Dear Mormons, you’ve been given a rare second chance – don’t blow it

The Mormons have been given that rare second chance.

wife-1-x

After murdering love in California back in 2008, by singlehandedly saving Proposition 8 with a $20 million influx of Mormon cash, thus guaranteeing that millions of gays, statewide, would lose one of their most basic civil rights – the right to marry – the Mormons earned a well-deserved reputation as hateful, intolerant bullies.

wife-2-x

And it seemed to actually bother them, this new-found visceral loathing that growing segments of America were developing for anything “Mormon.”  Joe had written before about seeing Mormon missionaries on the street, and being just barely able to control the urge to yell at them.  I’ve had the same experience. Where I once felt indifference mixed with curiosity towards all things Mormon, now I know better through experience, and feel seething contempt.

Brigham Young's 10th wife.

Brigham Young’s 10th wife.

But then a funny thing happened. A Christmas miracle, of sorts. And the Mormons were given that second chance that so few rarely get. They were given the chance to undo the damage of California in their own backyard as a federal judge struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban, effectively legalizing same-sex weddings in the state.

Brigham Young's 15th wife.

Brigham Young’s 15th wife.

And the GOP/Mormon machine that runs Utah stepped into action, pulling out all stops to kill love once again.

Brigham Young's 20th wife.

Brigham Young’s 20th wife.

Rather than go through all the machinations by Utah’s GOP/Mormon’s governor, I’d like to rather focus on a series of editorials from the Mormon-owned newspaper, Deseret News.  First there was their editorial following the federal court ruling:

The essence of judicial tyranny is when a single, unelected federal judge declares the laws and constitution of an entire state null and void with an opinion clothed in the barest of legal precedent. It is true that state efforts to restrict marriage on the basis of race have run afoul of the federal constitutional protections against racial discrimination. But as we scour the legal landscape, we find no 10th Circuit or Supreme Court precedent that prevents Utah from adhering to a traditional definition of marriage. Nonetheless, Judge Shelby’s blithe mix-and-match approach to legal argumentation has, for the time being, created a new class of same-gender applicants deemed “married” under the Utah Constitution.

Oh the GOP talking points do run amuck. “Judicial tyranny,” the phrase most loved by a bigot. How dare the state not let me oppress my fellow man?

It’s ironic, of course, that Mormons, who have a history of being oppressed (and outright slaughtered – though they also enjoyed a good slaughter at their own hands) themselves, are now so enamored with the art of the slaughter. What the Mormons wouldn’t have given for a little judicial tyranny protecting their own people once upon a time. But no more. The Mormons are modern-day Amurikans now, and they can oppress and hate just as well as the next guy. In fact, they see hate as their civic duty.

Brigham Young's 25th wife.

Brigham Young’s 25th wife.

And let’s not even get into the risibility of Mormons lecturing the rest of us about the “traditional definition of marriage.” A definition they and their still-revered leaders didn’t traditionally even adhere to.

Brigham Young's 32nd wife.

Brigham Young’s 32nd wife.

Joseph Smith, the Mormon founder, had 34 wives. And a third of those women were married to other men at the same time they were married to Smith.

Brigham Young's 39th wife.

Brigham Young’s 39th wife.

Brigham Young, another key leader among Mormons, had 55 wives. So spare us the lies about the Mormon adherence to “traditional marriage.”

Brigham Young's 45th wife.

Brigham Young’s 45th wife.

Traditionally, Mormons were serial polygamists who had zero respect for any traditional view of marriage, whatever that even means, since marriage in America was traditionally a property relationship exclusively between two people of the same race.

Brigham Young's 49th wife.

Brigham Young’s 49th wife.

Not to be outdone, the Mormon-run Deseret News weighed in yesterday with yet another hate-filled editorial. Let’s share a bit of that, shall we:

But self-governance rests on more than just the outcome of votes or court orders. It relies on a deeply embedded culture of civility, thoughtful participation in public decision-making, faithful adherence to legal process and visionary leadership. None of those was swept away on Friday by federal court order.

wife-51

Brigham Young’s 51st wife.

As the fate of Amendment 3 moves forward through the appellate process, we acknowledge that there are people of good will on both sides of this contentious issue, and we appreciate that Utah’s culture of civility and respect will continue to guide how this issue is engaged. The spirit of can-do volunteerism and community spirit that unite our state must prevail through this difficult conversation.

Ah yes, the gay-basher’s universal call for “civility” as they’re beating the bejesus out of us. “Can’t we all just act like gentleman, while I tear apart your family and kick the crap out of your civil rights?” One wonders whether the lynch mob that assassinated Joseph Smith issued a call for civility as they repeatedly shot him in the back.

Here’s a bit more from Deseret:

Utah’s Amendment 3 may provide precisely the robust legal case that will, in the end, preserve to the states their right to define marriage to be exclusively between and man and a woman….

wife-52

Brigham Young’s 52nd wife.

[Utah Gov.] Herbert and [Attorney General Sean] Reyes, however, have both the opportunity and the willingness to take a full and vigorous legal fight forward. Building on the extraordinary social and economic results that we believe stems from Utah’s deep-seated support of the traditional family, Herbert and Reyes can shape a full-vetting of the complex issues involved in this vitally important debate in both the courts and in the court of public opinion. The vision, tone and rigor that they bring to this debate will provide much needed leadership, not just for Utah, but for the nation.

