Mormon church vandalized

This is shameful. Proposition 8 was decided by the democratic process, for good or for bad, and this kind of uncivil behavior should not be tolerated. Just as it should never be tolerated when it is pointed the other direction.

Author: CoolDMZ

"X-ray vision to see in between / Where's my kimono and my time machine?"

46 thoughts on “Mormon church vandalized”

  1. You know, typically, I’d agree. But you can’t mess with a person’s rights and expect to maintain diplomacy. The Mormons came on strong for Prop 8, so they’ve become the face of it.

    I have a feeling we have not seen anything yet.

    Like

  2. Dave and Tara, what a dumb response. The right of religious groups and individuals to express their viewpoints is something that has been upheld in this country from its beginning; it is a cornerstone of a free society. To legitimize criminal action against a church because its viewpoints differ from yours is hypocritical given your purported concern for discrimination. With regard to Prop. 8, the interests at stake are purely semantic. I don’t deny that semantics have importance, but practically speaking no additional rights will be conferred on gay couples when domestic partnerships are referred to as marriages. So your hypocrisy in this case is especially lame, given that you’re willing to advocate infringement on free religious expression for the sake of a label.

    Like

  3. heymeg,

    Your assertion that domestic partnerships are afforded the same legal benefits as marriage is incorrect. If you researched both legal unions you would know that. This is more about equality than semantics.

    Like

  4. Julio, without an ounce of sarcasm I’m very interested in your comment. As I considered Prop 8 I found it hard to discover any substantive rights that would be changed. None of the materials from the No on 8 folks pointed to any. Would you be willing to describe how substantive rights would be changed by calling domestic partnerships marriages?

    Like

  5. This nation is founded on standing up for your rights. Just because %50 of CA is stuck in the 1950’s and it’s still PC to hate on gays doesn’t mean that people who feel that their rights have been compromised shouldn’t fight for what they believe in. The yes on 8 crew’s entire campaign is based in hate, so why shouldn’t the no on 8 fight back against the hate?

    Like

  6. And cool, why is spray painting a sign shameful? I would argue that this entire thing had no right to be decided by the “democratic process”. This is about treating people fairly and justly. I’m sure if you would have polled nazi germany on whether they should slaughter 1000s of jewish people more then 50% would have said yes, that doesn’t make it right.

    Like

  7. You’re not seriously likening your objection to the legal title for gay partnerships to the holocaust are you? How absurd and ignorant.

    Like

  8. Except that when my wife voted she was approach by someone outside the polling place that had a sign saying “no on 8” and she was a survivor of the holocaust. Her exact reason for being out there on a cold day was to make sure that discrimination like they had in Germany didn’t still go on today. So don’t take my viewpoint take someone’s who has lived it.

    I really don’t understand your point though. What is the difference and where does it stop. Last I checked if you were a christian it is a sin to not believe that jesus christ is your savior. And if the argument from Christians and Mormons is that gays shouldn’t marry because it’s a sin then where does it stop? Muslims can’t marry, atheist’s can’t marry. If religion and the idea that one type of person is better then the other wasn’t in play in this argument then there wouldn’t even be an argument. PEOPLE SHOULDN”T BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY LAW! It’s an elementary thought and only those that are full of hate and bigotry could think otherwise.

    Like

  9. Lunar, not all Christian religions believe it is a “sin” to not be a Christian.

    Catholics, for example, do not.

    Like

  10. Prop 8 opponents shouldn’t have had their sign painted. But the paint does wash off. (FYI: B’nai Israel, which supports and performs same sex marriages, also got tagged).

    Mormons (and others) should not have taken away people’s civil rights. Who knows if they can get those rights back.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right–but some wrongs are far worse than others.

    @HeyMeg:

    Learn more about why civil unions are not marriages, and how they do not afford the same protections and privileges; the federal DOMA (“Defense of Marriage Act”) complicates the picture somewhat, but attaining the status of married is an absolutely necessary step to full equality:

    http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

    http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

    http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

    And lastly, why in heck should a CIVIL (not religious) marriage be denied to some people but not others? There is not a single LOGICAL reason for the government to support a separate system.

    Like

  11. lunar: We’re talking about a constitutional amendment here. Surely a constitutional amendment should be decided by democratic processes.

