The LDS Church has recently released a statement under the title: “The Divine Institution of Marriage”

Notably, in this statement, the LDS Church seems to be suggesting that it does not oppose rights protected under civil union or domestic partnership laws:

“The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) 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 family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

If this is the official LDS Church position, it leads me to wonder why Gary Lawrence, the California LDS Grassroots Director, is distributing “Yes on 8” campaign literature (PDF) to Mormons that includes advice like this:

“We must help ordinary people to wake up to the role of incrementalism and language manipulation in law and policy so that domestic partnerships and civil unions, which are exactly like marriage but in name only, do not become the laws in the states.”

Translation: the Mormons directing the “Yes on 8” campaign are distributing campaign material that expresses opposition – not only to gay marriage – but to domestic partnerships and civil unions as well.

What’s up with that? Anyone care to explain the true LDS position here? Because, at this point, I’m confused. As far as I can tell, what Salt Lake is now saying doesn’t seem to square with what I’m reading from the Mormons directing the “Yes on 8” effort in California.

Sources:

Meridian Magazine: How to Help Pass Proposition 8

WHY A MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY (PDF linked to in the Meridian article)

Of course, that said, knowing that the LDS Church has already fought against civil unions in places like Vermont, it’s not surprising to find Mormon staff on the “Yes on 8” campaign payroll arguing against domestic partnerships in California. It is merely confusing, since I assume they’d want their “Yes on 8” campaign materials to conform with the latest statements coming out of Utah. As things stand, it looks like LDS HQ is saying something that does not correspond to what their California operatives are doing.

There’s a general discussion about this question over at BCC (a Mormon blog): A change on Domestic Partnerships?

The specific question I’m posing here is: do the “Yes on 8” campaign materials that the Mormons are using in California hew to the same line that’s now coming out of LDS Church Headquarters? The answer, at least for now, would seem to be “No” …

Until they do, it looks like a case of the church and the campaign trying to have it both ways, saying one thing and doing another, treating their own members and their California neighbors like chumps, playing nice with the official church statements, while playing hardball in the campaign literature. I’m sure someone will let me know if I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion here. I mean, it is possible that the “Yes on 8” campaign has simply fallen into complete disarray and all central messaging control capability has been lost. However, I think it’s much more likely that this is what’s happening here:

This whole Prop 8 charade is part of a Republican GOTV (get-out-the-vote) effort. The GOP needed a way to fire up their California base without offending the mushy (and generally fair-minded) middle. So, on the one hand, you get Mormon volunteers delivering campaign materials (promising a rollback of gay rights) directly to target voters, while at the same time using other channels to release statements that adopt a more tolerant tone.  The base gets angry and moderate voters get shielded from the uglier aspects of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In other words, a creepy GOP version of PURE GENIUS.

Not to mention that Falwell had already pitched Salt Lake previously on the merits of joining his Trinitarian Christian army in this contest, and so – with Mitt in the running for the White House – to Mormon HQ, Falwell’s proposal sounded like a no-brainer at the time.

At least, that’s my take on all of this.

In any event, here’s a bit of news to brighten your day:

Support is weak for anti-gay ballot measure

In a Public Policy Institute of California survey released Wednesday, 54 percent of likely voters said they opposed Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. The initiative has the support of 40 percent of voters.

Yay! The “Yes on 8” folks aren’t even spinning these poll results (they already tried that with the Field Poll) … this time around, they’re just glumly suggesting that Jerry Brown had it in for them from the get-go. Whatever. Whiners.

By contrast, no whining from the leaders of the “No” side, who embrace reality and are bracing for the fight ahead:

Steve Smith, campaign consultant for Equality for All, the coalition leading the No on 8 campaign, said the group was encouraged by the Public Policy Institute poll but is still preparing for an expensive and emotional fight in the coming months.

He expects opponents of same-sex marriage will try to sway public opinion by misleading voters into thinking that churches will be forced to recognize gay relationships if the initiative fails.

My only quibble: the misleading has already begun, Steve.

Otherwise, all in all, a good day.

