have decreed and which are soon to befall the nations.”  (D&C 101:97-98)

Prophets throughout history have spoken on the subject of government.  Each modern day prophet has spoken on Gods involvement in the creation of this country and its constitution.  President Ezra Taft Benson gave two addresses at BYU devotionals on the subject, one in 1977, and the other in 1986.  He said, “And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.”  Lucifer uses perverted or counterfeit versions of Gods plan to accomplish this.  “Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord’s plan is collectivized socialism.”  Because a government derives its powers from the governed, “It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.  Government is created by the people.  No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either.”  The following are quotations taken from these two addresses.

1) “As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today’s total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.“

2) “Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:  ‘If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.’ [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342] That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!“

3) The constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. “Our constitution,” said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), “was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

4) I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith.  But it will not be saved in Washington.  It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom.  It will be saved by enlightened member of this Church-men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution.”

If only we could follow the example of Captain Moroni and Chief Judge Pahoran as they met the crisis of freedom in their day by standing up for their principles as they raised the title of liberty.  “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children. . .and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land . . . And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored. . .  And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.“ (Alma 46:12-20)

Many did not respond to this call to freedom.  Of these we read, “And now, when Moroni saw that the city of Nephihah was lost he was exceedingly sorrowful, and began to doubt, because of the wickedness of the people, whether they should not fall into the hands of their brethren.  Now this was the case with all his chief captains. They doubted and marveled also because of the wickedness of the people. . . And it came to pass that Moroni was angry with the government, because of their indifference concerning the freedom of their country.“  (Alma 59:11-12)  In a letter to Pahoran Captain Moroni further condemns this attitude of apathy, “Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.  And now behold, I say unto you, I fear exceedingly that the judgments of God will come upon this people, because of their exceeding slothfulness, yea, even the slothfulness of our government, and their exceedingly great neglect towards their brethren, . . . For were it not for the wickedness which first commenced at our head, we could have withstood our enemies that they could have gained no power over us.” (Alma 60:11-15)

There are only two sides to take.  Fence sitting is no longer an option.  It is raining.  Are you going to get on the boat?  We cannot be lukewarm on the issue of freedom and liberty.  I do not presume to tell anyone how to vote.  I only implore that you do vote, and that you use as your guide the cause of freedom and the morals and teachings of the gospel.  Do not pick your candidates because of what they promise to give you, the size of their health plan or any other insincere platitudes they may give to convince you of their worthiness.  Instead seek out those who best stand for the God given ideals of freedom and agency.  If we all stand together we can say as Mosiah did, “I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.” (Mosiah 29:32)

Thank you for taking the time to read.  Along with Captain Moroni I say, “I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country. And thus I close mine epistle.”

**************************************************

* My reply to the author of the above email *

**************************************************

Good Morning Brian,

When I saw where you were going with your rant (Prop 8 is no longer about marriage equality, but rather is now all about defending FREEDOM and LIBERTY against TAXES and SOCIALISM), a name popped into my head:

Timothy James McVeigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…

In McVeigh’s own words:

Taxes are a joke. Regardless of what a political candidate “promises,” they will increase. More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement. They mess up. We suffer. Taxes are reaching cataclysmic levels, with no slowdown in sight…Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.

I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.

I’m very concerned, Brian, by the lack of daylight between what you’ve written above and the words Timothy McVeigh used to describe the “why” behind his hatred of our country.

And it pains me that the LDS church has allowed thugs like you such free rein to intimidate your fellow church members during this California election cycle.  You should know that it’s guys like you who’ve forced many Mormons to sadly admit that “the church has gone and unleashed its most fanatical, proud, boastful and ignorant California members on the rest of us.”  In the past, theocratic bullies like you, Brian, could be safely ignored at LDS church meetings, but now you hector and hound your fellow saints into submissive compliance with the Prop 8 program.  You apparently see it as your job to keep other members in line, presumably so as to achieve some kind of united Mormon front on the issue of Prop 8.  It would also seem that you enjoy your job very much.

And frankly, Brian, I worry about Mormons like you becoming a danger to yourself and to others if your leaders don’t step in soon and explain to you the reasons how and why your above email crosses the line.

And make no mistake, Brian, it does cross the line, but I also think that’s for your church leaders to make clear to you.

**************************************************************

* My message to the LDS leadership about this email *

**************************************************************

To the Brethren in Salt Lake City and all the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California:  

Many members have become increasingly disturbed by the tone and rhetoric that’s being adopted in Mormon email forwards like the one above, but so many members feel so browbeaten at this point that few bother to mount a challenge.  

I believe it has become your responsibility to address the problem of paranoid and bellicose email forwards like Brian’s that are now in such heavy circulation among your members.

Chino Blanco

(This is a really interesting internal Mormon point of view about the experience of the Mormon hierarchy’s push for Prop 8. Overt and direct use of religious communities for secular political ends damages not only the reputation of the politicized religion, but also tears at the fabric of the community of faithful – promoted by jsw)

By California Mormon

Reposted at Calitics with Permission

I am a lifelong Mormon, a native Californian, and a descendant of Mormon pioneers. Like many other Mormons, I am anguished by my Church’s endorsement of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative which would eliminate civil rights to marry now accorded to gay and lesbian people in California.

I am anguished for what this campaign would do in abolishing rights and protections now belonging to fellow California citizens. But I am also anguished by the consequences of this campaign for Mormon families and wards throughout California. Since June, I have felt the profound effects of the “Yes on 8” campaign in our church meetings. In my own ward, it has dominated the content of our Sacrament Meetings and auxiliary meetings, as well as our hallway conversations. What does it mean that we are being asked to give and are giving ourselves so zealously to this campaign?

I have wondered how the “Yes on 8” campaign connects with the core principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ-love the Lord with all thy heart, love thy neighbor as thyself. I have wondered how it relates to the first principles and ordinances of the gospel: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and laying on the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost? Does it contribute to any of the three missions of the Church: to proclaim the gospel, to perfect the saints, or to redeem the dead? I understand that according to Mormon doctrine temple marriage is an ordinance necessary to exaltation. Still, I do not understand how the elimination of civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians in the state of California will do anything to bring more souls to Christ.