Right, because that’s what Utah, and the Mormons – and their already black-and-blue reputation – need right now. To provide leadership to America’s homophobes, and to be personally responsible for killing love nationwide.  Good luck with that.

brigham-young-55th-wife


(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)


CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

280 Responses to “Dear Mormons, you’ve been given a rare second chance – don’t blow it”

  1. Chr477 says:

    And….they squandered it.

  2. TWISTED SISTER says:

    Utah. Where we will spend 10s of Millions in court cases defending unconstitutional laws, that get passed by the legislature, and are no brainers (at least for anyone that has a functional brain). All of their attorney Brothers collecting hundreds of thousands for their efforts that are plain futile. (Unless of coarse they need a boost in their private election funds)
    All this money spent while our students get the pitiful amount known for being the least in our 50 states. We used to be ahead of Mississippi, but not any more.
    The media, it seems, is there only to stir the bucket to keep the public distracted so no one can see what else is going on.
    In Utah it seems that we have government for, The Wealthy Legislators for The Wealthy Legislators and their Brothers and Friends.
    OR just another day in Utah.
    Now everybody get back to work so we can pay the taxes to make this game possible!

  3. malibujd44 says:

    I soooo believe in KARMA and KARMA is exactly what they got and deserved.

  4. UncleBucky says:

    I have done 13 already today.

    And once you dead-baptize a Mormon gay.
    S/he stays that way.

    Thank you, I’ll be here all day.

  5. Hal says:

    Chris, I look at the subject of same-sex marriage like this. You can be on the side of kindness, or you can be on the side of cruelty. You get one life, and it’s over remarkably fast. Your choices count. Maybe at the end they are examined by a God, or maybe it’s just your (gay, married) grandchildren that try to figure out what you did and why.

  6. cantake8 says:

    It looks like “Straight Only” is going the same route as “White Only.” Some people aren’t going to like it and the rest of the nation looks at them like the idiots they are.

  7. cantake8 says:

    It’s a new joke to me and HILARIOUS!

  8. Inis_Magrath says:

    Actually, John, I very much hope that the governor and AG of Utah does put up a “full and vigorous legal fight” against the district court decision.We don’t need another Prop 8 Supreme Court decision tossing the appeal on account of lack of standing. We need the SCOTUS to be able to reach a full decision on the merits so they can finally rule unconstitutional all laws depriving LGBT people of their right to marriage. The only way we’ll get that is if some valid defendant, such as Utah, puts up a full and vigorous legal fight. I say to Utah, fight on! Then go to the Supreme Court and dramatically and completely lose!

  9. zorbear says:

    Maybe if you wore that shield that Spock wore in the “Is there no truth in beauty?” episode to keep from going insane when looking at the alien?
    :-P

  10. KingCranky says:

    Apparently what’s “too much to ask” is how same sex marriage physically harms heterosexual marriages, since that question hasn’t been answered by either yourself or the Mormon church.

    Replying without providing a logical answer, bearing out actual physical harm to heterosexual marriage from same sex marriages, only further proves that point, there’s no actual harm done.

  11. pappyvet says:

    In their tiny minds we are not. Works for me. ;]

  12. BlueIdaho says:

    My partner and I have lived in Idaho for 4 years and have never been visited by the cute Mormon boys that we see walking the neighborhood. We are beginning to wonder if we have a big red X over our door.

  13. BlueIdaho says:

    Here in Idaho, we call those “hit and runs”…and man can they run! :)

  14. UncleBucky says:

    Hahaha, I almost tromped on you, and then I edited to what you said here. Hahaha! Same thing here for me, too.

    Gee, I don’t understand Mormons and how they can evade clear and ethical thinking in light of their brainwashing!

  15. rmthunter says:

    That was the part that I found so funny. It hasn’t provided a “robust legal case” so far — in fact, it hasn’t provided a case at all.

  16. rmthunter says:

    I think ;you’ve missed the point that I and some others have been making (and granted, our comments may have been lost in the welter of responses vilifying your church; all I can suggest is that you try to ignore those commenters and not respond to them — they contribute nothing to the discussion), which is simply that the LDS Church, like any other church, is free to form its own doctrines on marriage and sexual morality. It is not free to impose those doctrines on the rest of us by writing them into civil law. This country is governed by the Constitution, not the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or any other religious text. The LDS’s justifications of its interference in the exercise of fundamental rights by gay and lesbian citizens of California, for example, ring hollow: I’m not Mormon; why, therefore, should I live under the rules of the LDS Church? Yes, I did follow the links. Now I know what the LDS Church’s position is on marriage, and I’m afraid my reaction is, So what?

    There are strict limits on the involvement of churches in politics, which, sadly, are almost never enforced. (There are documented instances of both the Archbishop of Boston and the Archbishop of Chicago calling legislators to lobby against gay-inclusive civil rights bills and marriage equality bills, which is over the line. Nothing was done, although complaints were filed.) For the LDS Church to funnel $20 million into an effort to strip citizens of a fundamental right should be over the line, although strictly speaking, it’s not — churches are allowed issue advocacy. The morality of that particular exercise, however, is open to question.

    Which leads to the right to express opinions. No one is arguing that (at least, no one who is paying attention to the issues in this thread). There are, however, always consequences: no one has the right to avoid criticism of his opinions. That’s the free marketplace of ideas in action: opinions stand or fall on the basis of their acceptance by the public at large. (And sometimes the rejection can be rather nasty. That’s why it takes a thick skin to live in a democracy.) In this case, Americans being basically decent people, opinions against the rights of gay and lesbian citizens, including the right to marriage, are falling.