And while I’m hanging out, celebrating, and waiting for clarification of the question raised up top, here’s a bonus conundrum:

One of the pamphlets the Mormons are distributing in California is called “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails”

Here’s the final claim they make in this execrable handout:

6. [The defeat of Prop 8] will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

Too funny. Let’s stop and think about this for a second: how would church contributions ever get spent on legal fees related to Prop 8? Perhaps because the churches themselves are bringing the lawsuits? BINGO! In fact, in that very same PDF distributed by Mormon grassroots director Gary Lawrence, the “Yes on 8” strategy is clearly stated:

As we have many times before, we must continue to use legal muscle and aggressively make our arguments in the courts in definition of marriage cases.

So, on the one hand, the “Yes on 8” groups are using their “legal muscle” to make their arguments in the courts, while on the other hand, they’re trying to scare their followers and gullible voters into believing that it’s the “No” side who deserve the blame for the potential waste of precious church funds. The audacity of their mendacity is stunning. If Brother Lawrence really wants to prevent this waste of church contributions, here’s a tip: ask your “legal muscle” to stop filing lawsuits! Problem solved.

In any case, since I’ve now mentioned that “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” flyer, here are some links to a few blogs that answer these “Six Lies from the ‘Yes on 8’ Campaign” …

Marriage Equality Foes Peddling Lies

Hateful, Lying Scumbags

Bearing False Witness

If you have the time, do a Google blog search of “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” … these six lies are being posted all over the Internet by Mormon families who have received this info from Gary Lawrence and other LDS directors of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

Regardless of how you or I may plan to vote on Proposition 8, there is never any justification for deliberately spreading blatant falsehoods to support your position.

Of course, the biggest lie is that this amendment is about “protecting marriage” … But maybe once you’ve begun selling that whopper, any additional lying required to make your case against gay marriage feels like no big sin?

What a sad and (spiritually) worthless campaign the LDS leadership has called its members to join.

Sadder still, I’ll probably never get to ask Gary Lawrence (or any other Mormon “Yes on 8” campaign operative) these three questions:

In terms of your religious commitments, is it acceptable for a member of the LDS faith to lie in order to achieve political objectives?

In terms of your responsibilities as a citizen, aren’t you betraying your civic duty as an American by resorting to lies to scare up votes for your side?

In terms of your church’s own self-interest, this election will be over in November, but the memory of your shameful “Yes on 8” campaign tactics will linger much longer … don’t you worry about the damage your false witness is doing to the public image of the LDS Church?

But, hey, I’m against this infernal amendment, so … who cares about a few sad sacks and their misguided political adventures? We’re gonna get mad, and then we’re gonna get even.

In the immortal words of Ron Prentice, Grand Poobah of the “Yes on 8” campaign:

“Unless the people are angry, nothing will happen.”

Congratulations, Ron. Lord knows you’ve been working hard to get folks riled up about this whole gay marriage business. In light of this latest poll, if it’s any consolation, you may not be getting the votes, but at least your little trope about angry people is gonna get proven correct: I’m people, I’m angry, and I’m gonna help make sure plenty happens between now and November 4th. That said, not much of what’s gonna happen from here on out is gonna be any good for the “Yes on 8” side of things.

I mean, I know your group has ordered 1 million yard signs to be put up in unison next month, but considering how angry you’ve made me, I think you might want to consider ordering a million more.

Not that it would make any difference.

Vote No on Prop 8!

—————————————————————————

Sudden death double bonus question:

Which four letters are shared in the names of the two states that boast the country’s lowest divorce rate in one and a perennially above-average young male suicide rate in the other? [hint: the same four letters can be arranged to form the name of a certain Western state]

If you guessed Massachusetts and Utah and came up with U T A H as your answer … you’re a winner!!

Comment below to claim your prize.

Contest not available to former presidential candidates from Arkansas. Restrictions may apply.

—————————————————————————

So, this post is quickly devolving into one part j’accuse, another part cri de coeur, with a generous dollop of Hallelujah.

In other words, a rant.