Instead, I have seen many negative consequences to Mormon spirituality from the “Yes on 8” campaign. The “Yes on 8” campaign has fueled a spirit of fear and misinformation in our California wards and beyond. For example, many bishops and other Mormons have circulated the document “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails,” which alleges that Mormon churches will be sued or legally penalized for opposing or refusing to perform gay marriages and that schools will be compelled to teach same-sex marriage to young children. Mormon legal experts affiliated with Brigham Young University have studied these claims and found them “misleading and untrue” (http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=35). If the “glory of god is intelligence” (D&C 93:36), misinformation and rumor-mongering must chase the Spirit from our churches.

I have also witnessed how the “Yes on 8” campaign has unleashed and authorized broader expressions of anti-gay sentiment by Mormons, sentiments not in keeping with church teachings. The Church has come a long way in its treatment of homosexuality from the time our prophet Spencer W. Kimball described it as a base perversion in The Miracle of Forgiveness. But most members have not absorbed recent Church teachings that recognize same-sex attraction as an authentic form of sexual inclination that requires compassionate consideration and strict personal management. Just as many of us continue to hold unexamined, undoctrinal, prejudicial, archaic beliefs about African-Americans and the priesthood (false notions about the lineage of Cain, or “fencesitters” in the war in heaven which have no basis in gospel doctrine), we also continue to hold unexamined, damaging, prejudicial, archaic beliefs about homosexuality. From what I have seen, this campaign has become an opportunity for Mormons to feel triumphal in our antipathy towards gays and lesbians. In my own ward, my bishop started using the ward e-mail list to send several daily messages pertaining not to Proposition 8 but encouraging members to get involved in other campaigns in our area to oppose gay civil rights. Is it really the intention of the Church to systematically oppose the civil rights of gays and lesbians? Since the beginning of the “Yes on 8” campaign, I wonder how many of us have spoken uncarefully and uncompassionately about gay people, without knowing regard to recent Church teachings on homosexuality which ask us to have compassion for those inclined to same-sex attraction?

It is my observation that the zealousness of the “Yes on 8” campaign has unleashed a spirit of pride and political opportunism in our congregations. The “Yes on 8” campaign asks us to eliminate the current legal rights of thousands of actual families in California. Even though we have described the initiative as a “protection” for heterosexual marriage, the actual language and impact of the law (considered strictly and soberly) have nothing to do with strengthening heterosexual families. Instead, Proposition 8 eliminates the legal protections of marriage for same-sex couple families. Through our Mormon doctrinal lenses, we may not see gay families as families that will survive into the eternities. But to gay spouses, children, and other relatives, gay families are vital families. If we are to act with honesty and integrity, we must take sober responsibility for the fact that “Yes on 8” eliminates the rights of actually existing families. The “Yes on 8” campaign, strictly and honestly considered, is a mission of destruction. We must consider carefully what it means to undertake a mission of destruction in the name of God. In the Old Testament, Jonah asked God to destroy the city of Nineveh, and God gently rebuffed him, reminding him that even Nineveh was beloved (Jonah 4:11). The scriptures caution repeatedly that when we engage on spiritual errands, and especially those that bring judgment against our neighbors, we are at great risk of indulging our own self-righteousness and spiritual pride. We must do so with a great spirit of repentance, caution, and humility. And yet nothing in the spirit of the “Yes on 8” campaign as I have witnessed it obliges us to undertake this kind of repentant self searching. I have seen instead a sense of accomplishment, triumphalism, and pride in the reach of our financial and worldly power. I have not seen the humility and godly sorrow God expected of Jonah. Our God is also the God of gay and lesbian people; they are as beloved of him as we are. Their needs and sorrows are as real and meaningful to God as our obedience to the directions of our prophet.

I believe the “Yes on 8” campaign has distracted us from addressing our own internal matters of morality. The Savior plainly tells us to seek the “beam” in our own eye before we seek out the “mote” in our brother’s (Matthew 7:3). Does the zealousness with which we undertake the “Yes on 8” campaign lead our attention away from our own spiritual lives and attending to our own failings? We all know that there are serious problems of morality within Mormon communities too, including sexual abuse of children in Mormon settings and knowing negligence by Church leaders that has caused the Church to payout millions and millions of tithing dollars in legal settlements. Even with increased direction from our leaders, patterns of sexual abuse continue in Mormon communities (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10548248). Have we cleared the “beams” from our own eyes?

I know that the “Yes on 8” campaign has created deep divisions within Mormon families. As Mormons, we are obligated to search ourselves, to ask if our relationships with our family members are loving and appropriate. Do we reject or deny our family members because they are gay? Is the zealousness of the “Yes on 8” campaign an outlet for our own feelings of shame, revulsion, disappointment, and failure in having gay children or family members? Some of the leading Mormon figures with the California Mormon “Yes on 8” campaign have gay children. Does God want us to sacrifice our relationships with gay children and relatives in order to serve Him? God led Abraham to Mount Horeb to teach him that child-sacrifice, a common practice among pagan peoples, was no longer warranted. It was no longer acceptable to Him. Henceforth, only God would sacrifice His son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the world. Now, after that great and atoning sacrifice, the only sacrifice we are asked to commanded to offer is that of a “broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20). Do we sacrifice our gay children to impress God?

I know that the zealousness of the “Yes on 8” campaign has created an intolerable atmosphere in many wards and stakes for thousands of gay Mormons, their relatives, and friends. What is our obligation to care for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters? Has the zealousness of the Yes on 8 campaign brought a spirit into our wards and families which makes it impossible for our gay brothers and sisters to find a loving refuge in their own church? I believe it has.

The “Yes on 8” campaign has directed more than $10 million dollars (so far) from Mormon donors to a narrow political campaign. Much of this money was raised after the Church reviewed its tithing records and identified wealthy Mormons to recruit even larger donations from, using special conference calls with Church elders. Why are tithing records being utilized this way? What does this reveal about the way the wealth of individual members has played a growing role in church leadership decisions? How many lives could this money save through the Church’s Humanitarian General Fund? How many educations could this money pay for through the Church’s Perpetual Education Fund? Why does our concept of morality focus so zealously on gender and sexuality at the cost of efforts to end death by disease or starvation, proclaim peace, relieve the debtor, or show stewardship for God’s creation?