    My ultimate question is: How can anyone who calls himself an American believe he has the right to impose his religious beliefs on the entire population through the force of civil law? The key point is that it’s not a matter of the substance of those beliefs, but the mere fact of trying to establish them as the law of the land.

  17. rmthunter says:

    Good point. I’ve come to the conclusion that “morality” has nothing to do with expecting others to live by rules one picks and chooses from one’s religious texts — it starts with empathy, compassion, and generosity and goes on from there.

  18. rmthunter says:

    Sorry — the replies are coming thick and fast, and I’ve been away from the computer (a rare occurrence indeed). In my case, “we” are the LGBT community (or communities — sometimes it’s hard to figure which).

  19. charles rivera says:

    Do tell, in your own words, why some Mormons oppose same sex marriage? And because Mormons are the “saviors of the Constitution which will hang by a thread”,please explain how your opposition to same sex marriage is constitutional or not.

  20. BeccaM says:

    The Mormon position of “protecting marriage” strongly resembles the Jim
    Crow south, where drinking fountains, bathrooms and restaurants used by
    Whites were kept “pure” by barring non-whites.

    You mean like their version of Heaven is said to be? According to Mormon doctrine, people of color aren’t allowed in the best parts, y’know.

  21. karmanot says:

    I don’t think I could bear it Z.

  22. karmanot says:

    yep

  23. karmanot says:

    “Sorry, didn’t know I was on a time limit.” Your fifteen minutes of fame are up sweet-pea.

  24. karmanot says:

    Historically, Mormonism is considered one of the most spectacular frauds of the 20th century. In another fifteen hundred years it may outshine the RCC.

  25. silas1898 says:

    Thanks. Happy New Year to all!

  26. karmanot says:

    “You sound like an intelligent guy.” Now, that is a legitimate subject for debate.

  27. karmanot says:

    I can just imagine you typing out that smarmy bit with a smiley face.

  28. karmanot says:

    And tell the cute one his zipper is undone.

  29. karmanot says:

    Much better, I agree.

  30. cantake8 says:

    And some scientists were jailed or executed for defying the church.

  31. Naja pallida says:

    The sad part is, scientific discovery in the pre-Christian era was quite remarkable. Educated people knew where the Sun went at night, they knew the Earth was round, they made incredible engineering feats, and traveled great distances. Of course, there were still religions trying to scare people and keep them controllable, but when Christianity swept across the civilized world we fell into a period often referred to as the Dark Ages.

  32. Naja pallida says:

    Okay, so why doesn’t the church allow incestuous marriage and polygamy? Those things are clearly acceptable in the Bible. Why don’t we stone people to death anymore? Why don’t we have slavery? All these things are condoned, even encouraged, in the Bible. One thing I’ve never seen in the Bible is the part where it says that you get to pick and choose which of the rules you get to follow. One of the things to always remain the same about religion is that they just make it up as they go along. Well, it’s time to morph again. You can either get on board, or get left behind. History has shown the Mormons to prefer to get on board, because it’s more profitable.

  33. Bomer says:

    ^_^

  34. Whitewitch says:

    Good one silas! Happy New Year!

  35. Bomer says:

    No one is stopping you from believing what you want. What we want is for you to stop trying to make us live according to your beliefs. Or, in other words, keep your religion out of our secular laws. You can play the martyr all you want but no one is buying your schtick.

  36. silas1898 says:

    Old joke: How do you stop a Mormon from drinking all of your beer? Invite 2 Mormons.

  37. silas1898 says:

    I understand your “religion” and I fully disagree with it. In the mid-70s, I attended a Mormon Devotional Service at the local LDS church.
    We were told it was a “wedding” that non-morman friends of the happy couple could attend. The real marriage was the sealing of the souls for eternity ceremony in the big temple in a few weeks.
    Non-Mormons were not allowed for that.
    After your quickie Christian-ish ceremony, The I promise, the I do’s. We all know the drill. It rapidly devolved into a multi-media recruiting presentation. Slides of happy couples and the tabernacle, then the film of Leni Riefenstahl esque aerial views of Utah. With the choir singing, of course.
    I was only 16 and uncomfortable, as seemed many of the other 40 odd people there, my parents included. After much bla, bla, bla, they got to the point.
    Some of you Christians may get into heaven, but we Mormons will be running the place. For God, of course. So you better join us and you can be a boss in heaven, too.
    They also suggested that you could then baptize your dead relatives and, if they had made it into heaven, they would get something like a “promotion”.
    Creepy and weird.
    Then we had bad white sheet cake and lemonade. Gifts were cheerfully accepted. This all occurred in NW New Jersey.
    To top this all off, the guy is now out and proud, but somehow claims to still be Mormon. A family member found his Facebook page.

  38. karmanot says:

    Oh yeah!

  39. karmanot says:

    “God loves each of us– gay, straight, sinner, saint.” My dear, there is no god. Didn’t you read that article in Archeological Digest about the inscription found in Jerusalem which stated that Christmas had to be called off because the birth was a miscarriage.

  40. cantake8 says:

    It was a jock strap the last time.

  41. karmanot says:

    Wearing a thong for Jesus—-great idea C :-)

  42. karmanot says:

    Way to go Becca! If only Missy Mormon had stuck around to know she got her ass kicked big time.