    Like

  12. The democratic process should not be used to undermine individual rights (especially those of a minority group that will likely not have the votes to defend itself). That’s mob rule, and it destroys the balance afforded by the constitution and our democratic process.

    If it’s just semantics, why bring the proposition at all? It’s legalized discrimination, something that should bother ALL Americans.

    Personally, if I was being discriminated against by a majority that held a different view, I’d be all kinds of pissed. If my entire family was being marginalized by this discrimination… well, there’s no telling how far I’d go to make my point.

    Like

  13. Dave, semantics have value but I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. What besides semantics is at stake here? Are any substantive rights affected? That’s not rhetorical, it’s something I haven’t been able to hear answered by any anti-8 folks and I would like to know.

    Like

  14. Lunar, tragically many homosexual people were also murdered during the holocaust. So we can do an actual comparison and see that argument over the term for legal union between such folks is nothing like the holocaust, during which such folks were murdered. Get a grip.

    Like

  15. The US Constitution cannot be amended with out a 2/3 majority. Seems criminal to subject 50% of the population to the whims of the other 50%. It’s a serious business adding an amendment to the constitution, that’s why it’s been so infrequently. Maybe California should think about that for a while…

    And, yes, vandalizing a place of worship is very stupid. I would hope people wouldn’t paint the entire community because of of one (unnamed, unidentified and possibly not gay or gay-loving) vandal.

    Hey Meg – yes, even though domestic partnerships are very comprehensive in California there are substantive differences. If you really cared about the differences, you are pretty adept with Google, I’m sure. I’ll cite one example, if a DP’d couple leaves, say for a job transfer to another state, their union is unrecognized. This puts in peril health, family, and probate issues. Until marriage is conferred on gays in many, many states, we don’t have a shot at Federal recognition, which is where the big issues lie – including Social Security, pensions, taxes, etc. Make it about money if you will, but these are things automatically granted “married” couples in this country and when they aren’t granted to our families (for which we still pay the tax for), our families are in peril.

    Like

  16. Without sounding ungrateful for the good info and discussions about the issue, I would like to bring us back to the conversation about the church vandalism. Will other groups who largely supported this measure also be targeted? (You see where this is going, right?)

    However I’d also like to acknowledge that there was widespread civil protest this weekend and we should all hope that cooler heads prevail on both sides.

    Like

  17. Cool – Surely, a democratic process doesn’t strip a segment of its citizens of rights based almost exclusively on religious principles.

    And, let’s talk about that vandalism. One crackpot vandalizes a church-totally wrong. Thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians in this country have lost jobs, housing, family, been beaten, bashed, and murdered (and I’m not talking about the Holocaust). Where exactly ARE you going with this? I’m very interested.

    Like

  18. by the way it appears that amendments to the CA Constitution by initiative require only a simple majority. If folks desire to change that, perhaps they should amend the constitution, using only a simple majority, to require a super-majority. That just broke my brain.

    Like

  19. Hahn it seems we agree that the actors in this incident are crackpots. Bringing about tolerance by attacking a minority group for its views is just plain ridiculous. As I said I hope (and assume) that cooler heads will prevail. Also, trading numbers about mistreatment throughout American history is probably a loser approach for the No on 8 community as well.

    Like

  20. Heymeg, the people both for and against prop 8 do not view it as a semantics issue; therefore, it’s not really a viable point of departure for debate, if we’re to discuss why someone would be motivated into vandalizing a church.

    Like

  21. Brought up only as a counterpoint to figuring out where you were going with this. However, I don’t think a reminder hurts anyone, regardless of their affinity for the community – even for ourselves in the community.

    And, I whole-heartedly agree that the next change in our constitution should be managed just as you say. We’re working on it.

    Like

  22. @CoolDMZ:

    Argh. This is why we need civics instruction in our schools again.

    Fundamental civil rights, such as equal protection, simply cannot be subject to popular vote.

    The judiciary branch of our government (state and federal) exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The court should repeal Prop 8 with all due speed–as it has laws that infringed on other groups’ civil rights throughout our history.

    BTW, the widespread civil protests over the past several days have been loud– and predominantly peaceful. Cooler heads DID prevail; one can be royally pissed off at injustice, and still be cool-headed. The protests will continue: http://www.equalityactionnow.org.