Finally, the “Yes on 8” campaign allies us with openly anti-Mormon churches, while alienating us further from other people of faith. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, ‘I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for’ the marriage campaign.” Why are we attracted to the same divisive political battles that have been the hallmark of the Christian Right, when the churches of the Christian Right have long expressed their disdain and enmity for our beliefs?

Mormons are a religious minority trying to maintain our faith in a rapidly changing secular world. Our pioneer ancestors were killed and chased by mobs from the United States in part because their plural marriages were deemed unacceptable by the society they lived in. Why do we now turn with such zealousness to eliminate the marriage rights of other minorities?

I present these thoughts only because I believe that a record must be made of how our actions as a Mormon community are affecting not only the lives of gays and lesbians but also the spiritual lives of our wards and families here in California.

Micah 6:8: “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

Chino Blanco

MORMONS TO DELIVER LETTERS, PETITION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 8

Not all Mormons agree with their church’s decision to forcefully support Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment that would eliminate the right to same-sex marriage in California. Now they’re speaking out.

Hundreds of Mormons and friends of Mormons have written letters and signed a petition at SigningForSomething.org to oppose the church’s inappropriate political posturing in California. The letters and petition will be delivered to church headquarters at 2 p.m. Friday, Oct. 17, after which Mormon dissidents will be available to talk with the media about their reasons for opposing the church’s political stance. Copies of the letters and petition will also be available for the press.

Signing For Something supporters will meet at a public park in downtown Salt Lake City across from the Church Office Building. It is on the northeast corner of State Street and North Temple. (This is the southernmost part of Memory Grove Park.)

People in attendance will include:

— Peter and Mary Danzig, who resigned their LDS membership after facing church pressure for writing a letter to the editor in support of same-sex marriage rights.

— Andrew Callahan, a Mormon high priest from Nebraska who has been threatened with excommunication over his opposition to Proposition 8.

— Members of Affirmation, a support group for gay and lesbian Mormons.

— Other active Mormons who are facing potential backlash for speaking out against the church’s political position.

“The Mormon church has emerged as the largest single backer of Proposition 8 in California, and we think it’s important for the public to know that not all Mormons support what our church is doing politically,” said Derek Price, a lifelong Mormon who helped create the Signing For Something website. “For a variety of reasons, many Mormons think it’s wrong for our church to work to eliminate an existing right to marriage equality in California.”

“We hold our political independence sacred and don’t appreciate our church telling us which causes we’re supposed to support. We’re perfectly capable of making those decisions on our own,” Price said. “We also don’t think churches should try to write their doctrine into civil law, especially while feigning ‘political neutrality.'”

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Derek Price

[email protected]

256-338-9692

Andrew Callahan

[email protected]

402-461-6355

Peter Danzig

[email protected]

801-865-9029

Mary Danzig

[email protected]

801-322-2972

*******************

Michelle Obama talks about fear:

“Fear is the reason this country is where it is today.”

“Fear is a useless emotion.”

“Don’t ever make decisions based on fear.”

Pictured above: Elder Quentin L. Cook, Michelle Obama, Elder M. Russell Ballard

Excerpt of a comment at Mormons for Marriage regarding the October 8th broadcast of fear-inciting messages from LDS Apostles Cook, Ballard, et al:

It was a pre-taped presentation with Elder M. Russell Ballard, Elder Quentin L. Cook and Elder L. Whitney Clayton giving the presentation. They were sitting around a small round table and reading from teleprompters, with no live audience which made it look “robotic” at times. The presentation didn’t seem inspiring and it didn’t appear to me that those attending felt inspired.

Much of the presentation was geared toward young adults and even Elder Ballard (who admitted he didn’t understand what it meant) was encouraging them to “go viral” on the Internet. On more than one occasion they implored that the conversations and web chats, etc. not be antagonistic. They showed a sample of YouTube videos and encouraged those with the know-how to post their own. A portion of the presentation was college age students asking an Institute Director questions about the proposition and its consequences.

It was obvious that the Church has gone full bore political machine on this issue with all the attendant lies, half-truths and exaggerations in an attempt to spread FUD [ Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ] to get people to vote yes. They laid out the schedule of “phases” up through election day, and it looked like any other political campaign strategy (I’ve been involved in a few myself, so I know what they look like).

I was curious to see if they would bring up any of the “Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails.” Sure enough they brought up the first three several times. Although they added the disclaimer that these consequences wouldn’t all happen right away, they nevertheless emphasized these consequences will surely befall us. I was a little surprised that two of the Apostles would compromise the integrity of the Quorum of Twelve by repeating these lies and encouraging members to repeat these lies in their “Get Out The Vote” campaigns … But as they say, politics is politics and apparently the only way to get your side heard is to lie. After all, the Church is clearly on the wrong side of equality on this issue and they have to present some sort of scary story.

A complete transcript of The Divine Institution of Marriage Broadcast (official title given the campaign instructions beamed from LDS HQ on October 8) is available here.

Michelle Obama: Be Not Afraid

The place to be this Friday, October 17th, at 2:00 p.m. is at the northeast corner of State Street and North Temple in Salt Lake City, where a few brave souls will be demonstrating to the rest of us what not being afraid looks like.

Chino Blanco

Jennifer Kerns has stepped down from the Yes on 8 effort in order to devote more time to her blog.

Please note contact details for the campaign’s new spokeswoman below:

Sonja Eddings Brown

Deputy Communications Director

Protect Marriage

Tel:  818-723-9446

Mobile: 916-446-2956

Email:  [email protected]

Sonja’s husband, Lowell Brown, is also involved in the campaign as an Area Director in charge of organizing the LDS (Mormon) Yes on 8 ground game.  

Sonja Eddings Brown and Lowell Brown
The Yes on 8 campaign’s Mormon Power Couple

To their credit, no matter how busy they might be in their professional lives or with the Yes on 8 campaign, they both still manage to find time to blog.

Lowell is the chief spiny mammal over at The Hedgehog Blog, and Sonja is a regular contributor over at the Article VI Blog.

In fact, it was Sonja’s interview of Cecil “Chip” Murray (posted over at Article VI) that first got me interested in learning more about Dr. Murray:

A6 (Sonja Eddings Brown): As a respected long-time member of the Christian ministry, how do you feel we are doing as a country when it comes to the actual separation of Church and State?