In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to declare unconstitutional that state’s ban on interracial marriages.

If you’ve ever wondered what LDS (Mormon) leaders had to say on the subject of interracial marriage in the years that followed that 1948 California decision, wonder no more. As you’ll find out below, this crowd has always had plenty to say on the subject of marriage …

In the spirit of the Yes on 8 campaign’s bogus “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” … I’ve thrown together “Six Quotes on Interracial Marriage from Mormon Leaders”

Actually, I’ve got seven, but I’m gonna give BRIGHAM YOUNG a break, what with him being from the 19th century and all.

One (1) From the current LDS manual for young men (12-18 years old – i.e., the Aaronic Priesthood):

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question.”

Two (2) From the 90’s: RUSSELL M. NELSON:

“The commandment to love our neighbors without discrimination is certain. But it must not be misunderstood. It applies generally. Selection of a marriage partner, on the other hand, involves specific and not general criteria. After all, one person can only be married to one individual. The probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background.”

Three (3) From the 80’s: SPENCER W. KIMBALL:

“We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”

Four (4) From the 70’s: BOYD K. PACKER:

“We counsel you…to marry…within your race. Now interracial marriages are not prohibited but they are not encouraged, for the blood that’s in your veins is the blood of the children of the covenant.”

Five (5) From the 60’s: BRUCE R. McCONKIE:

“…[I]n a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”

Six (6) From the 50’s: MARK E. PETERSEN:

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…. “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…. “Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? when the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…. When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…. “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…. “The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…. “Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

Six LDS leaders, a good half-dozen reasons to never ever pay any further attention to anything that these folks might have to say on the subject of marriage.

Maybe it’s all BRIGHAM YOUNG’s fault. I wasn’t gonna quote him, but maybe if I do, it’d help us all appreciate how relatively progressive LDS leaders have become in their thinking:

“… Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Based on the six 20th-century quotes from LDS leaders that I’ve listed above, it’s at least somewhat reassuring to note the progress that’s been made since Brigham Young’s 1860’s decree:

White men who marry black women are no longer required to die on the spot.

Progress!

Hallelujah.

End rant.

Chino Blanco

Partial transcript from an interview with CNSNews.com:

Huckabee: … You know, it’s interesting, the California decision as well as the Massachusetts decision, I don’t think should ever have been implemented by the governors, Schwarzenegger and Romney. They were both decisions that the governors simply could have said the court has said that we have to do it, but let them enforce it. Because those were administrative decisions that had to put that in place and there was no mandate.

Jeffrey: Right, but Governor Romney actually went ahead and certified same-sex marriages without an act of his state legislature.

Huckabee: It should never have happened. It should never have happened. And while we want to blame the courts-

Jeffrey: Does that disqualify him as a vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party?

Huckabee: Well, you know, I’ve not probably been an advocate for him in that position. And, you know, I am going to let him defend himself. And I don’t want to relive the primary. But I think that that was a very unfortunate position that he took in saying that, “Well, I can’t do anything about it.” Oh, yes you can.

Jeffrey: You hold him responsible for the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts?

Huckabee: Not singularly. I hold him responsible for implementing-

Jeffrey: He could have stopped it?

Huckabee: He could have stopped it, and should have stopped it.

Jeffrey: And if you were governor of Massachusetts you would not have gone ahead and-

Huckabee: I would not have done that.

Jeffrey: You would not have had the clerks and justices of the peace – Certify those marriages?

Huckabee: Absolutely not.

From CNSNews.com:

“I would not have done that,” said Huckabee, who taped an appearance on CNSNews.com’s “Online with Terry Jeffrey” on August 15.

In a 4-3 decision issued on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts. The court gave the state legislature until May 17, 2004 to enact legislation to allow such marriages to take place.

In the intervening time, the Massachusetts legislature did not enact a law codifying same-sex marriages. Before the May 17, 2004 deadline, however, then-Gov. Romney directed that the words “bride” and “groom” on Massachusetts marriage applications be changed to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney’s chief legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told justices of the peace in Massachusetts that they should carry out the decision of the court and perform same-sex marriages or resign.

