One detail I don’t understand – why are people from Utah and beyond were allowed to give money to support a proposition in another state?
I don’t really like that at all. When a state is trying to decide an important question, I think outside influences should be kept at a minimum. Residents of the state in question ought to be the only ones to have an impact.
On this point (and some others) I agree with the “NO” on 8 campaign.
That isn’t to say that I blame Utah LDS, or those who gave to the “NO” campaign from outside California. They did nothing illegal. But maybe we should look into some rule changes.
I’m getting really tired of talking about this matter, but the ridiculoussness continues to pour in.
The above picture is of a LDS chapel in Orangevale, CA. The sign was spray painted “No on 8.” Also spray painted on the grounds was one word “hypocrites.” READ MORE HERE
Please point out to me how the LDS Church is possibly being hypocritical. How is a Church that was forced to amend their marriage practices practically at gun point from the United States Government being hypocritical by expecting the rest of society to be held to the same standard that they have been held to?
As pointed out to me by my Father this weekend, how comical is it that a group that was persecuted and forced to abide by certain social norms are now once again being persecuted for defending the norms that were forced on them? What is it that you want from us?
And please don’t tell me the Church is being hypocritical simply because it once practiced polygamy. No members of the LDS Church were alive over 100 years ago to endorse the practice – let alone participate in it.
Taking a worse beating in this whole mess is the word hate. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a word more bastardized and misused to the point where it doesn’t mean anything at this point. In my nearly 30 years of attending Church, I’ve never heard a hateful word. Not even close. I’ve never heard any message in Church about others that didn’t first and foremost include love and respect.
Disapproval does not equal hate. Hate is a very explosive word, and it has been selected purposely to frame the “debate” and inflame their supporters. By the way, I use the word debate very loosely. The “NO” folks call themselves “The Courage Campaign” (this apparently isn’t tongue in cheek.)
In what world are these the virtues of the courageous?
I have a hard time imagining Mormons protesting in West Hollywood should Prop 8 have failed.
————————————————————————————
In a case that is much like killing a mouse with a shot gun, gay groups are now planning on boycotting the entire state of Utah over this. The stupidity of this considering the fact that the two most impacted areas of the state will be Salt Lake City and Sundance/Park City, the two least LDS areas of the state is hilarious. Here are some quotes on the reasoning:
“At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one,” said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.
“They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards,” he said. “You don’t do that and get away with it.”
This legalization happened just a couple of months ago. Where did all the kids come from? And most of these children already met the definition of bastards – not that it matters.
“The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand,” he said. “At this point, honestly, we’re going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state.”
There is that word again. Of course, there is no burden of proof to be able to throw words like “hate” around. These days it is much more socially damning to be called hateful or a bigot than to be called gay. Coming out as gay is not a career ender anymore, being called a bigot may not be either, but it inflicts major damage. So what side is throwing bombs at the other?
Another aspect of this – Mormons will not be intimidated. There is a portion of the LDS population that will relish this. Mormons – like many other religions – view themselves as chosen people. They have been persecuted and expect to be persecuted again. In fact, to many, this is a sign that they are doing the right thing. The “NO” crowd has no understanding of this, and would do better to leave the situation alone.
Aravosis is not calling for a boycott of California, though that state’s voters actually approved the ban.
“At this point, the Californians are the victims and the Mormons are the persecutors,” he said. “We had won this until they swept in … We need to send a message to Utah that they need to stop trying to inflict their way of life on every other state.”
This statement is utterly ridiculous. You had this won, huh? Did you have it won in 2000 when Prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote? Were Mormons to blame then as well?
I’m hoping this will be my last post on the issue. I’m uncomfortable commenting further because I feel like it makes me appear anti-gay when I only tepidly cared (I didn’t vote on it, I didn’t give money or time to it) about the proposition in the first place (strictly because of the resulting battle on religious liberty of individual churches should the measure have failed.) Of course, this is by design. The strategy is to make others feel uncomfortable participating in the democratic process or speaking publicly for fear of being labeled something horrible. The “Courage Campaign” has resorted to engaging in tactics it claims to decry.
As predicted the post Prop 8 rage is ramping up with protests at the LDS Temple in Los Angeles on consecutive nights. The blame for Prop 8 passing is being put completely on Mormons – calling them “vile” and “scum.” This is bizarre considering several states over the past 10 years have adopted similar propositions. Are the Mormons responsible for all this? When did the Mormons acquire such influence? And why aren’t the votes being blamed for the loss? Let me explain.
