Guest Blogger: LDS and Prop 8

Guest Blogger: Javi

(thanks Javi. Can I just add, that we should all have open air viewings of Latter Days in protest?!)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in San Francisco has been mobilizing pretty hard in favor of prop 8 (a constitutional amendment here in CA that would define marriage as between a man and a woman and reverse recent marriage rights gains). They planned a march, have spoken out, and now they scheduled the following announcement for Church Services.



1. The First Presidency’s letter dated June 20, 2008, to all Church members in California states, “we ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your
means and time…”

2. In connection with the Proposition 8 campaign’s grassroots efforts, the supporting coalition, of which the Church is a member, will hold three walk/phone days to help generate voter support on August 16, 23 and September 6. We invite everyone who can do so to please participate either by “walking” that is, visiting homes door to door in assigned neighborhoods, or by phoning neighbors in specific assigned neighborhoods, for three hours each of these three days.

3. Church members who have been asked to help with the campaign will be calling you at your homes to officially ask you to help and give you further information about where and what time to meet this Saturday

4. They will also ask you to bring a friend from another faith to assist.

We, as a Bishopric, ask you to please participate in this important endeavor. The First Presidency also stated that “our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”

Family: It’s about time!

It is important that every California make an effort to get the word out about prop 8 and how to counter it. Whether you support marriage or not in our community, a constitutional amendment would permanently define us as second class in the state. If they can do it with marriage, it will open the floodgates for doing it with other options that you might agree with more. It isn’t about marriage it is about rights and equality.

Places you can find out more info and/or get involved:

9 thoughts on “Guest Blogger: LDS and Prop 8

  1. Whether you support marriage or not how do you feel about 4 judges in San Francisco overturning a 61 percent vote of the people saying marriage is between one man and one woman. Whether you support marriage or not what else are a few judges going to overturn next against the will of the people. It shouldn’t have happened that way. It should have been voted on by the people . To see why the church supports prop8 go to, click on about the chuch go to newsroom and see the divine institution of marriage and it would answer alot of questions.

  2. welcome to the blog Chriss. Do you think you could provide a non-biased source for your statistics (ie not one based on a religious platform that is actively fighting the marriage issue)? I see there is no source [biased or otherwise] provided for them now.While I am sure the LDS main page accurately reflects a certain LDS constituency’s viewpoint, I am unclear how it illustrates a critical engagement beyond that. I have however approved your comment without edit for those who want to further explore the mainstream LDS opinion.Finally, when you imply through repeition of the following phrase:

    whether you support marriage or not

    that I (or Javier, the author of this piece) are anti-marriage you should know, Javi is married to his partner of 10 years and that he was married in California. I am not married but have been in a committed relationship for just slightly more than 20 years. What neither he nor I support is a definition of marriage that excludes any citizens of legal and consenting age from participating. That means that we support everyone’s right to marriage, including straight people, or more pointedly that we support marriage. When you are making generalizations about people’s political beliefs, or moral ones, you should make sure to be as specific as possible about your language. If you had said that we do not support discrimination in access to marriage, you would have been correct. I have never been a supporter of discrimination, nor has Javi.

  3. Profbwoman – Your definition of discrimination is absolutely self-centered. I have two children, and under your so called “equal rights,” my children would be taught in public schools (sex-education) that marriage can exist in the perversion of a relationship where a penis is used to penetrate another male’s anus. There is no rights enjoyed in marriage that are not also enjoyed in a domestic partnership. Why then must the definition of marriage change to include homosexuals? My guess, some gay and lesbians will never be satisfied with the level of tolerance heterosexuals have for homosexuality until heterosexuals actually are willing to say that homosexuality is good and right for society. Sorry, the majority of heterosexuals are never going to agree that it is okay and should become an acceptable practice.

  4. Jeremy – welcome to the blog. I’m going to tell you what I have not had to tell a reader for some time, so thank you for the opportunity to remind all the newbies out there: when you comment on this blog, it is best to read through posts on the subject you wish to address first so as not to accuse the author(s) of things that are documentably untrue.

    Your definition of discrimination is absolutely self-centered. . . . under your so called “equal rights,” my children would be taught in public schools (sex-education) that marriage can exist . . . where a penis is used to penetrate another male’s anus.