“My message was: ‘You took an oath, and you don’t have to agree or disagree with the law, you took an oath to uphold the law. Your only job is to follow the law,'” Winslow told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. “We’ll leave it to the courts to litigate what the law is, but once the courts have ruled, if you’ve taken an oath under the constitution, you have to follow your oath.”

Welcome to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.

So much for the Mormon-Evangelical interfaith dialogue. It was fun while it lasted, wasn’t it?

With friends like these …

And until I get the YouTube working right, the juicy bits are at 31:13 ~ 32:17 in the video over at CNSNews.com.

UPDATE (the clip):

Chino Blanco

I recently stopped by a fave blog of mine, Frank’s Weekly Rant, the personal blog of Frank Schubert, who, when he’s not busy blogging, is the co-manager of the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign in California.

Avid readers of Frank’s blog, like me, had recently become very concerned with the decidedly non-weekly and increasingly infrequent fresh rants available at Frank’s place, so we were all very relieved to read this in his latest post:

I’ve heard from several fans … noting that my Weekly Rant has missed a few weeks. I apologize for the lapse. It’s been a busy time as our firm works tirelessly to pass Proposition 8, the common-sense marriage initiative. If I weren’t so busy battling the People’s Lawyer [Jerry Brown], I could have written more columns. I’m back on track now.

Now that Frank is back on track, I hope he might make himself available to answer a few questions from this inquisitive fan.

Is your Prop 8 campaign strategy – which takes advantage of Mormon volunteers to identify potential ‘Yes on 8’ voters in California – one that was formulated in your office or did that strategy originate elsewhere?

I mean, you’re obviously someone who understands how costly such micro-targeting efforts can be.

Frank in February:

The big news being reported out of the SF convention is that the state GOP apparently has a big donor on the hook to erase the crushing debt it accumulated during the 2006 election cycle. That’s a sordid tale of its own. The GOP went heavily into debt to, in part, finance the highly-touted “micro-targeting” strategy undertaken by political advisors to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Micro-targeting involves integrating political databases with commercial databases to create a profile of an individual voter. Those deemed “persuadable” are targeted by the campaign. Schwarzenegger’s advisers had seen micro-targeting used in the 2004 presidential election, and credited it for helping Bush carry critical states like Ohio. But the 2006 Schwarzenegger micro-targeting effort came with a steep price – at least $26 million. Arnold won reelection, but the micro-targeting effort that was counted on to boost the prospects of GOP candidates and causes was a complete and costly bust. With the presidential election fast approaching, the GOP is still trying to pay off those old bills.

My only concern here is … who to credit for such a brilliant plan?  Falwell?  Romney? You?  Whoever it was, saving $26 million bucks oughta be a feather in somebody’s cap … is that cap yours?



As a follow-up question, if you are, in fact, the genius behind the current Mormon precinct-walking, vote-counting effort, did you bother to take into account the potential risk of mobilizing members of a faith who’ve historically displayed a willingness to follow counsel given by racist Mormon leaders, such as Apostle Mark E. Petersen?

Mormon leader Mark E. Petersen:

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…. “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…. “Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? when the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…. When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…. “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…. “The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites [Native Americans] and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…. “Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

— LDS (Mormon) Apostle Mark E. Petersen:  Race Problems – As They Affect The Church, speaking at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

Seriously now, having followed your rants, I’m having a hard time pegging you as a bigot in the mold of the Mormon Elder Petersen I’ve quoted above.  I don’t think you are.  For example, I thoroughly enjoyed this April rant of yours:

I am convinced that attacking smokers is the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there. While on a recent business trip, I flew through Chicago. Most every airport is nonsmoking. I get that. On a layover at O’Hare on my way to the east coast, I stopped at the United Red Carpet Club, to whom I pay $400 a year for the privilege of being insulted and inconvenienced, and asked the woman at the desk whether there were any smoking areas at the airport, fairly certain of the answer. She stares at me with a most disapproving look and says, “Why don’t you not smoke and add a minute to your life.”