According to CNN, “Yes” on Prop 8 garnered 5,424,916 votes. Mormon population in California is approximately 750,000 (or about 2% of the population.) Statistics show that close to 50% of baptized “Mormons” are not actively Mormon. A lot of people don’t vote, and Mormons are not immune to this complacency. Add to all this that there are inevitably some Mormons who voted on the other side of the issue and Mormon demographics skew young, so many aren’t old enough to vote. As a result, you can take that 750,000 number and knock it down several pegs (I’d say by half, but that is a wild guess) to get a basic guess of how many Mormons voted “Yes” on Prop 8.
By comparison, the African American population in California is around 2,260,648 (or 6.2%) according to wikipedia. We don’t have exit poll numbers for LDS, but we do have them for Blacks. They voted “Yes” on Prop 8 at about a 70%-30% clip according to CNN. Add to this the historic election of Barack Obama driving African Americans to the polls in record numbers this week and I can guarantee you that a higher % of Blacks voted than Mormons, probably about the same or close % of Blacks voted “Yes” on Prop 8 as did Mormons (“Mormons” in general, not active Mormons – which is an important distinction and the appropriate one) and to top it all off, Blacks outnumber Mormons in the state by better than 3 to 1. And lets not forget that there is basically zero crossover between Blacks and Mormons so you can’t hang any of the Black votes in the Mormon category.
Prop 8 lost by 492,830 votes. Lets say 50% of all Blacks voted in this election (a generously low number in my opinion.) At the 70% ”Yes” vote clip, 791,226 blacks voted against gay marriage. That is more “Yes” votes from blacks than there are Mormons (of any stripe) in the entire state! All this with a very low 50% voter estimate.
So why aren’t we seeing these protests in Inglewood instead of Westwood? Simple really. Mormons are an easy target. They are a punching bag who won’t hit back. This has been proven over their history (allowing themselves to be driven violently from New York to Ohio to Illinois to Missouri and finally to Utah for example.)
In addition, Mormons are not a “protected group.” You can get away with saying anything you want about a Mormon in a Starbucks, at work, etc. and not worry about retribution. They are some faceless wacky group. They don’t exist in your world (as far as you know.) Unlike Jews, we can’t be identified by headwear or hairstyle. Unlike other minorities you can’t classify us strictly by skin color. We don’t wear crosses or other religious symbolism. I don’t know another Mormon when I see them and neither do you. This has made it easy for me to see how much bigotry towards Mormons there really is because I can basically be incognito. In my time in California I probably heard a snide comment about Mormons probably every other week (especially at work – a supposed haven for open-mindedness.) Many times these comments were made to my face by someone who had no idea what my leanings were and after landing their zinger, sometimes looked to me for my approval or apparently a high five for a bigoted joke well told. Nobody thinks they know LDS people, but they do. They interact with them far more often than they think they do.
Mormons are on a short list with Muslims, the Amish and registered sex offenders as groups of people you can take a shot at without fear of rebuke. A comment made at a party or on the set about Mormons draws a laugh. A similar comment made about Jews, Latinos (or even gays!) would draw immediate criticism, cause you to be ostracized or maybe earn you a pink slip (in fact, it was far less taboo to dismiss a candidate because he was Mormon than because he was Black in this past election.) What names did Mormons ever call gays during all of this by the way? So who is the hated group, really?
Mormons didn’t have the population power to make Prop 8 pass. They had a minuscule impact at best. Next time you want to find and outlet for your “tolerant” rage about gay marriage, why not try placing it somewhere it belongs, like, I don’t know…Barack Obama.
I tried to touch on this hypocrisy at the end of my Election Night post. Less than 24 hours after the election of Barack Obama, I’ve seen a total difference in the reaction of the losing party than I saw in ‘00 and ‘04. It started with John McCain’s concession speech, was followed by comments from Michael Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity*. Some of the most demonized people in the country, constantly accused about being hate merchants. They’ve all said they are happy for Barack personally, and hope he succeeds professionally (although they won’t be a rubber stamp for him.) It is in their own best interest.
