Does the Mormon Church Speak for You on Marriage?

Mormons Emerge as Dominant Force in California Marriage Discrimination Fight

While fire-brand evangelicals routinely make headlines for their support or opposition to various political issues, the Mormon church has largely remained on the sidelines.

Not this year. Mormon's believe they know what's best when it comes to the issue of marriage and are at the forefront of the effort to pass California's Proposition 8- the first ballot measure that would rescind an existing constitutional right to marry.

Campaign finance reports have disclosed that Mormons are substantially funding the marriage discrimination ballot initiative in California, Proposition 8.

As of October 21st, out of the $25 million-plus raised by the supporters of the gay marriage ban in California around $10 million or 44% of total funding has come from Mormons. According to the website, mormonsfor8.com, over $9.7 million in Mormon funding has come from those making contributions of $1,000 or more.

By comparison, the Connecticut based Catholic Church group, the Knights of Columbus, has dumped $1.25 million into California and Focus on the Family, based in Colorado and run by right-wing activist James Dobson, has weighed in with $400,000.

Mormons are also being told to support the marriage discrimination measure in Arizona. In 2006 Arizona became the first state in the nation to reject a ban on same sex marriage. This year's constitutional amendment, referred to the ballot by forty nine Republican state legislators, would change the Arizona constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Proposition 102 would needlessly tamper with the state constitution in order to discriminate against the LGBT community. Arizona voters made their views known on the issue of marriage just two ago. Forty nine Republican politicians should not be able to overturn the voters on this issue.

In Attacking Gays, Mormons Join Forces with Peddlers of Anti-Mormon Propaganda

According to Hans Johnson, President of Progressive Victory, "the most politically volatile fact about the overwhelming LDS (Mormon) contributions is that it opens up vulnerability in the anti-equality coalition."

Several producers of antigay propaganda also market anti-Mormon propaganda, materials labeled by Mormon Church leaders as slanderous and hateful. These include titles by California-based video company Jeremiah Films such as "The God Makers," which calls Mormonism a cult bent on global domination.

That several far-right organizations, including California-based Traditional Values Coalition, who are lead proponents of antigay measures such as Prop 8, promote Jeremiah Films' materials is a potentially damaging revelation to California's Yes-on-8 campaign.

The antigay-anti-Mormon linkage proved particularly explosive in Idaho in a 1994 ballot measure fight. There the sponsors of the state antigay ballot measure (Prop 1) actually used an antigay video made by Jeremiah Films as an organizing and fund-raising tool in their campaign. The revelation that their campaign resources helped bankroll the leading manufacturer of anti-Mormon propaganda detonated following the No-on-1 campaign's release of a carefully researched white paper on the subject. The report generated news coverage in the 10 days prior to the election and denunciations from the leaders of Mormon stakes in five heavily Mormon counties in Idaho. Mormon voters tipped against the measure and defeated Proposition 1 by about 3,000 votes statewide.

Will the Mormon Church Re-Write the California Constitution?

Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to marriage, since the only way to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples is by rewriting the state constitution.

With the Mormon Church leading the charge to re-write California's constitution the choice is clear for voters.

Do you believe the Mormon Church shares your values on marriage or do you believe the constitution should treat everyone equally?

Comments

[bbc3341]

Just a little info - the Mormon Church came out in support of Civil Unions within the last few days...

[AJMarshall]

www.mormon.org

[roylmack]

Your article notes "Several producers of antigay propaganda also market anti-Mormon propaganda, materials labeled by Mormon Church leaders as slanderous and hateful". Please note that there is a great divide between the Gay-Lesbian community vs the Bisexual communtiy in that the former promotes the sanctity of a monogamous 2 person relationship, while the latter believes that the only true marriage exits between 3 people, 2 of who are same-gender and the other opposite gender. While Gays and Bisexuals hold the truth about marriage to be fundamentally different, they still seem to unite on larger issues, why should religious groups be any different? Your article takes issue with baseless assumptions made by various groups, yet you expect your reader to accept your bassless assumtions, including your assumption that somehow it matters what the fringe members of religious groups might say about each other. You don't explain the difference between "antigay propaganda", "gay propaganda", or "pro-heterosexual propaganda", or demostrate whether all propaganda is necessarily bad or good. Your article lacks clear, meaningful or helpful reasoning.

[Mulvaney]

Any religion can define marriage as they want. The California Supreme Court’s decision upholding the rights of all people to enter into a civil marriage does not change this. It simply ensured that all people are treated equally under the law. My marriage, and the meaning that it holds for me, is not threatened by gay or lesbians who choose to marry. My religion is not threatened. The social fabric around me is not threatened.

It was not that long ago that most people supported sanctions against interracial marriage. The LDS was particularly vocal about this. Brigham Young said it was worthy of death. LDS President George Smith called it repugnant. LDS Apostle Mark Peterson called it cursed. Yet, when the civil sanctions against interracial marriage fell, the church and our schools somehow survived.

[Ammonihah]

Yes. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks for me on this issue because I am a member and part of the whole. I committed to sustain a man who I believe is a Prophet of God. He asked me to support it. I am supporting it. The Mormon church is made up of like minded individuals who have elected, by their own free will and choice, to support Marriage being defined as only between a man and a woman. This concept is inherent in the doctrine. Also inherent in the doctrine is the duty to sustain the living Prophet when he counsels the membership to move forward with something. To do anything other than sustain the Prophet will eventually lead a person to apostasy and a desire to disassociate from the body of the church, also of their own free will and choice.

By the way, I believe that same sex couples should have all the rights that the government can inherently give them. If they do not have a right, I am for them receiving that right under the law. I do not support the redefinition of marriage. I do not support the teach of any type of union in our schools, hetero or homo. This should be done within the walls of our own homes.