This is a woman who is at least 50 pounds overweight. How is it that this fat woman feels that it is okay to lecture me about smoking when her rear end is spilling over the sides of her chair? I could have told her that I was concerned that her weight would result in heart disease, diabetes and any number of other medical ailments. I could have lectured her about how much American taxpayers spend each year to provide medical care to obnoxious fat women. I could have adopted a sanctimonious attitude and advised her about the obvious benefits of a Stairmaster, letting her know that it might turn her rear end into an attractive human body part instead of the planet she was lugging around her solar system. Instead, I laughed and said, “Gee, thanks for the tip. I wasn’t aware that smoking was bad.” Then I walked off.

I am not asking for sympathy, but I am asking people to seriously think about how acceptable it has become to attack smokers, and think about the broader implications this has on basic American principles. Like, say, this crazy idea of liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization.

…

There are also proposals to prohibit parents from smoking in their own car if children are present. These same parents are free to decide how to educate their children, teach them a value system, decide what type of food to ingest into their bodies, determine their leisure pursuits, decide what kind of clothes they’ll wear, determine if they should see a doctor when they are sick, and otherwise make decisions covering every aspect of their young lives. But, by God, these parents should be prohibited from engaging in a legal pursuit (smoking) while in the presence of their kids.

If a lawmaker authored a bill to prohibit blacks from renting an apartment, they would be recalled from office. If there was a proposal enacted to ban women or gays from driving a car, a lawsuit would immediately be filed challenging the measure. But when a proposal is offered to discriminate against smokers, it is met with applause.

If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s ALL. Yes, even smokers.

However, in the context of discussing your work in favor of Prop 8, might I gently suggest that perhaps attacking smokers is NOT the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there?  I gotta admit, I was sorely tempted to edit your final “Yes, even smokers.” to read “Yes, even gays.” .. but that’d be plain silly, now wouldn’t it?  Everybody knows that us smokers are out there fighting the good fight every day, whereas those damn gays, well, what’s that all about anyway?  Deviants.  I should be able to blow a little smoke in my boy’s face without having some PC patrol coming along telling me I’m less of a father for it … right, Frank?  I mean, I’m heterosexual, so back me up here.  Who are these people bringing the judgment down on our parenting choices?  Like you, it’s gettin’ me riled up and rearin’ for a fight.  Although, before I come out swingin’, could you remind me again who the enemy is here?  You seem to enjoy taking the do-gooders to task, but at the same time, you seem to be relying on the same do-gooders to help you pass Prop 8.  Color me … confused.

Of course, all my inconvenient questions aside, it’s not that I don’t understand the WHY behind Prop 8.  You’re a smart guy, and as a professional (and strictly GOP) PR flack, you obviously understand the challenges ahead for your party, as another one of your February rants makes clear:

There has been a decided lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for any of the people who entered the presidential race this cycle. In fact, Republicans have been dispirited for a good long while now. After more than a decade of power in Washington, it’s as if rank and file Republicans have a hangover. And for good reason: GOP Congressional leaders bungled their years in power and became the party of big spending, rather than fiscal conservativism. “Conservative” lawmakers became experts in earmarking, bringing home the federal pork for their districts at the expense of the national interest. War heroes like Duke Cunningham turned out to be on the take. Conservative stalwarts like Tom Delay and John Doolittle got wrapped up in the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal. Despite their rhetoric, the GOP did nothing to secure our borders when they had the chance. And then the war in Iraq went south, and with it, the final reason for GOP passion.

Until Prop 8 came along, right?

Right?

I mean, until the chance came along to hate on an unpopular minority, you were pretty much SOL, weren’t you, Frank?

In any case, I hope you won’t use the following excuse to avoid responding to me directly (admittedly, I’ve grown tired of the responses I’ve gotten from your Secretary-cum-Communications-Director Jennifer Kerns on this issue):

Frank in June:

This is why I almost never talk to the media during a hotly contested initiative campaign. I would much rather have a press secretary handle those chores. First, if the media thinks they can talk directly to the campaign manager, they will always want to talk to me and not the press secretary. Second, the press secretary can honestly avoid discussion of subjects about which she or he is not informed. If the media asks me, for example, how much money we are going to spend on an ad buy, I have to tell them, “I’m not going to say.” That sort of response doesn’t make the campaign look very good in print.