Reverend Murray: I think the separation of Church and State is a basic policy that we simply must follow. Not to follow that separation, that line in the sand separating church and state is to flirt with danger. Now of course when you separate church and state that doesn’t mean that you weed religion out of those who are in politics, not that you weed politics out of those in religion, but you can’t customize it, you can’t structure it, so that you have the bully pulpit dictating to Congress. You can’t give God a stick and you be God’s agent and you are whipping people into line in your religious context.

You have your religion, your religion is personal. And even though religion is personal but never private, it cannot be public to the extent that it’s “my way or the highway.”

It isn’t American and it isn’t sensible to make the bully pulpit the bully. The bully pulpit at best deals with conscience and conscientiousness. Not consensus and not control. People have the right to believe as they believe. The Pure Charity Trust says that 87% of Americans believe in God but now when we look at how these Americans look at God, you have the Abrahamic faiths. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You have the faith that comes out of the Mormon Church, you have Bhuddist and Daoist. These people have the right to their individual beliefs, but no one has the right to a collective belief that sweeps and demands and says you believe as we believe … or you get hurt.

Sadly, I’ve not been able to find the video for the above portion of Sonja’s interview.

However, I did manage to find the contact info for all the folks running the ground game for Lowell.

Once I’d compiled that information, I fired off the following email to the entire group of Yes on 8 volunteers under Lowell’s command:

Subject: Please avoid using falsehoods to achieve a political victory

Some of you may have already enjoyed the opportunity to read the attached commentary from a BYU law professor.

For those who have not, I sincerely ask that you please take a few minutes to read and consider his remarks.

For those who’ve already read the attached, perhaps you could spare another moment to read this recent editorial from the Contra Costa Times (09/30/2008):  

“ADVOCATES OF Proposition 8 claim it is simply a marriage protection measure that does not discriminate against gays. They argue that it would not diminish domestic partner rights but only reinstate a statutory initiative passed by 61 percent of the voters in 2000.

However, that is hardly the case. Prop. 8 is a constitutional amendment that would reverse a decision earlier this year by the California Supreme Court. Prop. 8, like the 2000 measure, states that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That is a clear discrimination against homosexuals. Domestic partnerships and marriage aren’t the same. If they were, there would be no issue and no motivation for promoting a constitutional amendment that actually delineates the difference.

Only marriage guarantees the certainty that couples count on in times of greatest need such as in making life-and-death decisions, with no questions asked. Marriage also confers a special social status upon couples that legal partnerships do not.

To its credit, the state’s highest court understood that there is a real difference between a domestic partnership and a marriage. That is why it ruled that to deny one group of people the right to marry is discriminatory and thus a violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The court did not create a new right for anyone. Instead it logically expanded the scope of a basic right to accommodate the social changes regarding homosexual relations.

Few Californians, including supporters of Prop. 8, would seek to outlaw gay partnerships or keep gays from teaching or charge them with a crime. Yet in the not so distant past, such discrimination was the norm in much of the nation.

Fortunately, there has been considerable progress over the past few decades in eliminating bias against sexual orientation. Removing the ban on marriage was an important step in that direction.

Prop. 8 would negate that progress, perhaps for many years, by adopting a needless exception to the basic constitutionally protected right of equal protection under the law.

Regardless of how one feels about homosexual relationships or one’s personal religious views, it would be a grave mistake to pass an initiative that reduces liberty by returning gay couples to second-class status.

We strongly urge voters to carefully consider the harm Prop. 8 would do not just to gays, but to all Californians, and reject the initiative.”

http://www.contracostatimes.com/opin…

Attachment: A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” (PDF)

Here is a sampling of the responses that came back from these Yes on 8 volunteers:

Please don’t send me any more emails.  Thank you.

Let’s be honest, opponents of Prop 8 want one thing….to force religion to change and accept gay marriage or to shut them down.

I don’t know where you obtained my email address but would greatly appreciate it if you would NOT contact me ever again!

I don’t care what your political values are! You don’t need to share them with me! I could care less what your thoughts are and it is very presumptuous of you to think I care anything about what you think!!!!

DO NOT SHARE MY EMAIL ADDRESS WITH ANYONE ELSE EITHER!!!!!

DO NOT EVER EMAIL ME AGAIN!!!!!

And from Lowell Brown himself:

Please stop.  Thank you.

To the Yes on 8 activist who was upset that I’d obtained her email address, I would like to point out that your contact info was made public by someone on your own team:  here, here, and here.

All I’ve done is to compile it all here.

And in response to Lowell Brown’s request to “please stop” … the best I can muster is a clip from the greatest sci-fi flick ever made:

And just in case this reference might be too arcane for the Yes on 8 crowd, what I’m suggesting here is that we No on 8 folks are the guy holding the screwdriver … not because we want to be holding that screwdriver, but because there’s obviously been a serious system malfunction once a machine that we built has arrived at the conclusion that the mission objective takes precedence over any one of our lives.

In terms of the present malfunction (i.e., the lopsided support for Prop 8 among California Mormons), this comment over at Mormonsfor8.com struck me as a useful insight for those of us interested in evaluating this latest version of the LDS anti-gay program:    

When Knights of Columbus or Focus On The Family makes a large

donation, one recognizes these names and one knows immediately what

they stand for. Ten years ago, the LDS Church suffered some bad

publicity when they gave 500K (out of 600K raised total) to an Alaskan

effort to pass a same sex marriage ban.

That’s right, an out of state church organization gave 83% of the

funds to promote a ballot measure in Alaska. While legal, the donation

gave many the impression that an out of state religious entity was

trying to manipulate an election in Alaska.

Having learned this lesson in Alaska, in 2002 the LDS Church asked

members to donate individually. The result was that few people

realized the extent of LDS Church involvement in arm twisting those

donations out of the members.

Since most of the LDS donors are not celebrities, few people outside

their stake would realize the extent of the church’s involvement. As a

California voter, I reserve the right to know the source of all

funding for state ballot measures and candidates. And when ten million

dollars comes from one particular source, yes the voters have a right

to know before they choose.

For some reason, this comment seems important.  That said, I’m admittedly interested in understanding the extent to which Mormon efforts to pass Prop 8 are tactically distinct from those of other groups in the Yes on 8 coalition.  To the extent that I’m probably one of only half a dozen folks on the planet who could give a damn about fleshing out such a point, I’ll leave it at that for now.

