RubySoho
Winston
Crazy Conservative Quote Of The Week
November 16th 2008 08:43
My crazy conservative segment makes a comeback this week, because no matter how many times I tell myself not pick on the ultra cons, they keep coming up with absolute gems which makes it pretty much impossible not to take them to task for it.
You may or may not have heard that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka the Mormon Church was one of the biggest backers of Proposition 8, a ballot measure which effectively rewrites California's state constitution by defining marriage as the union "between one man and one woman". On the same day that Americans elected Barack Obama, Californians voted "yes" on Prop 8 and elected to write discrimination into law.
The Mormon Church, which became involved in the campaign at the personal request of the Catholic Church poured more than $5 million dollars into the campaign and provided than 80% of the volunteers who, at the behest of the multi-religious group known as Protect Marriage, canvassed the streets of California warning the electorate of the dire consequences that would befall them should same sex couples continue to get married. According to one of training manuals printed by Protect Marriage and distributed to the volunteers:
Um yes. They are pro-marriage. Except when the people getting married happen to be gay. Then they suddenly become both anti-gay AND anti-marriage.
$5 million dollars from the Mormon Church just to keep gays from tying the not.. Including a $1 million dollar donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former Mormon Church president. For the life of me I cannot fathom how someone could donate that amount of money for a cause which exists for no other reason than to condemn and discriminate against a section of the population which does them no harm whatsoever.
Please, please, please. Can someone please tell me how Adam and Eve are possibly going to be affected if Adam and Steve get hitched? Please. I am absolutely dying to know.
This is how Protect Marriage conducted its dirty work in its sleazy campaign to discriminate against same sex couples in California:
In other words, they initiated a scare campaign. And it worked.
Quotes and references from The New York Times
You may or may not have heard that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints aka the Mormon Church was one of the biggest backers of Proposition 8, a ballot measure which effectively rewrites California's state constitution by defining marriage as the union "between one man and one woman". On the same day that Americans elected Barack Obama, Californians voted "yes" on Prop 8 and elected to write discrimination into law.
The Mormon Church, which became involved in the campaign at the personal request of the Catholic Church poured more than $5 million dollars into the campaign and provided than 80% of the volunteers who, at the behest of the multi-religious group known as Protect Marriage, canvassed the streets of California warning the electorate of the dire consequences that would befall them should same sex couples continue to get married. According to one of training manuals printed by Protect Marriage and distributed to the volunteers:
"It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better... We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.”
Um yes. They are pro-marriage. Except when the people getting married happen to be gay. Then they suddenly become both anti-gay AND anti-marriage.
$5 million dollars from the Mormon Church just to keep gays from tying the not.. Including a $1 million dollar donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former Mormon Church president. For the life of me I cannot fathom how someone could donate that amount of money for a cause which exists for no other reason than to condemn and discriminate against a section of the population which does them no harm whatsoever.
Please, please, please. Can someone please tell me how Adam and Eve are possibly going to be affected if Adam and Steve get hitched? Please. I am absolutely dying to know.
This is how Protect Marriage conducted its dirty work in its sleazy campaign to discriminate against same sex couples in California:
"The canvass work could be exacting and highly detailed. Many Mormon wards in California, not unlike Roman Catholic parishes, were assigned two ZIP codes to cover. Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from “walkers,” assigned to knock on doors; to “sellers,” who would work with undecided voters later on; and to “closers,” who would get people to the polls on Election Day.
Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.
But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.
Leaders were also acutely conscious of not crossing the line from being a church-based volunteer effort to an actual political organization.
“No work will take place at the church, including no meeting there to hand out precinct walking assignments so as to not even give the appearance of politicking at the church,” one of the documents said.
By mid-October, most independent polls showed support for the proposition was growing, but it was still trailing.
It was then that Mr. Schubert called his meeting in Sacramento. “I said, ‘As good as our stuff is, it can’t withstand that kind of funding,’ ” he recalled.
The response was a desperate e-mail message sent to 92,000 people who had registered at the group’s Web site declaring a “code blue” — an urgent plea for money to save traditional marriage from “cardiac arrest.” Mr. Schubert also sent an e-mail message to the three top religious members of his executive committee, representing Catholics, evangelicals and Mormons.
“I ask for your prayers that this e-mail will open the hearts and minds of the faithful to make a further sacrifice of their funds at this urgent moment so that God’s precious gift of marriage is preserved,” he wrote.
On Oct. 28, Mr. Ashton, the grandson of the former Mormon president David O. McKay, donated $1 million. Mr. Ashton, who made his fortune as co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation, said he was following his personal beliefs and the direction of the church.
In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.
But the “Yes” side also initially faced apathy from middle-of-the-road California voters who were largely unconcerned about same-sex marriage. The overall sense of the voters in the beginning of the campaign, Mr. Schubert said, was “Who cares? I’m not gay.”
To counter that, advertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.
Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.
“We bet the campaign on education,” Mr. Schubert said"
Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.
But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.
Leaders were also acutely conscious of not crossing the line from being a church-based volunteer effort to an actual political organization.
“No work will take place at the church, including no meeting there to hand out precinct walking assignments so as to not even give the appearance of politicking at the church,” one of the documents said.
By mid-October, most independent polls showed support for the proposition was growing, but it was still trailing.
It was then that Mr. Schubert called his meeting in Sacramento. “I said, ‘As good as our stuff is, it can’t withstand that kind of funding,’ ” he recalled.