  43. Whitewitch says:

    No…yucky ….no more mormons as gays…they spoil the whole party.

  44. karmanot says:

    I think the tide is finally turning, because millions of us are baptizing dead Mormons into gays.

  45. The_Fixer says:

    Again, I hear calls for tolerance. Fine, we’ll be tolerant of your religious beliefs, as long as they stay in the church.

    But they haven’t stayed there, have they? There was a concerted effort on the part of the LDS to deny people the right to marry, based on religious teachings.

    Do you not understand the concept of the separation of church and state? You are entitled to believe what you want (even if it baffles me). You are not entitled to make those beliefs laws. You are not entitled to deprive people of civil rights because those rights are believed to be at odds with your religion.

    You say that you are not asking me to believe in your religion. When you try and codify your beliefs into law, that’s exactly what you are asking – in fact, demanding.

    Again, you are ignoring the issue at hand – civil marriage for same-sex couples – and refuse to articulate a sensible argument that is not based on religious dogma or just plain hilariously bad information.

    And by the way, same-sex relationships are not a “lifestyle”. They are the product of love, like the love you so ardently declare Mormons have for all of humanity. We are born attracted to people of the same sex. Living in a gated community is a lifestyle. I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of hearing my essence being boiled down to nothing but a “lifestyle choice” when in fact, there was nothing to choose. It’s highly offensive to me when you say that.

    While it may be fair to say that some do not have an educated view of the LDS church, that’s really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things and is nothing more than distracter from the issue here – the LDS church attempting to codify their beliefs.

  46. AdamK says:

    It’s a wonder they didn’t invent the burqa right then.

  47. Whitewitch says:

    Chris – no one wants to be married in your “Church”…you are safe from the marauding hordes of gay men and women who you believe are pounding on the temple doors to be let in to be married by your elders.

    Children (those under 18) are always exceptions to laws, and the laws protecting them from sex with adults stand – not because they are not equal but because they are BELOW the age of consent. Well maybe not in your church, but out here in the real world we believe that one must be of an age to consent to such things and that is not before the 18th year of their life.

    Polygamy – IMHO – go for it. I don’t care how many wives you have, but you better be prepared to let your womenfolk have multiple husbands because that is equality under the law.

    So when you start down your very slippery slop, please please please use the “reasonable man/woman” principle in your statements – okay.

    Everyone should in fact be treated equally – ADULTS…not children, not cats, not dogs….not whatever ugliness you can create in your head that is the harbinger of the end of the world.

  48. Naja pallida says:

    They have always been directly involved in political issues. From day one. Their whole point was to move into an area, and take over the political and financial processes of the community, and remold it to benefit them and only them.

  49. Naja pallida says:

    They were often disliked because they would move to an area en-masse, and impose their will on that community. By voting as a bloc they took over town councils, and imposed their own beliefs the people who were already there. Then whenever a Mormon got himself into legal trouble, the church would have a fund raiser, and they would just buy their way out of it. Not to mention, their illegal banking ventures that resulted in the need of Smith to flee to Missouri. Where he stirred up even more trouble, this time violent, earning him a treason charge. Then he fled to Illinois, where he was again charged with treason. They managed to get people in positions of power in the Illinois government, and used that to protect themselves. Granting themselves a city charter that gave virtually open-ended powers to the city to act as an autonomous entity – and giving them the ability to deny the laws of the state at will. All the while they always billed themselves as an oppressed minority and victims (like they still do), and actively lobbied anyone with any political or financial power who would listen, to protect them. Smith was a petty man, who excommunicated anyone who disagreed with him… or just people who objected to him proposing to their wives.

  50. Stev84 says:

    As long as the Mormons try to write their religious beliefs into the law, they aren’t “tolerating” any other point of view.

  51. UncleBucky says:

    Your sky god does not exist, babe. So therefore it is meaningless that such a constructed deity loves one or another person.

    What counts is, my dear, YOUR CULT staying out of my business.

  52. UncleBucky says:

    Protect marriage from what? From Divorce. From Poverty. From Interference by people of certain bigoted and interfering faiths, such as the Mormon cult. Anyway, yeah, we need to protect marriage – our marriages, whoever we are, from outside unearned interference.

  53. Whitewitch says:

    So sorry Kent…as a Mom – I can not understand how a mother would ever be able to not see her son, love him and have him call.

  54. UncleBucky says:

    Nah. Go away.

  55. UncleBucky says:

    Right. It’s a contract. And has nothing to do with anyone’s religion. Yet it must be equal to any other marriage contract. Yep.

  56. Whitewitch says:

    WARNING warning – Laugh alert…you made me blow coffee through my nose! Thanks for the morning giggle Bomer.

  57. UncleBucky says:

    To be civil after what your moronic cult did to us time and again?

    Be serious, chuckles.

  58. UncleBucky says:

    Ironic? No, it’s funny. And you’re the butt of the joke. Stop replying. Hahhaha!

  59. UncleBucky says:

    After all those responses, you chose (or your call center manager) chose Hal’s response?

    Hahhahaahaahahahahaahhahaha Cult.

  60. Stev84 says:

    A Mormon being worried about polygamy. The hypocrisy is mindboggling.

  61. UncleBucky says:

    Answer to your last question:

    No. Your treatment is not equal. Therefore you will not be treated equally, just as we don’t treat criminals equal to law-abiding citizens.