So, moving on to the data dump, here’s what the Mormons have planned for The Golden State:

. . . Org Chart . . .

. . . Job Descriptions . . .

Phoners . . .

Walkers . . .

Schedulers . . .

Emailers . . .

Networkers . . .

Monitors . . .

Registrars . . .

Distributors . . .

. . . Timeline . . .

. . . Step 1 . . .

. . . Step 2 . . .

. . . Step 3 . . .

. . . Talking Points . . .

Sorry about all the scrolling involved in reading this diary.  It was supposed to be all about Sonja Eddings Brown, the new (Mormon) spokeswoman for Yes on 8, and I probably could’ve done a better job maintaining the focus on her and her new role in the campaign.

That said, where I have managed to discuss Sonja’s new role in the campaign, I hope the commentary has not given the impression that I have any desire to demonize her personally.  Depending on the issue, she’s proven herself capable of delivering the kind of cogent analysis that would otherwise make me a fan, e.g., in Sonja’s own words:

Several dozen judges have now reviewed the Schiavo case and have ruled in favor of the rights of her husband as principal guardian. Whether we side with her husband or not, we must not fail to recognize his rights and more importantly his responsibilities under the law. In the future, the government should act to spare families, friends, medical professionals and other caregivers from vague customary practices and place the responsibility for life or death decisions on the individual and his or her trusted representative.

Amen, Sonja.  We’re all born into families of one sort or another, but we all choose our trusted representatives, and that’s a choice that we both agree needs to be respected.

And now, just for fun, a few bars from my favorite Sonja Eddings Brown tune to accompany this link to my favorite Sonja Eddings Brown story:

And I’m so glad to have found this story from a Granada Hills Charter High School graduate.

P.S. If you do decide to contact the Zip Code Supervisors whose email addresses I’ve posted online here, please do make an effort to be civil.  All we need to bring is the truth, let them worry about bringing the hate.  OK?  

Milk.  Screenplay by fellow Mormon Dustin Lance Black:

No matter how hard you try.

Chino Blanco

Watch the first Yes on 8 TV ad here.

Or here:

Contact: Sonja Eddings Brown, Protect Marriage, 916-446-2956

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 27 Christian Newswire — The following news advisory is submitted by ProtectMarriage.com:

Who: ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on Proposition 8 Campaign

Campaign Managers Frank Schubert & Jeff Flint

What: Press Conference to reveal the first Yes on Proposition 8 television ad

Where: Offices of Schubert Flint Public Affairs

1415 L Street, Suite 1250

Sacramento, CA 95814

When: Monday, September 29, 2008

11:00 AM

Notes: Yes on Prop 8 Campaign Managers Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint will unveil the first in a series of campaign commercials designed to educate voters about the critical need to pass Proposition 8, which will restore traditional marriage to California.

Additionally, Professor Richard Peterson of the Pepperdine University School of Law, who appears in the ad, and Mr. Andrew Pugno, counsel to ProtectMarriage.com, will be available to answer questions.

Most importantly, I’ve still got stacks of this old flyer lying around and I was just wondering if this might not be the last chance to hand them out?

Two more upcoming events on the Prop 8 calendar:

October 1 (Wednesday) – The Fine Line Rally Satellite Broadcast (Evangelical rally for Prop 8). 7:00 PM PST.

October 8 (Wednesday) – LDS Church Satellite Broadcast regarding Proposition 8. 7:30 PM PDT.

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

October 8, 2008 Satellite Broadcast re Proposition 8

On Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. PDT, there will be a satellite broadcast regarding Proposition 8 to stake centers throughout California. General Authorities and others will speak during the broadcast. We ask that the following please be invited to attend: stake presidencies; bishoprics and branch presidencies; stake, ward and branch Relief Society presidents; and all members working in grassroots support of the Proposition 8 campaign.

In addition, we ask that a special invitation to attend the broadcast be extended to young single and young married adults. With only this coming Sunday to make this announcement before the broadcast, we ask that you please ensure that this invitation is personally extended to all who are invited. We greatly appreciate your support of this most important matter.

Sincerely,

L. Whitney Clayton

Presidency of the Seventy

I wonder if the October 8th satellite broadcast from Salt Lake City will include yet another declaration of LDS political neutrality?

At what point does the Mormon leadership’s continued insistence that Proposition 8 is a “moral”–rather than “political”–issue begin to ring so hollow with so many California voters that it will indelibly taint public perception of the LDS church long after it has helped trigger a massive rejection of Prop 8 on Nov. 4th?  

I mean, c’mon, everywhere one looks, it’s nothing but GOP operatives running the Yes on 8 effort.  

Just today, when Frank Schubert, the Yes on 8 campaign manager, invited me to pop over and check out his campaign’s first TV ad, here’s what I found:

If you go to the ProtectMarriage.com website and click on “First TV Ad” on their front page, it takes you to this site to view the clip:

https://www.icontribute.us/protectmarriage/initiative/firstadweb

Well, I’d never heard of icontribute.us before, so I thought I’d find out who runs that site:

Registrant Name: Patrick Ruffini

Registrant Email: [email protected]

So, then I popped over to www.patrickruffini.com to learn a little about Patrick, and this is what I found …

Patrick Ruffini is an online strategist dedicated to helping Republicans and conservatives achieve dominance in a networked era … Ruffini currently advises Republican candidates and organizations on mastering new media, with a disciplined focus on Web site, e-mail, and blog strategies … From 2005 to 2007, Ruffini served as eCampaign Director at the Republican National Committee, overseeing the Party’s online strategy for the 2006 election cycle … In the 2004 election cycle, Ruffini served as webmaster for Bush-Cheney ’04, overseeing a wide range of activities from day-to-day website operations, designing special features around high-profile events like the Conventions and Presidential debates, and managing the first-ever campaign blog for an incumbent President.

This is not political neutrality, this is farce.

Chino Blanco

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has just released a 42 page poll (PDF).

Frank Russo comments on what this latest PPIC poll found regarding Proposition 8:

The results here are almost a carbon copy of the Field Poll and show California voters rejecting Prop 8 which would eliminate same sex marriage rights in California by a margin of 55% to 41%. It is extremely difficult for a measure that has majority opposition in polling at this point to win.