[Canuck27]

God and the Devil are walking down the street one day and the Devil notices God is carrying something shiny in his hand. The Devil says"What's that"? God says"Oh this, this is love", the Devil says "Give it to me for a minute and I'll organize it for you".

[vergesprime]

This is a civil rights issue. Religion has no place in state or federal laws, especially when it is not a universally held religious belief. Not all faith groups believe that same-sex marriage should be banned. In a society as diverse as CA, writing religion into the constitution endangers the civil and religious freedoms of all citizens (yes, even the ones pushing to get this passed). Any member of a group who has been marginalized and discriminated against knows, the only way to protect your own civil rights is to protect the civil rights of everyone.

For the last few months, all married couples in California have finally enjoyed full and equal rights. Striping citizens of their civil liberties is wrong, and hurting families (parents and their children) is unconscionable. That is what Prop 8 does. It has no language to protect any group (yup. none). It explicitly strips a select group of their existing rights.

If you want to learn more on how to help defeat the marriage ban, please visit http://www.noonprop8.com

[Basilk]

The Salt Lake Tribune had 2 articles of interest, one reporting about Mormons against the pro-prop 8 push. The second reported about picketing of LDS services in N. California in reaction to the prop-8 push.

Both stories have now been pulled, literally one or two hours after being posted. Can you guys find them somehow and post them?

The one story remaining on the Salt Lake Tribune was about how the LDS Church is now telling Utah Mormons that they don't need to campaign for proposition 8 in California.

Interesting, isn't it?

[dvhansen]

What are you talking about? The articles can be read at
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_10797630
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_10798324
They articles were never "pulled."

[magdelyn]

Why should marriage be defined as only between two people? If we really are pro-marriage, then polyamorous persons should be able to marry. Think of the best interests of the children. Imagine a home where there are several people to help with child care. Why can't a man have, like three wives? I think that the definition of marriage should be expanded considerably.

[Bot]

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.


If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.


The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.''

[Bot]

Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.


Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

[Bot]

WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD RETAIN CURRENT MARRIAGE STATUTES
Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.


When same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.


Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

[Semper]

This measure was very painful to vote on in the first place. Californian said no the first time and it was overturned by the Judges in San Francisco. The Morman church had nothing to do with it. They may support the proposition but to say they are re writing the Constitution is a long stretch. Many in this state don't like same sex marriage. The gay Californian have the same rights as all the other Californians. They even have civial contracts. If the issue is what defines marriage, my definittion is man and woman. Its like saying a union between a man and a woman is marriage. Whats wrong with that. A union between a man and a man is a union between the same sex. I will even vacate marriage to something else, but then the same sex people will want me to change my new definition to include them. Sorry folks but I want the distinction. Its like a sex. A woman is a woman not a man.

[vergesprime]

Semper wrote:
"They may support the proposition but to say they are re writing the Constitution is a long stretch."

Umm.... but that's what a constitutional amendment does. It rewrites the constitution -- literally.

And no one is asking you to change your personal definition of marriage. Members of the straight and LGBT communities are defending an existing right to the civil liberties and protections that only a _civil_ marriage contract provides. Domestic partnership is not equal to marriage in its protections of partners or their children.

[dvhansen]

Um... the point isn't whether the constitution is being rewritten, but rather who is rewriting it. Just because Mormons as a group of citizens are over-represented among "YesOn8" donors doesn't mean the Mormon Church is effectively rewriting the state constitution. They could spend all the money in the world to promote their viewpoint, but unless >50% of voters agree, it doesn't matter. If the constitution is amended, it will be by the will of the people.

[whatitdo99]

I heard that ....... Are you kidding me with these posts. Who cares what you may have heard about anything. If you have facts to post please do so. Anyone that knows the LDS religion will understand that the family is the central role in their teachings. This has nothing to do with wanting to gain favor with other "Christian" religions. Are you kidding me. Does the LDS church spend $100's of Millions each year donating to areas hit by natural disasters because it wants to gain favor. NO. It does so because the Church practices what it preaches. The LDS Church has not given one dime of their "money". All of the money has come from individual members of the Church. Also, no one has been told they 'Must" "Has to" or anything else regarding Proposition 8. The Church has made its position very clear and some members are assisting. Even if 10% of the LDS Church members gave anything, it is still a bigger number than the total number of people that have given to the entire Yes on 8 cause. Check your facts. According to one post, 95% of the CA. LDS population would be disobeying their leaders.

[yeson8]

Wow, such hatred from people claiming that they are the people who are anti-haters. I'm LDS, and donated to Yes on 8. I was not forced to do it, but was glad to, and most LDS are supportive of this issue even though there are a few exeptions. The church members are not doing this to get respect from other groups (If that is a bi-product of this election than so be it), we are doing it to protect our right to recognize homosexuality as something immoral. Same-sex marriage isn't about equality. Its about forcing everyone to accept and embrace something that they see as wrong. This is about stripping churches and families of their rights.

This also isn't about hatred or bigotry. I don't hold any ill-will to those who engage in homosexuality. I just hope they can see that there is a lot of opportunity that they are missing out on in pursuing their path. I also hope they don't force me with the law and restrict my rights by cliaming that I am restricting their rights.

[Novae]

If you're voting to restrict their rights - which in no way affect your rights - then you are forcing them to bend to your world view. Calling you out for it is in no way a restriction on your freedoms of belief or expression.

[dvhansen]

You're half right, Novae--it is forcing them to bend to a different world view. But that is not restricting their rights. Civil unions have all the rights of married couples in California, period, that's the law. It simply wasn't termed "marriage" until the Court's decision this summer. Passing Prop 8 will not alter any of these civil rights, but will simply restore the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.