  62. UncleBucky says:

    Yep, let’s tax the Mormon business cult beyond the point that all of its leaders eyes’ bulge out and they fall over…

  63. UncleBucky says:

    Yay. Gary did good!

    Let’s hope that the LDS gets Karma with whipped cream and a maraschino cherry on top! Haha!

  64. Whitewitch says:

    Apparently Julie was just a drive-by Morman and could not stay for the responses….so like the intolerant to rant and run.

    Excellent post BeccaM. Someday – when I grow up I hope to have such a good stream of writing in response to people who like Julie prefer to live in blind obedience. I wish she had read this – it might have opened her eyes..

  65. Stev84 says:

    You aren’t just “disagreeing”! You are trying to force others to share your views by the force of law.

    If you disagreed, you would only apply your beliefs to yourself and let others be.

  66. cantake8 says:

    Your Mormon church has given you a treat: their reprehensible actions covered in words that do not match. Plainly, you have been served a candy coated TURD, and you savor every bite, choosing not to recognize the mismatch.

    You and your religion don’t offend. But your willful stupidity about your church and the quaint way you serve it up balance somewhere between pitiful and sinister.

  67. UncleBucky says:

    Bingo.

  68. UncleBucky says:

    Yep, bravo. Time to rout the Mormon war on humanity, as it were! Since humanity is MORE than Mormon white privilege (regardless how they have tried to paint and patch their earlier views)…

  69. UncleBucky says:

    Right, free speech is not without costs.

    So if Chris espouses “free speech” there are consequences, don’t we know!

  70. UncleBucky says:

    There never was a discussion started by Julia. And it seems with Chris.

    There is no negotiation with bigots and bullies, namely, the Mormon cult.

  71. UncleBucky says:

    And if the Mormon cult teaches positions on political issues….

    Tax ’em until their President/Apostle’s eyes bulge out and he falls over…

  72. Stev84 says:

    This so not a “disagreement”, you disgusting scumbag.

    A disagreement would be “I disagree with same-sex marriage, so I’m not going to get gay married”.

    What the Mormons (and many other Christians for that matter) do is “I disagree with same-sex marriage, so no one should get gay married and I will spend millions and lots of my time to make sure that my personal religious beliefs are written into laws that apply to everyone”

  73. Stev84 says:

    Mormonism has many typical cult characteristics:

    * an all powerful leader who speaks for god and has to be obeyed
    * a huge emphasize on money and tithing
    * they monopolize people’s time and make their whole social life revolve around the church
    * shunning of apostates and non-Mormons (who can’t enter the temple for example)
    * extreme intrusion into people’s private lives, like interrogating them about their sex lives (even children)
    * they hide information about the cult’s history from their followers. Certain things aren’t taught and research into it is heavily discouraged

  74. Julia Allred says:

    This is my 2nd response. You can read my first one on Chris’ comment above.

    You want an explanation? Here it is. Mormons are told, as anyone else who believes the bible, to love one another. We are not told to embrace the lifestyles of everyone on earth and accept their ideas as our own. I’m grateful to live in a country where we can practice our religious beliefs. I’m grateful for the right to vote. I’m not trying to impose my views on anyone. If I am expected to tolerate different view points, shouldn’t it work both ways? I’m not telling you to believe in my religion. Just don’t pretend to know more about my religion than I do.

    God loves each of us– gay, straight, sinner, saint. The same right that is allowing gays to marry is the same right that I have to practice my religion. I am grateful to live in the USA.

    By the way, the lds church does not allow plural marriage, marrying your cousins” etc. The numerous comments I’ve received about these things simply proves my point that people are making uninformed judgements about myself and my religion. I truly hope this comment doesn’t offend anyone. Happy holidays! :)

  75. UncleBucky says:

    Ah, so good. I must be tired. I could never have done as well as Becca!

    Right, we don’t have “talk with Mormons” anymore. They have put their nonsense in plain print. All we have to do is daylight them, oppose them and show them for the bigots they really are.

    Remember, Mormons, you’re a bigot if you stay with the LDS. If you leave, you’re possibly on the mend.

  76. UncleBucky says:

    Bingo! :)

  77. UncleBucky says:

    Why is it that when the victim of the bully fights back, the bully puts on a fake lambskin and starts crying against the “bully” who fought back?

    The LDS is nothing but a cruel cult. And that’s my stand, as I’ve experienced it. Yes, they do use fake lambskins to appear to be unbiased, but if you go against any of their golden calves, bingo, you get beaten up (verbally or otherwise).

    Let’s do an experiment. If two people want to marry and they appear opposite-gendered, the Mormons applaud. If those two appear same-gendered, Mormons get all itchy and they start striking out. Sure, some do it more than others, but it’s the “Official Mormon Voice” that counts. And we know what that voice says.

    Ain’t buying it, Julia.

  78. UncleBucky says:

    Errrr, let’s be careful here and say who “we” are. I’m gettin’ confused who is who! :D

  79. Julia Allred says:

    Thank you for sharing this, Chris. Obviously my simple comment on this ignorant and sarcastic article has been taken the wrong way by people who are determined to disagree with a religion they do not fully understand. Thank you for interpreting my original comment correctly.

    Disagreeing with someone does not make a person intolerant. It just means that you disagree.

    I will not be responding to snarky comments. You believe what you want and let me do the same. :) happy holidays!