There is a partisan divide here-and the numbers are as lopsided as they are because independents join Democrats in opposing this proposition. Democrats by a 71% to 25% margin oppose it and independents oppose it by 53% to 42%. Republicans support Prop 8 by 62% to 34%. Democratic and Republican voters have the same level of importance to the outcome here whereas it is not as important to independent voters. There is no gender gap. Evangelicals are as likely to vote in favor of Prop 8 (64%) as all others are to vote against it (63%).

And here are the findings of the latest SurveyUSA poll: Yes: 44% / No: 49%.

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign, endorsed previous SurveyUSA polling in widely-reported comments made just last month: “We believe polling numbers are more aligned with the recent results of the Los Angeles Times poll and SurveyUSA poll, which shows that Proposition 8 has a slight lead.”

No comment yet from Ms. Kerns on this month’s SurveyUSA poll.

No such reticence from Ken Boyd, the area director for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who steps up to suggest a possible silver lining for the Yes on 8 side: “Just a week or two ago, we were approximately 10 percentage points behind, now we’re 5 percentage points behind. So as people gain knowledge, and understanding, especially when they understand the effects, they’ll vote ‘yes’ on Prop 8.”

Nice try, Ken. Here’s a clue just in case you truly are unaware of the major problem with your spin: suggesting a trend by comparing two different polls makes you a very poor candidate for guiding others to a greater knowledge and understanding of the real challenge facing Prop 8. If your intended audience knew anything about polling, they’d understand how misleading you’re being here, and they’d rightfully resent you for stringing them along.

In terms of the ‘effects’ you mention … Ken, I’ve noted the response from rank-and-file Mormons who’ve picked up on your messaging (i.e., that infamous ‘six consequences’ alarmist claptrap that you’ve had a hand in distributing):

Beth Swann said…

Jill, I received the same document but I have it being from Ken Boyd, an Area Director from Kerman. I will e-mail it to you since it has his contact info. on it and you can ask him questions if you like.

Jill said…

BETH…I would very much appreciate that contact info. I’m trying to get to the bottom of this mystery…”who wrote that and where did they get their information?” Protectmarriage.com did have it on their website but they have since pulled it. They said they would contact me yesterday or today and let me know why. So far I have not heard…so yes Beth I would really like to contact this Ken Boyd. Thank you Beth!

In any case, here’s my bold prediction: The tally on Nov. 4 will show less than 40% support for Prop 8 from actual voters.

And here are four (very Mormon) reasons why:

I, for one, am looking forward to hearing a lot more from thoughtful Latter Day Saints like the outspoken quartet assembled here (who practice what they preach) … and a whole lot less from “Mormons” like Ken Boyd and this clown…

Chino Blanco

“Driven By (LDS) Church Headquarters through coalition”

Chino Blanco

David Benkof, formerly the blogger at GaysDefendMarriage.com and writer of the weekly “Fabulously Observant” column for the Jerusalem Post, calls out his erstwhile Yes on 8 allies:

Right-wing nonsense (link to original article)

As a conservative Republican, I believe in free enterprise, traditional family values and people’s basic liberties as guaranteed by the text of the Constitution. But sometimes my fellow conservatives and Republicans say and do things that I find so objectionable that I wonder if I’m on the wrong side. For example:

Discrimination. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, so I supported the man-woman marriage Proposition 8 in California – until I discovered the Proposition 8 campaign tolerates discrimination against Jews. ProtectMarriage.com‘s legal counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund, has in effect a “No Jews Need Apply” policy for legal and even secretarial positions. They say they’re not a law firm, they’re a “ministry” and thus have a right to discriminate against Jews and other non-Christians. But even if that’s true, Proposition 8 had hundreds of law firms to choose from. The fact they chose one that refuses to hire a Jew like me is very disturbing. Interestingly, Jesus himself was a Jew, so when a group has a policy that would lead them to refuse to hire their own Messiah, you know something’s seriously wrong.

Marriage. I have long opposed same-sex marriage. In fact, there are overwhelmingly good arguments for overturning same-sex marriage – based on the welfare of children, religious freedom, and preserving the monogamous ideal, for example. But the people defending man-woman marriage in California and elsewhere tend to use really dumb and sometimes offensive arguments. For example, the ProtectMarriage.com Web site, used to refer to a same-sex “family” (their quotes). Reasonable people can differ as to whether two men can form a “marriage,” but only a jerk would claim two lesbians and their baby are not a family. And do they really have to emphasize this attitude as part of their basic argument to fair-minded undecided voters?

Transgender. I think it’s appropriate to treat transgender people as the sex they believe themselves to be – whether or not I believe that deep down they are really still their birth sex. I completely respect that some people disagree. But are these values more important than everything? For example, incarcerated transgender women are at high risk for rape (and thus contracting HIV), because they are the only women in a violent, predatory, predominantly heterosexual male environment. Recently, I wrote the Family Research Council to encourage them to endorse my proposal to stop rapes and save lives by housing incarcerated transgender women in women’s prisons. Their response? “To paraphrase our Policy team, housing ‘transgender women’ (that is, men) in a women’s prison would be conceding too much.” In Judaism, saving lives is more important than nearly everything. But apparently to the Family Research Council’s religio-political system, ideology is more important than preventing rape. Sigh.

I don’t share David’s party affiliation, but I do share his belief in “free enterprise, traditional family values and people’s basic liberties as guaranteed by the text of the Constitution.” And although I grew up Mormon, not Jewish, it seems clear to me that members of the LDS church should likewise be wondering about the team they’ve joined in this Prop 8 contest. Growing up in Baptist country (the Ozarks), my siblings and I became aware from a young age that the local churches were actively demonizing our family’s religion, as Amy Sullivan has recounted:

The first time I ever heard about Mormons was in fifth grade, sitting in a basement classroom of my Baptist church, watching a filmstrip about cults. Our Sunday school class was covering a special month-long unit on false religions; in the mail-order curriculum, Mormonism came somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones. Although most of the particulars are lost to me now, one of the images remains in my mind: a cartoon of human figures floating in outer space (an apparent reference to the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression”) that appeared on the screen next to our pull-down map of Israel. Even at age 10, the take-away message was clear. Mormons were not like us, they were not Christian.

And Amy mentions an incident in her next paragraph that occurred only four short years ago:

Evangelical opinions about the LDS Church haven’t changed so much since I watched that filmstrip more than 20 years ago. In 2004, Mormons were specifically excluded from participation in the National Day of Prayer organized by Shirley Dobson (wife of James Dobson, leader of the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family) because their theology was found to be incompatible with Christian beliefs.