I feel the same way. I want every President to be the best President in the history of the country. I could care less about what “team” won as long as life gets better. This sentiment was not reciprocated by the other side in the previous two elections. From day one of the Bush Presidency (I’m sure the bitterness of the recount helped) we’ve had somewhere from 30-40% openly rooting for the country to fail – all because it would be beneficial to their particular “brand” or “club.” It has been a hateful 8 years, and George Bush can be blamed for a lot of things, but I don’t lay that one on his head. The “He is not my President” bumper sticker bitterness was there before he even moved in.
Bobby Jindal is already leading the charge to purge the party of corruption and return it to being a party of principle that is always was. I’m hoping the graciousness of the defeated is a sign that the principle never quite left and is possible to cultivate again.
* Is there any doubt we’d have a slightly different reaction in a McCain victory from say Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, Janeane Garofalo and Michael Moore?
A lot of hullabaloo in California about Prop 8 that would ban gay marriage. As I write this, it looks like the proposition will pass (along with similar ballot propositions in Arkansas, Arizona and Florida.)
It is interesting that in an election that swept in Barack Obama, that a ban on gay marriage would pass – even in nutty old California. Clearly, America is not willing to go there.
I supported Proposition 8 and here is why. Actually, let me state first the “not why.”
A large issue has been made of religious support for Prop 8, particularly from the LDS Church. My support for the proposition has nothing to do with my religion. Firstly, I don’t allow my Church to dictate my vote on political matters. Second, I can see the irony of a Church leading the charge to protect marriage that happens to be best known for openly defying marriage laws 150 years ago.
So here is why I support Prop 8. It is a question of religious liberty. That is what this country is founded on first and foremost. If gay marriage were to be found to be a right, what is to stop the state from dictating to individual religions to perform gay marriages? If it is determined that it is discriminatory for the state to bar gays from being married, how can you possibly say that it isn’t discriminatory for gays being denied the right to being wed in an LDS temple? I don’t think you can.
Much is made of the separation of Church and State, but it is only talked about in reference to keeping the Church out of the State, but it cuts both ways – people escaped to this place with the desire to keep the State out of the Church. We are slowly working our way towards negating that accomplishment.
Much like the country was created for this purpose, so to was marriage created for a specific purpose. It is a religious ceremony that is what it is. Prop 8 is not hateful, it is keeping marriage as it has always been. It wasn’t created as something hateful, quite the opposite.
Nobody is into “taking rights away” or against gay partners being able to visit each other in hospitals or being able to leave money to one another after death. It has never been about that. Those are distraction issues that are NEVER opposed.
I am personally in favor of civil unions and so are the majority of LDS people I’ve asked. My home state of Vermont adopted them and the state hasn’t crumbled. Well, yes it has – but not for that reason. I’d even be flexible to the idea of a generic legal contract termed “marriage” for gays if I thought it would end there. My fear is it will eventually lead to an attack on religious groups all in the name of tolerance and equality.
I also fear there are some misunderstandings here. The LDS community is fairly sympathetic toward gays. So much so that the recent funeral of Mormon Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley was protested by the Westboro Baptist Church because he was “enabling homosexuals.” Do Mormons believe homosexuality is a sin? Yes. But they also think smoking cigarettes is a sin. No one accuses them of hating smokers.
My last fear is that one or more LDS churches will burn over this. The attitude on the “No” side has been more hateful and emotional than the “Yes” side could ever dream of being. Someone is going to pay. They’ve already shown they have no problems with threatening physical violence to LDS people going to temple and actually following up on those threats with countless cases of property damage. This form of “tolerance” has had no patience for opposition. And this is before losing!
Lastly, the “tolerant” ones had no problem stereotyping an entire religion* in this absurd ad.
Aside from the offensive production value (sound especially) – I think we can agree that it is a pretty accurate portrayal of LDS missionaries. Anybody who has had an encounter with those scoundrels knows that they just can’t wait to ransack your house.
* Despite the fact that probably the most well known Mormon family in California (that of Steve Young) gave $50,000 to the “No” on Prop 8 campaign.
** Update **
Another thing not fully understood is that the Church itself only dropped about $2,000 on the campaign for travel expenses. All other money connected Mormonism was donated by individuals who deemed this issue important enough to donate over. Hardly a reason to aim your bile at the Church in general.
Also, a nice example of the target on LDS people because of this proposition can be found here:
That goes along with winning the award for whitest stiff to ever think he was somehow hip.
Tonight a commercial aired with him promoting his series “Planet in Peril.” The ad features his waltzing through a jungle somewhere on the search for the next “global pandemic.” The next one? When was the last one? He was so excited, it sounded like he was looking for the next hot band.