The response was a desperate e-mail message sent to 92,000 people who had registered at the group’s Web site declaring a “code blue” — an urgent plea for money to save traditional marriage from “cardiac arrest.” Mr. Schubert also sent an e-mail message to the three top religious members of his executive committee, representing Catholics, evangelicals and Mormons.
“I ask for your prayers that this e-mail will open the hearts and minds of the faithful to make a further sacrifice of their funds at this urgent moment so that God’s precious gift of marriage is preserved,” he wrote.
On Oct. 28, Mr. Ashton, the grandson of the former Mormon president David O. McKay, donated $1 million. Mr. Ashton, who made his fortune as co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation, said he was following his personal beliefs and the direction of the church.
In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.
But the “Yes” side also initially faced apathy from middle-of-the-road California voters who were largely unconcerned about same-sex marriage. The overall sense of the voters in the beginning of the campaign, Mr. Schubert said, was “Who cares? I’m not gay.”
To counter that, advertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.
Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.
“We bet the campaign on education,” Mr. Schubert said"
In other words, they initiated a scare campaign. And it worked.
Quotes and references from The New York Times
| 121 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
well it all about one group of people feeling superior to another group of people . . .
its why we dont allow inter-racial of inter-faith marriages either . . . oh hang on . . .
Comment by Mister Smith
Random Ramblings
FILMENATOR
Crime in Books
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Isn't it funny, can you imagine the uproar if someone today tried to introduce a law banning inter-race or inter-faith marriages? And yet, gays can be discriminated against and it's all a-okay.
Hi Mr Smith,
no gay marriage is not legal in Australia. And I really don't understand it. As for the California situation, the problem is that Californians voted on a ballot which made same sex marriages illegal because it actually re-wrote the constitution. The Californian constitution did not originally mention that marriage is only to take place between a man and a woman.
It's not that most Californians don't think the issue affects them, its that of the ones that actually voted on Prop 8 52% said that gays should not be allowed to get married. I pretty much think that makes them anti gay. or at the very least anti-gay marriage.
If they didn't think the issue affected them, they wouldn't have voted or they would have voted 'no' on Proposition 8.
Comment by alt_ed
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
The Inner Saintdom
As for Adam, well he's doing great. Found himself a nice Jewish twink
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
our Federal Marriage Act is defined explicitly as "between a man and a woman" but some of the state acknowledge same-sex civil unions and have partnership registries . . . we are still struggling to get same-sex partners afforded equal legal rights as heteo de-factos
our new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd used the promise of bringing equality to same-sex partnerships as part of his election platform but i dont think any real changes have been made since hes been in
in 2007 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) released a report that identified 58 Commonwealth law statutes and provisions that explicitly discriminate against same-gender couples by using the term "member of the opposite sex"
71% of respondents agreed that same-sex partners should have the same legal rights as de-facto heterosexual couples.
57% of respondents supported same-sex marriage. The poll suggests a 20-point jump in support since 2004, when Newspoll found 38 per cent in favour and 44 per cent against
Comment by Doug Pollard
Rainbow Reporter
The bulk of the inequalities identified by HREOC will be rectified in the Omnibus Bill which should get through the Senate before they break up for Christmas.
But all this is just for same-sex COUPLES - anti-discrimination measures are still to be brought before Parliament, probably not before the next election.
The previous governments amendment to the Marriage Act to exclude same sex couples (so it wouldn't have to recognise same-sex couploes married overseas) remains unchanged and is defended by Rudd & Co.
Some states have introduced 'relationship registers' for same-sex couples but these are only at state, not Commonwealth level.
The government says that once every state has an approved registration scheme they will give them Commonwealth recognition.
Meanwhile the government is introducing new benefit rules so that ANY two people living together will in future be assumed to be in a couple relationship, regardless of their sex, thus bringing same-sex couples into line with heterosex couples. Unless they can prove otherwise.
This means that many same sex couples on benefit, e.g., disability, age pension etc., will have their income cut from 2 single pensions to one couple pension as from July 2009. Equality has its downside for some.
Meanwhile marriage remains firmly OFF the agenda as long as the balance of power in the Senate is held by inter alia Senator Steve Fielding of the Assemblies of God backed Family First Party.
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Mr Nice Guy
Pop Culturist
That is a gem!
I'm probably going out on a limb here - but I just can't get my head around whey we can't accept and respect each other and our beliefs, lifestyles and individualities.
Sure - that may sound a little twee - but how hard is it - really?
The unfortunate thing is the increasing need to sanctify religion as a business - primarly based around fear and lemming mentality.
Whether you believe in God, the church - is of no consequence to me or should it be to you - celebrate in our differences and bring these differences to the table so we can all just get on with life - together.
Whatever happened to ' Do unto others . . . .
It's the murky bottom line of the church - rather than a belief which drives so many wedges on so many levels - and a show me the money momma mantra.
Good post
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
MNG summed it up bettter than I could. I would only add that gay is not a new inclination. Nature takes care of population control in its own way, has done for millions of years and this is a very effective measure. Too silly of us to play God and try to control what has always been with silly bits of written paper, just to see who gets the cadillac ... but that is the show me the money momma so aptly put by MNG, as I said.
Lilla ...
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
thee meaning you, i think you would look nicer in the outfit . . .
Comment by Janet Collins
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks for all the info Morgan and Doug.
Thanks Lilla and MNG. I am still trying to fathom what religious groups get out of this. Do you think that perhaps they fear their power and numbers will decline if more and more people became accepting of alternative lifestyles?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Carolyn Cordon
Light Within
How do You Express Your Creativity?
Food Leaf
Why do govts & some people have a problem with the whole thing - does it all come down to money? MOst things do - money and power. Same thing?