Brothers and Sisters, welcome to the Yes on 8 coalition: folks who’d dump the Savior’s job application in the round file (i.e., the trash bin); the same gang who’ve spent decades preaching intolerance of Latter-Day Saints; the reason Mitt Romney is not on the GOP ticket.

I’ll work on compiling a more complete list of the anti-semitic and anti-mormon groups that’ve joined the Yes on 8 side. This’ll have to do for now:

– Alliance Defense Fund

– Family Research Council

– Focus on the Family

For now, as far as I can tell, this same bunch – when they see a chance to benefit from the superior dedication, commitment, and organizational skills of LDS church members – are not above flying out to Salt Lake City to make nice, as Romney himself has described it:

… several months ago, not long before he died, I had the occasion of having the Rev. Jerry Falwell at our home. He said that when he was getting ready to oppose same-sex marriage in California, he met with the president of my church in Salt Lake City, and they agreed to work together in a campaign in California. He said, “Far be it from me to suggest that we don’t have the same values and the same objectives.”

But when the battle looks all but lost, these same fairweather friends will desert you:

My mother is the regional director [for the Mormon Yes on 8 effort] for her area in CA, and has noted the withdrawal of participation of many other faiths in the area. With Prop 22 back in 2000 there was a strong coalition of faiths, each throwing in its support (in terms of money and individual support) to help get the measure passed. This time around (at least in her part of San Diego), the Latter-day Saints are the main (and nearly only) supporters from the faith community.

My turn to sigh. Sigh.

Of course, I disagree with David’s statement that “… there are overwhelmingly good arguments for overturning same-sex marriage – based on the welfare of children, religious freedom, and preserving the monogamous ideal …” After much thoughtful consideration of this issue, I still don’t see how Prop 8’s passage will secure, protect, preserve – or even promote – any of the values that David mentions here. But, I’d like to set that argument aside for now in order to shine a light on the patch of common ground that we now share: “… the people defending man-woman marriage in California and elsewhere tend to use really dumb and sometimes offensive arguments.”

I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious to observers on both sides of this issue that “dumb” and “offensive” describe not only the coalition’s arguments, but its tactics as well. The same stalwart Mormons who bring the organizational prowess that makes their church such an attractive Yes on 8 partner will trigger a backlash if the Yes on 8 campaign professionals don’t step in soon and ratchet down their fervor:

For the last two months I have endured listening to the fear-mongering from the pulpit in my Southern California Sacrament Meeting, Stake Conference, Gospel Doctrine and in my High Priests Group Meetings; this in spite of our Stake President’s instructions to “not discuss this issue in our meetings”. I have respected his counsel (I oppose prop 8), but those in favor of prop 8 have not. The lobbying goes on.

In each case, the ultimate appeal is to “follow the prophet”. And the message I’m getting is quite clear: If I do not support, campaign for, give money to and vote for of Prop 8, I do not sustain the brethren. Really? And if I disagree – they don’t want to hear about it.

This isn’t the kind of “persuasion . . with gentleness, kindness and meekness” spoken of in the D & C 121:41. There has been no “long suffering” – no opposing opinion or hard questions on the issue have been allowed. The “Hypocrisy” of our past efforts to redefine marriage and family in the 19th century is swept under the berber carpet. The “Guile” of being asked to conceal our identities as members of the Church while canvassing the neighborhoods seems to be lost on everyone. Section 121 has been turned on its ear.

No member of this great Church should feel obligated or “influenced” to do anything “by virtue of a Priesthood (office)”. If you can’t persuade people with pure knowledge (the facts please) and love unfeigned (stop trying to scare us into it) none of us should feel compelled to support this. It doesn’t get more clear cut than that.

FWIW, it does seem pretty clear cut to this humble reader. But let’s reference another comment from the same Mormon blog:

Soliciting contributions in wards and by quotas is a big mistake.

Obviously, local leaders think they are helping by doing such things. Instead, they are showing a tremendous disrespect for those with different views in the LDS community.

That kind of behavior is downright dumb.

It will hurt the proposition, helping the opposition. You will see news stories that the LDS church (ie. some stakes and wards) are setting quotas and soliciting contributions in the church houses. Very, very stupid.

Sad that some take the prophet’s call and then proceed to undermine the very cause he asked for help.

At this point, plenty of harm has already been done. What remains to be seen is how much more self-inflicted damage the Yes on 8 camp either takes on or avoids – which in turn will determine whether the backlash against Mormon involvement gets written off as a minor footnote in Prop 8’s defeat, or if this same involvement is now destined to assume epic proportions as the central narrative used to explain the collapse of the Yes on 8 effort. Shirley Dobson may have kicked away the Mormon chair at the National-Day-of-Prayer table back in 2004, but this time around, I suspect that her crew will make sure that the Mormons are very comfortably seated when the time comes to gather round and apportion blame for Prop 8’s defeat.

Considering David’s description of the anti-semitism of the coalition partners he mentioned, and my description of the anti-mormonism of others in the coalition, I’ll deeply resent when these so-called Christians inevitably get around to scapegoating the Mormons and the Jews for Prop 8’s defeat. Of all the groups joined together in this unwieldy coalition, the Mormon and Jewish contingents are by far the least hateful folks of the bunch. But, they’ve gone and joined an ugly mob, and when the time comes for the Evangelical leadership to explain what went wrong to their own people, it’s gonna be those “other” people, those Mormons, those Jews, who take the fall. The acrimony won’t make the front pages of our newspapers, but rather, like so many of the uglier smears from the Huckabee campaign, the incrimination will wind its way “under the radar” through Evangelical media channels.

A final prediction: if the Saturday morning door-knocking and ward (parish) contribution quotas continue to draw attention, the margin of Prop 8’s defeat will reflect an epic, rather than mild, backlash. During the first two Saturday walks, it’s estimated that Mormons knocked on approx. one million Californian doors. I won’t go into it here, but that’s simply nowhere near enough doors for the purposes of the Yes on 8 campaign – and the professionals running the show are smart enough to know the score. At this point, understandably, the professionals may have no choice but to allow the digging (aka “canvassing”) to continue. If they were to allow the workers – i.e., the rank and file – to catch their breath, some of these same rank and file might just take advantage of the pause to ask inconvenient questions about the hole they’ve been digging on the leadership’s orders.