With all due respect for Jennifer’s talents, and with apologies for any hassle that answering this question might involve, please allow me to ask you directly:  how much are you saving by mobilizing the Mormons, Frank?

What I mean is, I wanna interface directly with the patriot who penned this memorable paragraph on his blog in April:

In our history, we’ve seen women, minorities, students and taxpayers all win important freedoms through application of the Bill of Rights. Sadly, today we increasingly see demands that unpopular people lose certain freedoms-the freedom to smoke in one’s own car or house, and the freedom to own a gas-guzzling car or truck are but two of countless behaviors under constant attack. That’s the thing about the Bill of Rights. It applies to all, and must be defended if it is to be meaningful.

And, if/when you reply, could you also let me know your true feelings about the Field Poll?  I’ve recently read comments of yours dissing the Field polling that’s been done re Prop 8, but pardon me if I place more credence in these earlier comments of yours (which strike me as a tacit endorsement of the same polling outfit that you’ve been slagging lately).  

Frank in January:

With the Field Poll results on Proposition 93 showing the term limits measure tied at 39 percent ‘yes,’ 39 percent ‘no,’ the game of legislative dominoes is now on. There’s little doubt that Prop 93 will be defeated. Support for this proposal is down 11 points in the past month, while opposition is up 7 points. All the momentum is favoring the ‘no’ side of this contest, and there isn’t much that can be done to reverse that momentum.

It was pretty funny watching Gale Kaufman – an exceptionally talented consultant and someone with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working – attempt to spin the Field Poll results. Her campaign didn’t say the survey results were wrong, but instead were “volatile.” That’s like saying the last voyage of the Titanic was “trending downward.” Prop. 93 is tanking and will soon be resting at the bottom of the political sea.

Pretty funny, indeed.  Considering the latest Field Poll, thank goodness you have a Press Secretary to cover for you, because Prop 8 is tanking.  In any case, eight months of Frank’s Rants later, I’m thinking we’ve found a new ally in the fight against Prop 8.  

Welcome aboard, Frank.

—

Footnote:  All the words in blockquotes above are Frank Schubert’s own (other than the Mark E. Petersen quote).

Chino Blanco

After the break, I’ve posted a letter sent from Bob Packer on July 28th to the California LDS stake (diocese) presidents.

I’ll note a couple of items that caught my attention before posting the letter without further comment:

Apparently, there is a plan in place to put up one million ‘Yes on 8’ yard signs at 7:00 am on September 22nd.

This letter makes clear that those walking their precincts on behalf of the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign are not doing so to persuade their neighbors, but rather to identify potential ‘Yes’ votes.  As such, the precinct walking is clearly part of a standard get-out-the-vote operation, rather than an attempt to change hearts and minds.

July 28, 2008

Dear Presidents:

Yesterday a wonderful meeting was held with the eight Area Directors in Northern California. These are amazingly powerful people. The Area folks represent the grassroots effort for the passage of the Proposition and their responsibility overlays each Coordinating Council. This was a great and powerful meeting. I assure you that the LDS folks who work closely with or who are on the Board directly of the coalition are very impressive and politically experienced folks. It was great to see.

I have a few answers to frequent questions that are being asked and I feel that if I were you, I’d wanna know. Hope that this helps:

Organization, it’ s a little confusing!? Answer: The Brethren have felt that the best way to organize and pass the Proposition is to have an Ecclesiastical arm and a Grassroots arm to organization. Elder Dalton, Area Seventy and Chair of California for every thing, reports to the Brethren. I assist him. We work with coordinating councils, all 17 in California and then Stake Presidents and Bishops, rank and file. The second leg to organization is grassroots. This is done so as to engage as many like minded folks who are not LDS, but whom will help. The senior folks who run the grassroots are LDS at the coalition and are headed by Glen Greener and Gary Lawrence. These folks are assisted in Nor Cal by Boyd Smith, and in turn by Area, then Regional Directors. The regional directors overlay Stakes. Below are Zip Code Supervisors by wards.