Haven’t we had enough of the media created boogie-viruses? What ever happened to the bird flu? West Nile? Ebola? Sars?
And since when does a supposedly serious news outlet shill for specific activism? Every commercial break during the baseball playoffs I had to watch his pretentious mug tell me to watch the game with my lights out to save energy.
First of all, congratulations to Barack Obama. If there were a gun to my head and I was forced to pick between Obama and McCain, I would vote for Obama. I think he is a good person. Thankfully, there wasn’t a gun to my head – so I voted for Bob Barr.
I’m not in the mood to organize my thoughts, so I’m going to throw them out as they come.
There is a lot of fear that Obama will push an ultra-liberal agenda with his majorities in the House and Senate. I’m optimistic that this won’t happen. First of all, just because a politician tells their base they will fight for the pet issues of the party, it doesn’t mean they really will. George Bush would be a good example. As a matter of fact, Bush betrayed the base on many issues (spending, illegal immigration, pre-emptive war, the monstrosity of a bail out bill, etc.)
Most of these guys know that if they actually enacted some of the slop they claim they believe in, things would be disastrous and people would run them out of Washington with pitch forks. So instead of actually accomplishing these pet projects, they lock us in a perpetual battle for the unattainable to keep us distracted.
Secondly, Barack Obama is going to want to get re-elected. He will spend his first term being very careful to be moderate in order to achieve that goal. In his second term, Obama will be like every other President. He will be a lame duck who will no longer have the strong support of his mates in Congress. Why? Because they will be held accountable for whatever they pass, and he won’t be. They will be reluctant to pass anything too radical because politicians want to keep their jobs above all else.
In the end, I’m thinking the people that will be the most upset with him will have been his biggest supporters.
This is not a mandate. If anything, it is a rebuke of Republican leadership – and rightfully so.
And to that point, the Republican party needed this. They have drifted so far from their core beliefs over the past 10+ years, that they needed to have their asses handed to them. They need a time out. They need some introspection.
I have a feeling these tax cuts (already Freudianly shrinking from people making over $250K to over $120K) will continue to shrink (if not disappear.) Obama will get in office and declare that now that he has gotten into office and had a look at the books, that things are much worse than he thought, and we will all have to pay higher taxes in the spirit of unity and light or whatever his catch phrase will be.
Something interesting to note: both Obama and McCain moved very far right in hopes to get elected. They both backed tax cuts, they both changed their mind on drilling, McCain jumped off his amnesty train, etc. That coupled with the same sex propositions across the country and underperforming to expectations in the congressional races should tell you that the country may not have moved that far left, they just lacked a good conservative candidate – which is true.
The Republicans need to find a way to stop being beholden to the wacko Evangelical loon wing of the party. That is the reason they are in the situation they are in.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend today about the two parties. I think the Republicans of today resemble the Democratic party of 2002-2005. They have become the party of bitching and moaning. The party of vote for me because the other guy sucks. The party of stagnation.
It seemed to me that McCain’s basic sales pitch was:
“We’ve come very close to running the country into the ground, we are teetering on the edge of disaster. We can’t elect a Democrat now! Now would be the worst time!”
The Democrats find themselves in the position of the Republicans back then, they are finally talking about themselves. At least Obama did. An interesting thing my friend brought up was that:
“Dems got smart to the fact that they had to stand for something rather than against something,but they also understood that their base was more concerned with concepts than concrete ideas.”
The part about concrete ideas in interesting. Although Obama has made it about standing for something instead of against something, he has been very vague. His being vague has allowed him to energize the lunatic base of the Democratic party while avoiding scaring the hell out of the moderates and independents. My friend followed that up with:
You wouldn’t think that strategy would work, but if you don’t have any body asking questions of you, you can get away with it.”
Nobody questioning, isn’t that the truth? The media has been in rare form this year. During the Republican primary season the media was in love with John McCain. They practically exhorted us to please vote for him, knowing he could be easily defeated* – and even if he didn’t, he would be a nice consolation prize as a left-leaning Republican. All of a sudden, he was the devil incarnate. Releasing a smear story about him just days after he locked up the nomination (even though they endorsed him.)
I predict they will re-discover their love for him now that he is out of the way and will continue on as his old self – a Senator known for undermining his own party.