Here’s a title suggestion for your next bestseller, Mitt:

Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and Proposition 8

In the interim, here’s some good stuff from Hellmut:

The Stakes of 8

Has anyone else seen this? Ron Prentice, the head of ProtectMarriage.com, has apparently been a very bad boy.

Chino Blanco

(Newt…now there’s your “family values” – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Newt dumped cancer-stricken 1st wife. When his pastor criticized him for not supporting his two kids, he left the church. Newt dumped 2nd wife after cheating on her with the Congressional aide who is now his 3rd wife.  The scandal sidelined Newt in 2008.

Until now.

My fellow Americans, meet a true defender of traditional marriage:

With Newt’s YouTube plug for Prop 8 now airing over at the Yes on 8 blogs, maybe today’s a good day to revisit Jeralyn’s TalkLeft post from 2002 on the subject of Republican Sexual Hypocrisy.  

Jeralyn supplies three sources (one for each marriage, I suppose):

I.

In 1981, Newt dumped his first wife, Jackie Battley, for Marianne, wife number 2, while Jackie was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment. Marianne and Newt divorced in December, 1999 after Marianne found out about Newt’s long-running affair with Callista Bisek, his one-time congressional aide. Gingrich asked Marianne for the divorce by phoning her on Mother’s Day, 1999. — New York Post, July 18, 2000

II.

Gingrich’s misbehavior goes back years. Fidelity was apparently never his strong point. After marrying his high school math teacher, Jacqueline Battley, even he admits: ”In the 1970s, things happened.”

As a congressional candidate, he conducted an affair in 1977, a year before enlisting Jackie to write a letter attacking his opponent for planning to leave her family in the district: ”When elected, Newt will keep his family together,” declared one unintentionally hilarious campaign ad. Gingrich ended his 19-year marriage shortly after his victory.

He famously visited Jackie in the hospital where she was recovering from surgery for uterine cancer to discuss details of the divorce. He later resisted paying alimony and child support for his two daughters, causing a church to take up a collection. For all of his talk of religious faith and the importance of God, Gingrich left his congregation over the pastor’s criticism of his divorce.

Soon thereafter, Gingrich married Marianne Ginther, whom he had previously met at a political fund-raiser. He called her ”the woman I love” and ”my best friend and closest adviser” in his first speech as House speaker, in January 1995… Yet, his relationship with Bisek, a House employee, apparently extended back to 1993 while he was talking of reforming the corrupt welfare state and promoting society’s moral regeneration. Rumors of his relationship with Bisek, more than 20 years his junior, did not stop him from writing his political testament, in which he criticized sex outside of marriage, promoted traditional family life and opined that ”any male who doesn’t support his children is a bum.”

In May 1999, however, Gingrich called Marianne at her mother’s home. After wishing the 84-year-old matriarch happy birthday, he told Marianne that he wanted a divorce. — Copely News Service, August 21, 2000

III.

Gingrich’s most recent ex-wife says he ditched her eight months after finding out she had multiple sclerosis. Marianne Gingrich, 48, shopping a book proposal “both personal and political” about how women are treated in D.C., says the ex-speaker of the House told her on Mother’s Day 1999 that he wanted a divorce, after learning she had a neurological condition that could lead to MS. In 1981, the former congressman told his other ex-wife, Jackie Battley, that he was dumping her, after she had been hospitalized with cancer. Newt, 57, will wed ex-congressional aide Callista Bisek, 34 — with whom he had an affair while still married to Marianne — on Aug. 18. — Akron Beacon Journal, July 25, 2000

In all fairness to the Yes on 8 camp, Newt was their Plan B.

They had been hoping to snag Rudy Giuliani.

That’s all for now. I’m off to find Newt’s sponsors:

If “Stand for Marriage California” is, in fact, a Proposition 8 Committee, why isn’t it registered with the Secretary of State’s office?

As far as I can tell, “Stand for Marriage, Inc.” doesn’t even exist.

Running a WHOIS lookup for Florida4Marriage.org provides this info:

Registrant Name: John Stemberger

Registrant Organization: Florida Family Policy Council

Registrant Email: [email protected]

Admin Email: [email protected]

Which gets us to the Florida Family Policy Council website, where we learn:

“Florida Family Policy Council is associated with Focus on the Family.”

“We will endeavor in all that we do to be people of good faith and good will in making the case for Biblical family values in the public square.”

I trust that your Biblical family values require that you provide complete and honest reporting of all contributions to the Proposition 8 campaign.

I’m still working on that “Stand for Marriage, Inc.” entity … any ideas?

UPDATE (h/t LijDavid over at Pam’s House Blend):

Stand for Marriage is at 1 South 6th Street; Terre Haute, IN 47807.   It is otherwise known as the James Madison Center for Free Speech – JMC.   But more correctly known as the law offices of Bopp Coleson & Bostrom.   James Bopp Jr is the name on many of the JMC.    Officers of the JMC are:

CORPORATE OFFICERS

President – Wanda Franz, Ph.D., Morgantown, WV

Secretary – Darla St. Martin, Washington, D.C.

Treasurer – David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., Washington, D.C.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Darla St. Martin, Washington, D.C.

David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., Washington, D.C.

Wanda Franz, Ph.D.,  Morgantown, WV

Betsy DeVos, Grand Rapids, Michigan

David Norcross, Washington, D.C.

GENERAL COUNSEL – James Bopp, Jr.

James Bopp, Jr., is the general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech. Legal services are provided to the Madison Center by the law firm of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Bopp is well known up here fighting against gay rights.  He is also the General Counsel, National Right to Life Committee, Inc., 1978-Present, and Special Counsel, Focus on the Family, 2004-Present.   He has also represented National Right to Life Committee, Focus on the Family,  Christian Broadcasting Network, Traditional Values Coalition, Home School Legal Defense Association, Vision America, National Organization for Marriage, Common Sense America, Catholic Citizens Committee, Life Issues Institute, the Christian Coalition, Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Concerned Women of America, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Republican Governors Association, the Libertarian Party, Republican National Committee, and the state Republican Parties of Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.

Here’s a link:  www.jamesmadisoncenter.org

Chino Blanco