    Like

  23. Vegadelic: Thanks for the kind offer to teach be about civics. Maybe we can meet up for a burger and you can tell me everything you know šŸ˜‰

    But seriously, I think your definition is a bit skewed… surely the purpose of a judiciary branch is to interpret the law and ensure that it is applied fairly. The lower courts are responsible for adjudicating disputes, regardless of where they originate. The CA supreme court may well repeal the amendment, which would most likely be appealed to the 9th circuit, which may insist on it being weirder before they will consider it, for example also bestowing marriage rights on fawns and elves.

    Like

  24. I repeat: protection of minority interests is IN PART why the judiciary exists in our government in its present form.

    See: J. S. Mill, de Toqueville, A. Hamilton, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and our very own Perez v. Sharp.

    Thus endeth the lesson. I’m off to eat a bean burger.

    P.S. So, comparsion of this government’s homophobic policies to other governments’ homophobic policies is [i]verboten[/i], but comparing gays and lesbians to “elves” and “fawns” (did you mean “fauns”?) is reasonable discourse? Hm.

    Like

  25. Forgot this one: it is sure to be cited when (not if!) this heads up the federal chain. Not identical legal questions, but closely related.

    Romer v Evans
    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039/

    Facts of the Case

    Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.” Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2’s enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.

    Question

    Does Amendment 2 of Colorado’s State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

    Conclusion

    Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to “advance a legitimate government interest.” Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: “If the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

    Like

  26. Sure, protection of minority interests is going to be a very positive byproduct a judiciary that ensures the laws are applied fairly. Fauns and fawns alike can expect that justice will be blind.

    Like

  27. Hey-Meg:

    As someone in the health insurance industry, I can point out a dramatic and substative right that domestic partners are not entitled to. Federal COBRA coverage. In the case of divorce or death within a married couple, spouses are entitled to 18 months of Federal Cobra coverage under their prior spouses policy. Domestic partners are not. Domestic partners are eligible for 36 months of Cal-Cobra, but to someone with Cancer, HIV, etc, there is a HUGE difference beetween 36 and 54. Maybe a life… it sounds dramatic but we see it more often than you think. Is a yes vote for “morality” worth someones health?

    Like

  28. CSI Sac – My understanding is that federal law preempts California law such that absent a change in federal law gay partnerships will not be federally recognized as marriages even if so defined in California. The same would apply to the full faith and credit issues regarding out-of-state recognition of California gay marriages. Is that incorrect?

    I have to say the anti-8 campaign could have done a lot better to discuss the real issues here, rather than just yelling “bigot” at everyone who asks a question.

    Like

  29. “Tyranny of the majority” in action. HeyMeg, there are VERY substantial differences between domestic partnerships and marriage.

    CSI Sac’s example is one of many. An enormous number of hospitals don’t recognize domestic partners as next of kin, allowing very serious quality of life decisions to be made by someone other than a patient’s life partner. That is unacceptable. Probate law also makes a very serious distinction between the two, affording far more rights to other family members than it does a domestic partner – not so for married people.

    Even the California tax code draws quite a different picture of both benefits and liabilities for married vs. domestic partner individuals, with many more benefits for married couples and married individuals filing singly.

    It’s hard not to respond objectively when, as another thread said, you’ve got a boot on your neck. Try it some time and let us know how you feel and what you resort to and what sort of language you use to describe your rights being stripped away out of intolerance and selfishness.

    The majority has a mandate – and it’s a very central part of the entire spirit of Americanism, if there is one – to protect the minority, versus destroying it. Here, the comparison with Nazi Germany may be heavy-handed, but it’s not inaccurate. Abuse of homosexuals is often a bellweather of a tilt toward fascism; after all, their rights to own property, and then later their placement in prison (and eventually death) camps preceded similar definitions for Communists and Jews in the first years of Hitler’s administration.

    Like

  30. I’m not sure I understand why the mormons are being targeted. Prop 8 passed because more than 50% of the people in California voted for it. Mormons make up well less than 50% of the population. The percentage is down around 2% actually. There’s no way the mormons could have done it on their own. Another 48% of the population had to contribute.

    Like

  31. Nik, the Mormon Church – not any particular LDS institutions in California, but rather the mother church in Utah – orchestrated the majority of the Yes on 8 campaign, funding it both directly and indirectly (i.e., encouraging its members – most of them in Utah – to contribute). They also recorded 5 different “robo-calls” and paid to have California voters inundated with these and printed materials in the weeks before the election. Additionally, they offered and supplied LDS academics / professionals to the YES campaign, for interviews & various other types of soundbites / newspaper quotes.