  80. Naja pallida says:

    The LDS Church has changed its fundamental beliefs multiple times to accommodate civil society, and the world didn’t come to an end. In fact, it was quite profitable for them. Eventually, this will be no different.

  81. UncleBucky says:

    Tough luck, Mormons. Now go find another scapegoat for your own problems of self-image. Might be your founder that you need to ceremonially dispatch finally.

  82. cantake8 says:

    Bravo rmthunter!
    If one sticks his toe into a mouse trap and it springs shut, don’t blame the lawn mower.

  83. cantake8 says:

    Empathy is a deficit of conservatism.

  84. cantake8 says:

    SNAP!

  85. cantake8 says:

    Especially when they’re selling nothing for the low low price of your suspension of disbelief.

  86. cole3244 says:

    some in the world still treat their women this way, we are advanced compared to some anyway.

  87. The_Fixer says:

    Great! Sometimes you just want to get on with your daily life and not have to deal with religious salespeople.

  88. cole3244 says:

    as many times as the number of wives allowed over the years.

  89. cole3244 says:

    as many times as the number of wives allowed over the years.

  90. cole3244 says:

    there are exceptions to every rule and you just named two.

  91. The_Fixer says:

    Ha! Great work! Nothing fights religion like fact.

  92. The_Fixer says:

    Ok, you’ve cited a few links as to the LDS’s position on SSM.

    The reasoning seems to be that marriage needs to be protected. The question has always been “from what?”.

    There has been legal same-sex civil marriage for a very long time in Massachusetts. Heterosexual people are still enjoying marriage in that state. No one has attempted to marry an animal. Other states have done the same thing, with the same results. So it would appear that there is no danger to what has been called “traditional marriage”. So this point fails on logic and social experience.

    What we are left with is a religious objection to civil marriage. That’s not how we run things in this country – religions are free to believe what they wish, but are not allowed to set public policy. Which is what the LDS church, and other churches, are trying to do. They developed a public campaign to enact Proposition 8 in California. On what basis?

    The basis seems to be that SSM is “ungodly” and yucky. Logic has not entered into it at all, the nation’s experience with SSM has been neutral and even positive.

    That’s why people are calling the LDS church a hive of bigotry – there’s no logical reason for them to object to SSM. It’s all based on nebulous ideas solely based on church teachings and no logic, and couched in terms like “The Divine Insttitution of Marriage.” There’s no inherent logical reason for same-sex couples to be denied civil marriage. None. What we are left with is dogma based on the feeling that we are yucky. That’s why we call this stance bigoted.

    I’ll grant you that some of the rhetoric seen here is harsh. I think some of it has been earned, though. We’ve been on the short end of the stick for a very long time and you can’t expect people who have been beaten with that stick (sometimes literally) to be eternally patient, can you?

  93. therling says:

    Tell them you’re an apostate and you’ll be amazed at how fast they disappear.

  94. cantake8 says:

    Advantage: Fixer!
    A couple of nice Black ladies approached me as I walked to work. They were JW’s. I said, “Ladies, your Lord doesn’t like me, I’m gay. But you should also study your church, because they didn’t like Black people for much of the 20th Century and considered you inferior, fit to be servants, suffering the curse of Ham in your hearts.”

    As I walked away, they looked like someone had cold-cocked them both.

  95. Bomer says:

    My mother had a friend that did something like that. She was working on a college essay about cults, if I remember right, and when she was interrupted by some folks selling Jesus. She told them she was busy and they asked if they could leave her some pamphlets to read. Her friend’s response was, “Sure, but only if you take one of mine.” They smiled and agreed and her friend handed them some of her research material…it was on Satanism. She was never bothered by any of them again.

  96. cantake8 says:

    Yeah, that story underscores how troubled religion is. Frank said in his statement that he loves his son, was honored when he came out to him, and would marry him all over again.

    Apparently a majority of American Methodists support marriage equality, but the issue is pulled back into the middle ages by African membership. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future.

  97. The_Fixer says:

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses took me off of their list. Never see one any more.

    They had the bad habit of showing up when I was working on my car. With today’s modern cars, that often involves a stream of profanity. They somehow avoided that part of the spectacle known as me working on my car, and would show up in the calmer moments.

    As soon as they started in, I would in no uncertain terms let them know of my atheism, and would spend a lot of time relating pertinent biblical history. When they’d start talking about the Ten Commandments, I’d let them know that it’s origin was largely considered to be the Code of Hammurabi. When they’d start talking about their god creating humankind, I’d ask them why he would need to do such a thing. And on and on. For every one of their presumed “gotcha” moments, I’d shoot them down in flames.

    The first guy was flummoxed, and gave up, telling me that he would pray for me. I followed him out to his car and continued talking while he was shaking his head. He couldn’t leave fast enough. My roommates had been listening at the window and were most amused.

    The next year, they sent not one, but two guys. One was clearly an old hand, the other apparently was told “watch and learn”. The only thing he learned is that you can’t fight logic with blind faith and the most illogical and contradictory book ever written, the bible.

    Since he left unsuccessful, I have never been bothered by Witnesses. I am free to work on my car, and to cuss the engineers who have never picked up a screwdriver in their lives. Kinda nice, actually.