“Joe the Plumber” – I have no love for the guy. I don’t care about the guy. But I find it interesting that after he asks a legitimate question, the media allows the debate to shift to his personal life. I don’t care if he is a plumber or a serial killer. I don’t care If he makes $10 a year or a million. It doesn’t matter who he is, he isn’t running for anything. The questions he posed are what matters, and those questions still stand. The answer Obama gave was embarrassing, so the attention needed to be shifted to the messenger.
This interview is mind blowing:
Rick Sanchez is a buffoon who can’t understand how Joe can care about principle and fairness in the tax system over his own personal benefit. WHAT?! How can you not want to take rich people’s money that you didn’t earn? Are you mental? It isn’t that Sanchez doesn’t agree, its that he can’t wrap his head around the concept. This is very concerning.
Joe makes a great point:
“Why are you here vetting me, but you haven’t done this with Obama?”
A fine point, and one that goes unanswered. Instead Sanchez rants that Joe “thrust himself” into the lime light and now he is fair game, free to be smeared (with illegal leaks) because “that’s how we do it in America.” As far as I know, Barack Obama was going door to door in his neighborhood, so he asked him a question.
The American people are slightly retarded. They are all upset about the financial collapse, yet they vote out people like Chris Shays who warned of the coming crisis and re-elect those that obstructed him.
We get what we ask for.
I just love that when Republicans win there are all sorts of stories about disenfranchisement, voter fraud, voter intimidation, etc.
When the Democrats win, it must be assumed that everything went off without a hitch. Thank goodness.
What will shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do now? Picking on Mitch McConnell is going to get boring real fast. They built their shows on being a minority view point. A voice for those who felt unheard, to vent frustration, and to say “yeah, someone feels like I do.” Now that they are in power, who are they going to make fun of? Democrats? Not likely. They may try, but it won’t work. I’ve seen them try a couple times. Their jokes about Obama amounted to basically “he is too optimistic.” For it to work, they will have to fire their writing staffs and hire entire new ones. They just aren’t wired in a way to see the irony in their own view points. They can’t laugh at themselves. Because of this, I see The Daily Show going back to its old style of finding some bizarre hick in South Carolina and making fun of him to his face without him knowing (like they did when Bill Clinton was in office.)
And what will Hollywood do? Probably make a lot more money by avoiding all those anti-Republican bombs they’ve been shoveling out in the last five years. Now I expect to see a lot of positive movies in our future.
I enjoy the simple way of thinking for many Democrats. Let me see if I’ve got this right:
- Democratic victory = healing
- Republican victory = divisiveness
- Unity and bipartisanship = Republicans agreeing with Democrats
- Concerns about terrorism = fear mongering
- Scaring people to vote a certain way or the environment will implode =being a responsible citizen of the world.
Yeah, I guess because your guy won we are now all unified and stuff.
In the end, I’m not upset with the result. He would have been my choice if I had to pick one of the two. But I am upset with both parties. I have more thoughts floating around, and I may or may not post them later.
But for now, Barack Obama is my President and I will support him until he gives me reason not to – and hopefully that day will never come.
* I mean come on, the guy was the perfectly beatable candidate for either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kucinich. John McCain: a delightfully crusty old white man, a perfect crystallization of the Republican stereotype. Who better to run against if you are African American, Female or Martian respectively.
** Update **
- I just saw P-Diddy take credit for the election on CNN because “it all started with vote or die.”
Okay buddy…
- Hopefully we can drive a stake in some of this racism stuff. An interesting statistic, Obama carried a higher % of the white vote than any Democratic nominee since Carter (this includes the first black President Bill Clinton.) I’m not privy to the raw numbers, but that might give him the highest white vote ever for a Democratic Presidential candidate just based on population increase and voter turn out. If not, he would certainly be high on the list.
** 2nd Update **
- For the people who constantly deride Foxnews despite having never watched it, they’ve seemed pretty excited and happy for Barack Obama all morning – even playing U2’s “Beautiful Day.”
@sportsguy33 Without Bias was pretty good until the odd anti-prison sentence campaigning 1 week ago
@sportsguy33 The NL. Where a team doesn't just go the whole year with a closer having a + 7.00 ERA, but they somehow make the World Series! 1 week ago
@DeaneOConnor I let Doug chew on my hand for about 20 min. He got so excited he humped my hand. Thought that only happens in Stiller movies. 1 week ago
