News

In Wake of Prop 8, Some Call for Taxes on Mormon Church

by Kilian Melloy
Saturday Nov 8, 2008
  • PRINT
  • COMMENTS (23)
  • LARGE
  • MEDIUM
  • SMALL

In the waning days of the campaigns in California over Proposition 8, defenders of marriage equality produced an advertisement that showed the struggle in terms of religion intruding on the realm of civil law by seeking to revoke civil rights.

The ad showed two Mormon missionaries acting as enforcers of religious morality, charging into the home of two married woman, snatching the wedding rings from their fingers, and rummaging through their belongings, finally locating and destroying their marriage license.

"We have rights!" the women protested, to answering laughter and a smug reply of, "Not if we can help it."

As the Mormon youths left the house, they wondered aloud what rights they should go after next.

Though the Mormon church, joined by other right-wing denominations, spoke out against the ad, calling it an example of anti-Christian bigotry, from the viewpoint of some gays and lesbians the outcome of Proposition 8 was not much different than a home invasion by religious conservatives. The anti-gay ballot measure has a huge--how huge and how broad is not yet certain--effect on the private domestic matters of gay and lesbian families. Moreover, putting the right to certain sorts of private relationships to a popular vote in and of itself feels to many gay and lesbian families like a horrific violation.

And the Mormon church and its followers, having reportedly bankrolled the campaign to rescind marriage rights for gay and lesbian families to the extent of having provided four out of five dollars spent on pushing the anti-family constitutional amendment, have come in for sharp criticism... even a petition to yank the church’s tax-free status.

In a Nov. 7 Huffington Post article titled Mormons Stole Our Rights, writer Mario Ruiz posited that the Mormon church and its membership were more accountable than other anti-gay religious and conservative groups.

Wrote Ruiz, "Given their history, Mormons know about being targeted for being different. Yet in a full-on offensive, the LDS Church mobilized in favor of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that bans gay marriage."

Added Ruiz, "And now that the initiative has passed, apparently Mormons want to play nice; an LDS Church leader called Wednesday for members to heal rifts caused by the campaign by treating each other with ’civility, with respect and with love.’

"Not. So. Fast."

Ruiz went on to suggest that gay families may boycott Utah as a vacation destination, but then suggested further action, writing, "Yet somehow an economic boycott doesn’t feel direct enough; those who team up against gay people must learn that there are consequences."

Announced Ruiz, "That’s why we are seeking to strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization."

Ruiz’s set out his argument, writing, "According to IRS law, ’no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).’"

The article included a link to a petition to rescind the Mormon church’s tax-exempt status.

The petition outlined a history of marriage equality in California, up to the amendment of the state’s constitution via popular vote, noting that, "Nowhere else in either California’s constitution or the Federal Constitution are a specific class of rights restricted, to any minority group, for any reason."

The petition’s text claims that the Mormon church and its membership, through its support of a campaign against marriage equality, "misled Californians about the effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

"They told us we would lose the right to participate in our children’s education. Lies," continued the petition’s text.

"They told us the California state public school curriculum would be modified to teach sex education to kindergartners. Lies.

"They told us churches would lose the right to free speech. Lies.

"If this is the way Mormons treat gays and lesbians of California, let us ask:

"How has America treated Mormons?"

The petition outlined a history of the Mormon church: its founding, the persecution of early Mormons, and some of the beliefs that Mormons promulgated that led to the level of persecution they suffered.

"Mormons had alternative views of what family meant, and were excluded and marginalized from the political process. In their arguments against the majority, Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote:

"’Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have.’ (Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9)"

The petition noted, "Much has improved for the Mormon people since then. Today, Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008.

"The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place. America believes in the rights of its citizens to determine their own fates, and grants rights to individual communities to determine their own norms and values. The Mormon people have been able to flourish because of this country’s generous spirit.

"But now, history has reversed, and it is the Mormons who have become the oppressor," the petition’s text continued.

The petition then gave a historical account of how the Mormon church co-opted the Boy Scouts of America, "originally a children’s club meant to introduce boys and girls to the natural beauty of America.