  98. ArthurH says:

    Hear hear! I noted an item buried in The Wall Street Journal on December 20 of how the United Methodist Church defrocked Pennsylvania minister Frank Schaefer for the “crime” of officiating over the gay marriage of his son. The marriage took place in Massachusetts in 2007 but the Methodist officials didn’t get wind of it until last September. They ordered Schaefer to resign but he argued he did nothing wrong. So the officials defrocked him and booted him from the religion be had served for nearly 40 years. I mean, if you can’t stand by your own son…

  99. cantake8 says:

    You’ve nailed it. There was a reporter on NPR and I can’t quite remember the topic, but he pointed out the common mental fallacy of leaving out the majority when considering topics: “race” means “Black,” “gender” means “female,” “equality” means “gay,” and “faith based” means “Christian.”

  100. cantake8 says:

    Knowledge is the enemy of religion.
    Most religions were in great shape when people didn’t know where the Sun went at night.

  101. Buford says:

    Good point… can we assume that God supported this decision, since a decision in their favor would have certainly been attributed to His divine involvement…?

  102. Buford says:

    Great comment, but I can’t even get far enough into their logic to focus on the hypocrisy that you so eloquently highlighted. Instead, I can’t get past the fundamental ridiculousness of spouting ‘support for traditional marriage’ as a reason to prohibit gay marriages… since the two have NO impact upon one another.

  103. olandp says:

    “‘I don’t really care what justification you have for trying to rip apart our marriages’- sounds like the discussion is over.”

    That’s because it is.

  104. Dave of the Jungle says:

    The Mountain Meadows Massacre does come to mind.

  105. olandp says:

    Perhaps you could explain to us, the concept of “lying for the lord.”

  106. Houndentenor says:

    Exactly. I’m not Mormon. Why should Mormons get to tell me what I can and can’t do?

  107. Houndentenor says:

    All of it is just made up superstition. In the case of Mormonism we know that a convicted con-artist named Joseph Smith made it up. The other religions are old enough so that we don’t know who made up those stories. That’s the only difference. A cult is just a religion that hasn’t lasted long enough to be “respectable” and therefore above criticism by rational people.

  108. Houndentenor says:

    How can we have a civil discussion if you aren’t willing to accept me as entitled to equal rights under the law? I don’t think much of your religion but I would be against laws that restricted your right to believe as you do. Obviously that attitude is not reciprocal since you are against equal rights for gay people, so your belly-aching is not terribly welcome here.

  109. Houndentenor says:

    Black people were limited as to how high they could go in the church until 1979. I know bigotry when I see it. I know quite a bit about the Mormon church. The more I know, the less impressed I am by the shiny veneer and toothy smiles from its adherents.

  110. Houndentenor says:

    Not just the wealthy ones! One of my acquaintances was hounded endlessly at church because he hadn’t donated to Prop 8 (and wasn’t going to).

  111. Houndentenor says:

    Imagine that gays were spending millions to enshrine discrimination against Mormons into state Constitutions. Now, how does it sound. “But we’re just expressing out point of view” wouldn’t be a very convincing argument to you, now would it. Try a little empathy. Imagine you are gay and how you would feel.

  112. Houndentenor says:

    I have an acquaintance (not quite friends but friendly) who is Mormon, married with kids, but a very good ally to his gay friends and colleagues. He was threatened back in 2008 because he had not donated to the Prop 8 campaign. He told them he wouldn’t and told them why. They kept coming back. This is the reality of the Mormon church. There is a lot of pressure on folks that don’t follow the teachings on political issues.

  113. Houndentenor says:

    All the Mormons I talk to are in favor of gay marriage. Perhaps my sample of opera-singing Mormons living in big cities is not representative of the religion as a whole.

  114. Houndentenor says:

    Don’t be so quick to give Mormons a pass because they were so mistreated in the past. Yes, they often were. They just as often turned around and were just as horrid to other people.

  115. lynchie says:

    Religions are all about fund raising, especially the catholics. They say you can buy your way into heaven and love to raise fear in their flocks about getting through the pearly gates.

  116. rmthunter says:

    What you’re missing here is that those opposing same-sex marriage have not been able to come up with reasons outside of religious bias, which by definition is not rational. I can’t see that it’s bigoted to reject an argument that rests solely on prejudice. I don’t personally agree with the name-calling, but I do take into account that people’s lives have been damaged by the Church’s actions.

    As for the LDS Church being hateful, aside from generating $20 million to take away a fundamental right from same-sex couples, the tone of the editorials from Deseret News should give you a hint.

  117. Bomer says:

    I really want to get one of those books that looks like a bible but you prime them with flash paper so that when you open it the inside bursts into flame. Then the Jehovah’s Witnesses show up (it’s always them for me) and they try to talk to me about Jesus I can tell them, “I would love to but I have a problem. Every time I open one of these things this happens. ::FOOM!::”

  118. rmthunter says:

    “If your motives are truly to provide equal marriage opportunities for
    all, then this in theory includes all of the groups I mentioned above.”

    No, it doesn’t. The assumption in marriage law is that we’re dealing with adults who are qualified to marry. As I pointed out above, there are rational restrictions on the marriage of minors and incestuous marriages, and historical justification for forbidding polygamy. Wild surmises in this area don’t contribute to the discussion in any way. On the other side, there are no rational justifications for forbidding the marriage of two persons of the same sex. Opponents have tried again and again to come up with rational arguments, and they all devolve down to religious bias, which is not a justification for withholding fundamental rights.