What is the role of grassroots? Answer: The grassroots folks in each Stake, Regional Directors will train zip code supervisors. Their goal, is to find the voters who will vote yes. It is not to persuade others … but to find those who will vote yes. The ZCS will seek, with the RD help, to encourage as many as the ward members and like minded people as possible, to accept eight different responsibilities, all from walking a precinct to determine folks opinions (not to sell), to calling, to placing signage, to a myriad of essential tasks that Area Directors will oversee. Please know Presidents, that the RDs/ZCS’s will be contacting many many people to accept responsibilities. We hope that you are fine with this happening without the Stake President or Bishop approving each assignment! We assume that you are ok with that!!

Will like minded people from other congregations really join with us? Answer: There was a conference call last week with 1200 pastors in California with James Dobson as the featured speaker. This Thursday, there is another conference call with 2000 California clergy. It appears that the effort on the part of like minded people is huge compared to eight years ago. The Area Directors and Regional Directors will be aware of contacting the congregations for a joint effort.  Walking the precincts in particular is where we all may have an opportunity to grab a good friend of another religion and walk with them. If LDS people want to participate in that conference and know of the site of broadcast, they are welcome to go.

What is the timeline from here for the next few weeks.? Answer:

1.  Congregations of LDS all having been taught the doctrine in July so that they may see the importance of fundraising and grassroots participation. Some Stakes have called all Stake Council and wives as well as several folks who may be able to contribute not on the Council. The Stake President, in that Cottage Meeting, has asked for their support. A great part of a fund raising effort, accomplished in one night.

2.  August 1st:  All Regional Directors have been called and contacted by Area Directors for training.

3.  August 3rd:  Training of Regional Directors commences by the Area Directors

4.  August 1st-10th:  Zip Code Supervisors are in place and are to be trained by Regional Directors..

5.  August 16th:  The First of three Saturday precinct walks are to be held under the direction of the Regional Directors.

6.  August 23rd:  The Second of the Saturday precinct walks are to be held.

7.  Sept. 22nd:  One million signs will be put up in yards around the state at 7:00am.

Other timeline events will be planned and executed and you will be updated.

That’s enough. if I caused more questions than answered, please hit me back.

Thanks for all that you and have on your plate. The Lord will make up whatever we all feel we are lacking.

Brother Packer

Here is the source:  http://yesonprop8.blogspot.com…

Judge for yourselves.  Looks authentic to me.

UPDATE:  http://mormonsformarriage.com/?page_…

… the avalanche of signs is, indeed, a goal of the Yes on 8 folks. Our ward training program said that signs would be handed out a few days before September 22nd, but with instructions to not actually put them out until 7 a.m. on the 22nd. They wanted to give the effect that suddenly the signs were blossoming all over the place and all-of-a-sudden everyone was supporting the proposition.

UPDATE II:  This letter was originally found on this blog:  yesonprop8.blogspot.com

The letter was presented on that site as having been written by Boyd K. Packer.

According to commenters who were able to visit the site while it was still accessible, this notice was placed there in response to my diaries:

I am Bob Packer, a church volunteer working with the coalition supporting Proposition 8. For the record, the letter you are citing was written by me, not by President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or any other Church leaders.

In view of Bob’s claim, I take it that any question of authorship has been settled and that the letter has been confirmed legit by the ‘Yes on 8’ side.

Chino Blanco

The GOP consulting firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs is led by Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, who also co-manage the Yes on 8 campaign.

The firm has announced an Open House to be held this Thursday, August 14th from 5:30 pm – 8:30 pm to celebrate the opening of Schubert Flint’s new Irvine office.

If you are able to get over to Irvine this Thursday evening, I’ve prepared a flyer that you can download, print out and take with you to distribute to the Open House attendees:  Schubert Flint Protest Flyer Download (PDF)

The screen version for your viewing pleasure:

A map to the office’s Irvine location can be found here.