    I don’t have a penis and as far as you know (and I think are assuming) I don’t have children. So it seems fairly logical that your concern about where penises can and cannot go and what your children will learn about them is centered exclusively on your identity not mine. Secondly, my comment specifically says

    What neither he nor I support is a definition of marriage that excludes any citizens of legal and consenting age from participating. That means that we support everyone’s right to marriage, including straight people, . . . If you had said that we do not support discrimination in access to marriage, you would have been correct.

    So clearly, while you are concerned with a single sex act, I am concerned with the equal access to a socio-legal institution, marriage, for consenting participants. And I very clearly state that includes people whose sexuality is different than mine. Self-centered would be the insistence that only people who subscribe to my sexuality should have access to marriage and saying anything else is discriminatory toward me. See the difference?I’m going to refrain from discussing what I perceive to be your underlining fear in raising the spectre of innocent children, but I did not miss it.There are two words you used, I would like you and others in this thread to think about:1. “perversion” – In the way you have chosen to use this word, ie to describe one of many gay male sex acts, this is a pejorative term based, largely on “self-centered definitions.” I think there are those in this world who define sexuality by their own practices (self-centered) and those who define it in terms of consent (globally centered). Those in the former group, have a long history of excluding groups (like slaves – denying them the right to marriage as well as control over their sexuality and reproduction, black people in the antebellum – denying them either the right to marry or the social rights afforded married couples, interracial couples – thru marriage exclusions, Asians – labeling them diseased and creating laws to prevent marriage, family reunification which would also be a forming of eroding existing heterosexual marriage, third genders – the intentional denial, dissolution, and labeling “perverse” marriage relationships between indig third gender people and their partners and homosexuality – denial of the right to marry that we are discussing here). Those in the later group simply have one definition “as long as everyone involved is able to and willingly consents than it is not my business.” 2. “tolerance” – I think if you read through the blog, you will find that I am not an advocate for “tolerance” because you tolerate bugs at a picnic or alligators in the south; you tolerate extremely high or low temperatures; you tolerate overly chatty, flatulent, or aggressive (or overly passive) co-workers or acquaintances, etc. In other words, tolerance implies nuisance or discomfort. It comes with built in praise for the person who is “tolerant” as if what they are doing is extraordinary. To me “tolerance” which, admittedly, was coined by the left and continues to be used to express a sense of multiculturalism in N. American society, is whole heartedly-centered on the feelings and associations of the privileged by acknowledging their “right” to be uncomfortable or agitated in the face of difference and to be handed a cookie for momentarily overcoming it. I am not a bug sir, and I do not need to be endured.What this blog, including the guest authors, promote is EQUALITY. Part of that equality is legal and part of it is social. Legal Equality means the end to exclusionary practices by the nation and or its states, to presumptive innocence or guilty based on membership in a privileged or oppressed groups respectively, and security from state or individual violence used specifically against a person b/c of membership in a group (rape, gay bashing, noose hanging, etc.) It also means equal pay for equal work and other similar basics. Social equality means the end to institutional support of legal equality (like the media ending its production of things like “fat princess” or its reliance on “jokes” about black women’s bodies or depicting the rural poor as inbred or queers as predators; the equal cultivation and production of literary, visual, and intellectual contributions of marginalized groups by presses, bookstores, classrooms, organizations, movements, etc.; the end to redlining of any kind, and so on). The hope is that this second type of equality, re-enforced by the former, will transition society from one based on structural hegemonic inequality to one in which people do not imagine or try to build a movement or a world that reflects only their own myopic experience as inherently best but instead embrace the myriad of existing and potential possibilities.I would like everyone who comes to this forum to consider the power of words as expressions of ideology that reinforce systems of power and to start with those two words Jeremy levied so easily in his comments. And Jeremy, that is also the difference between “domestic partnership” and “marriage”: they are words that attempt to create the perception of sameness based on state granted rights that are separated in order to exclude one group from all of the others on the basis of their membership is said group. Regardless of what you may think, this nation has a long history of proving that separate has never been equal.

  5. Whatever far overreaching, wordy, exhausting explanations you use further demonstrates your bias. Your logic only hold’s true in the false reality of equal rights = no right and wrong.

  6. equal rights = no right and wrong

    I know I’m wordy, but when you get a chance to read my whole comment and think long and hard about the logic behind arguing that my statements that EVERYONE has a right to marriage who is a consenting adult is the equivalent of “no right or wrong.” The only way for that to be true is if : right = like you, wrong = not like you. which brings us back to “self-centered.”Keep reading and thinking Jeremy, maybe the blog will give you something to chase those thoughts about who puts what where out of your head.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s