    Certainly for a “state’s rights” issue, they didn’t have much faith that Californians would make the right decision ourselves, and felt that their input was necessary.

    Like

  32. At this point, during the past three months, of legalized same sex marriage, we recognize same sex married couples as eligible for Federal Cobra (and enroll and administer benefits). Now, I can’t be certain what the Feds would say about that…

    Like

  33. During the last three months the judges of the State of California created a constitutional crisis by allowing these marriages when the question of a constitutional amendment was coming before the people. Shame on the judges for not causing a stay and forcing the people who took advantage of their activist rulings and are now stuck in gay-marriage limbo.

    Once again, 10th Amendment, US Constitution:
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” See Prop 22, Prop 187, Prop 140. These were all rights not in the US Constitution, and should be reserved for the States to decide. The voters of this State decide frequently, and as long as they fit within the Constitution (US and CA), which they do, these inititaves should not have been overturned.

    Like

  34. Moe: Your “comparison with Nazi Germany” thing is completely absurd. California has to be one of the most tolerant and enlightened places in the entire history of the world. Come on now.

    Like

  35. I stand by it.

    If you look at MANY otherwise-free democracies that began to tilt toward fascism, what was the first thing to happen? In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, in Rome, even in Greece and Turkey and Morocco and many other countries that had brief bouts with authoritarianism, the very first thing to happen – before the book banning, and before other segments of the population were named “other” and jailed, and before the Government rescinded portions of constitutions and legal contracts with its citizens: before all those things, rights were taken away from homosexuals, rights that they had previously enjoyed as equal (or mostly-equal) members of society.

    Like

  36. Don’t forget, 1936 Berlin was an enlightened, anti-authoritarian, and quite socially liberal place. Just like California. And it was a very mixed society, too, with more non-Germans than Germans. And there was a reaction against that, because people in power felt threatened and realized they could invent an Other to focus folks’ energy on and consolidate their own power. You don’t think that the religious right – Mormons, Catholics, etc. – consolidated their powerbase and benefitted materially from this stripping of rights from gay Californians? I can assure you that they did! If they reported $ numbers, I’m sure we’d say tithing way up.

    Like

  37. Shouldn’t this whole argument go back to that old “Golden Rule.” Do unto others and all that jazz. I do not want someone else telling me what to do and who to marry. So I am not going to tell someone else who they can and can’t marry. Pretty simple if you ask me…I do not want my house of worship vandalized (ok I am Atheist so I will substitute Tuli Bistro – I worship the Pizza there..) So I will not vandalize yours…

    Like

  38. lunar

    you really think that germany would have voted in that fashion if they had the system we have back then? The reason nazi germany was not fighting against the killing of jews was because thier laws where simple you help a jew then you die with them. To assume that the Germans would have voted 50 50 is simply a way for you to justify that being gay is the same as being jewish you are born jewish you are born white you are born black you are born hispanic you are not born Gay you choose to be Gay their is no scientific DNA strands that proves Gayness as many attempts to prove otherwise it is a dead end road their is no gayness gene. The ignorance to say that civil rights of an individual is being taken away is insane when that is a behavior not a genetic code. In the early development of this country we did the same thing to Blacks as the germans did to Jews because the genetic makeup of thier bodies. If you feel like you are an outsider then make a different choice your position is unique you have that choice they did not that is the difference. Now I am Mormon and recognize this as being my choice I voted yes on 8 and will always protect the institution of marriage as being between a man and a women. Call me what you will but to put aside the democratic process would be like reverting to a communistic rule where select individuals choose the way the country is run and there goes our freedom to choose. The Government has shown that they do not make good choices as you can see the crisis we are in to give them more power would only divide this country more. It is time to open your eyes and take solice that the majority vote has been decided and live your life the way you choose without the certificate of marriage from a religious institution which under most churches believes you cannot marry the same sex anyway.

    Like

  39. Many different Churches in Massachusetts are being persecuted by homosexuals. Pastors have received death threats. My observation: I see Christians living peaceful lives. They don’t bother anyone. They have the right to vote. But if they don’t agree with the homosexual activists – they are persecuted. There’s documented evidence of persecution against the church in Massachusetts and other states across America.

    Like

Comments are closed.