    A lot of the problem, I think, comes from what is touted as “the” definition of marriage, which is really only “a” definition of marriage grounded in religious doctrine. (There are, in fact, a couple of human societies that don’t recognize marriage at all.) I much prefer Joseph W. Campbell’s definition, which has the virtue of being grounded in reality: “Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household.” That’s one that seems to hold true across cultures and throughout history.

  119. HeartlandLiberal says:

    I really did not know about the history of Joseph Smith’s death. Your post today sent me to the Google, and I landed at a Wikipedia article worth quoting from to contrast with the pious and hypocritical vapidity of the quotes from the Utah newspapers above.

    The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on June 27, 1844, marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. When he was attacked and killed by a mob, Smith was the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States.[1] He was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois, on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition claimed Smith was practicing polygamy and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic
    king. Smith voluntarily surrendered to the authorities at the county
    seat at Carthage to face the charges that he was accused of. While he
    was in jail awaiting trial an armed mob of men with painted faces
    stormed the jail and shot him and his brother Hyrum to death. The Latter Day Saints view Joseph and Hyrum as martyrs.

    Several of Smith’s disaffected associates at Nauvoo and Hancock County, Illinois, joined together to publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its first and only issue was published June 7, 1844.[2]:v6,p430
    Some of these associates alleged that Smith tried to marry their wives.
    About eight of Smith’s wives were also married to other men (four were
    Mormon men in good standing, who in a few cases acted as a witness in
    Smith’s marriage to his wife) at the time they married Smith. Typically,
    these women continued to live with their first husband, not Smith. Some
    accounts say Smith may have had sexual relations with one wife, who
    later in her life stated that he fathered children by one or two of his
    wives,[3] although the reliability of these sources is disputed.[4]
    The bulk of the paper was devoted to three main criticisms of Smith: (1) The opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had fallen by advocating polygamy, exaltation and other controversial doctrines; (2) the opinion that Smith, as both Mayor of Nauvoo
    and President of the Church, held too much power, which was further
    consolidated by the overwhelmingly Mormon make-up of Nauvoo’s courts and
    city council, and wanted to establish a theocracy via the Council of Fifty; and (3) the belief that Smith had corrupted women by forcing, coercing or introducing them into plural marriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith

  120. rmthunter says:

    1) Red herring, and more than a little simplistic. The point is, there are rational reasons for restricting marriage in certain circumstances, such as age and degree of consanguinity. I find the objections of Mormons and Christians in general to polygamy to be somewhat disingenuous, given the historical context, but there, also, polygamy is an institution that has proven to be open to abuse. (And in that regard, minors have the right not to be abused or to be bartered off as property, for which there is ample Biblical precedent.) The general principle of equal treatment under the law is pretty much cut and dried, but like all legal principles, it is a generality. Legislatures and courts get to deal with the specifics.

    2) Again, red herring. Churches have very robust Constitution guarantees in this country against government interference in their beliefs and practices (although human and animal sacrifice is still frowned upon). This “argument” is not an argument at all, since churches are under no threat of having the government intrude on their beliefs, doctrines, or practices.

    Your last question, on examination, is completely meaningless — what does it mean to ask if those who do not favor gay marriage will be given equal treatment? To do what — not marry a person of the same sex? (And despite what you hear from the likes of Bryan Fischer or Mat Staver, no one is going to be forced to do that.) There’s not a lot of clarity here. Perhaps you’d care to explain exactly what you mean.

  121. rmthunter says:

    I’m reminded of the Louisiana state legislator who supported Jindal’s school voucher program including religious schools until a Muslim school applied to the program. She though “religious” meant “Christian.”

    That’s the level of mental acuity we’re dealing with here.

  122. samNH says:

    I would agree with that. Accountability is not something the LDS is very good about. All donations go to the headquarters and there is no accounting to the local church or at any other level that the top corporate executives. I have read that the charitable work amounts to less than 1% of the annual take, and mostly it goes to other Mormons. Much goes to building more temples and proselytizing, though the young missionaries have to pay their own way. I guess it’s spent on Books of Mormon and other glossy publications. I have also read that their numbers are falling as more people in the internet age come to understand that the LDS is a fraud and a con, and that the BoM is a fantasy.

  123. rmthunter says:

    In other words, “If you object to our trying to incorporate our bigotry into civil law, then you’re a bigot.”

    We’ve heard the opposing viewpoints, ad nauseam, and we’ve heard the “rational” arguments against same-sex marriage (as well as gay civil rights in general), and they all boil down to a push for the supremacy of religious doctrine over civil law.

    The LDS Church, like any other entity (after all, “Corporations are people, my friend.”), is free to express its viewpoint. The rest of us are free to criticize that viewpoint in whatever terms we deem appropriate. What the LDS Church is not free to do is to violate my Constitutional rights in the name of religion. If the backlash hurts, well, every action has consequences.

  124. rmthunter says:

    So enlighten us, rather than just moaning about how awful we are.

  125. rmthunter says:

    That last quote from Deseret News is actually funny, considering the lame arguments the state has presented all along.

    I suspect the Mormons are going to dig in their heels on this one. It’s one thing to have a revelation about treating gays equally in the workplace or in public accommodations, but they have a lot invested in their own definition of marriage, and, as is usual with patriarchal, authoritarian religions, it rests on procreation. They’re not going to shift on that very easily.

  126. cantake8 says:

    Playing stupid is not the same as playing devil’s advocate. Your “questions” don’t apply to law-abiding couples seeking the benefits and protections of legally recognized marriage.