Please note that the building parking attendants leave after 6:30 pm, so if you’re driving and plan to stay later than that, you’ll enjoy free parking (just grab a ticket on your way in, and the gates will be up when you leave).

Here’s an annotated view of the building:

This is a golden opportunity to interact with the principals, staff and clients of the leading PR firm behind the latest effort to ban gay marriage in California.  

If you live in Orange County, oppose Proposition 8, and can afford to donate three hours of your time this week, I invite you to spend those three hours this Thursday evening in front of 2020 Main in Irvine.

UPDATE: The local tel contact for this action is Vern Nelson at 714-235-VERN

Chino Blanco

(Hey OC folks! It’s party time with Republican anti-equality hacks! w00t! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Schubert Flint Public Affairs has been hired to run the Yes on Prop. 8 (“Protect Marriage”) initiative.  If you’ve happened to notice the names Jennifer Kerns, Frank Schubert, or Jeff Flint in media coverage of California’s Proposition 8 initiative, that would be because they all work for Schubert Flint.

After the break, I’ve posted an invitation from Schubert Flint Public Affairs to join them for an Open House on August 14th to celebrate the opening of their new Irvine office.

For reasons of my own (also posted after the break), my initial impulse when I saw this invitation was not to RSVP, but rather, to wonder if some other response might not be more appropriate for such an event?  What would you suggest?    

If you happen to be familiar with my diaries from the past month, you’d know that I have some issues with churches that pay Republican PR flacks, like Schubert Flint, to manage initiative campaigns.  While the rank-and-file church membership is led to believe that such campaigns are being fought in order to protect ‘traditional’ values, the political operatives cashing the church’s paychecks are mostly interested in the benefits that such campaigns bring to the GOP and themselves.

The chronicles of my frustration at church association with the likes of Schubert Flint span an arc from “initial disappointment with my former church for once again backing the wrong side in a civil rights struggle” to “complete bewilderment at how the church squares their ostensibly ‘politically neutral’ purpose of accomplishing God’s work with their generous financial support of a servant of Mammon like Schubert Flint.”  In any case, it’s an arc that should give you some idea of where I’m coming from in all this (executive summaries in parentheses):

Mormons enter Calif. marriage fight

(Mormons arguing for ‘traditional’ marriage?  Good luck with that.)

An invitation to show up or walk out on June 29th

(Don’t Mormons have anything better to do than wage losing political battles from the pulpit?)

Meet Rameumptom, Inc: Schubert-Flint

(“Yes on 8” is being sold by the same folks who sold us the Iraq war.)

The Prop 8 ATM: A Christmas Carol

(And no matter the issue, they’ll keep on selling as long as it keeps on paying off for them.)

Googling Gay Marriage: Putting a Fork in Prop 8

(Jeff Flint is a real piece of work.  End of story.)

In any case, enough of my rehashing, here’s the invite:

Take a look.  Note the time, date, and location.  And let me know what you think.

While you’re thinking, I’m gonna ramble on a bit more before kicking back and looking forward to your input.

I was raised LDS (Mormon), served a two-year mission for the church, but parted ways in my twenties due to the (seemingly) unbridgeable divide between my politics and that of the church my family joined five generations ago.  That said, I harbor lingering attachments to the faith and community I once shared and enjoyed.  And so, at times like these, I’m led to wonder anew at the failure of my erstwhile co-religionists to appreciate the utter necessity of respecting all Americans as equals before the law, especially as our Californian LDS brothers and sisters are also citizens of a country that (only after much struggle) now affords their religion the opportunity to thrive.  At the very least, if they’re sincere in wanting to play a ‘conservative’ role in American society, I wish they’d pay more attention to fellow conservatives like Ward Connerly, who understand that:      

For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn’t about civil rights is sadly mistaken. If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people.

Considering my firm belief that gay Americans should have the freedom to marry, I’m curious what an intellectually consistent and honest response to Schubert Flint’s invitation might look like.  

Chino Blanco