"Mormons took financial control of the Boy Scouts by donating more than 28% of their global operating budget per year.

"Gays and lesbians are barred from participating in this group not just in Mormon troops, but nationwide, thereby turning our children into a political football."

The petition noted that, "Some Mormons send their own gay teenage children to ’conversion camps,’ where these children are forced to endure shock therapy and given psychotropic drugs."

Claimed the petition, "The emotional stress of such experience drives many to contemplate suicide.

"The Mormon Church has yet to repudiate these activities."

Added the petition, "Now the Mormon Church has set its target on gay and lesbian adults of California. They have started by amending our constitution to deny equal protection to gays and lesbians."

The petition noted that the Mormon opposition to civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian families is not universal: "So far, 300 Mormons and 1 Mormon celebrity have stood up against their church to support gay rights.

"We respect the challenge of standing up to a majority, especially when those 301 stand in the face of more than 13.1 [million] Mormons worldwide."

The petition then quoted from the work of concentration camp survivor Elie Wiesel, who wrote, "I swore to never be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.

"We must always take sides, Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim, silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

The petition set out a campaign to regain marriage freedoms in California, beginning with a pre-emptive strike against the ability of the Mormon church to unduly interfere in civil rights questions.

"Strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization," the petition suggested.

The petition then quoted once again from IRS law: "Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Another quote followed:

"From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5,

"Substantial Lobbying Activity

"In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status."

The petition acknowledged that as yet it is unclear whether the Mormon church violated these laws, but declared that the spirit of the laws had "absolutely" been broken, citing as evidence a passage from an email purportedly sent by a Mormon "coordinator:"

"...As mentioned in the broadcast, the coalition approached the Church about getting involved. With a mere difference of 400,000 votes, I am certain had the Church not been involved this proposition would not have passed..."

The petition also identified as crucial the changing of existing law so as to "make it illegal for churches to support propositions, which are for all intents and purposes identical to legislation.

"We must clarify our tax law to prohibit this behavior," the petition argued, noting that, "The United Kingdom has taken preliminary steps to strip the church of its tax-exempt status."

The petition summed up its argument, declaring, "Through Prop 8, the Mormon Church has shown its true colors as a political group with specific social ends.

"Political speech is fair and legal here; such speech under the guise of religion is not.

"The playing field must be leveled. Though many religious groups were involved in Prop 8, the Mormon Church made this a far more substantial part of its activities than any other."

Added the petition, "Ultimately all religious groups are subject to the same laws--Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. The Mormon church, however, has shown itself to be most egregious in pressing a political agenda while registered as a church. We are starting with the biggest to affect the most change."

Others had already begun a similar push. A Nov. 6 rally to register the Mormon church as a political action committee (PAC) was announced at the site Roseanne World.

The rally was to take place at the location of the Mormon Temple at 10777 Santa Monica Blvd., in Los Angeles.

Read text at the site, "The Mormon church’s president sent a letter to all congregants asking them to get involved in the campaign to pass 8."

Added the text, "They also sent canvassers into swing districts.

"They have crossed the line between church and state and it will be the issue of gay marriage which they so fiercely oppose (as they oppose women’s rights and the rights of child sex abuse victims with their fake pro-family... legislations) that will reclassify this ’church’ as the political action committee that it is, and therefore make it ineligible for tax exempt status!"

The text at the site also claimed that the Roman Catholic church is, in essence, a political action committee due to its level of direct involvement in the political process.

Kilian Melloy serves as EDGE Media Network's Assistant Arts Editor, writing about film, theater, food and drink, and travel, as well as contributing a column. His professional memberships include the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, the Boston Online Film Critics Association, and the Boston Theater Critics Association's Elliot Norton Awards Committee.

Comments

  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 09:22:15

    Best start calling for taxes on all them black churches as well. And of course, let’s dig into those rich crimson pockets of the Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church where all the Mexicans worship. Why, let’s just turn the fucking Constitution on its head because left wing homos can’t live with actual democracy. Little yipping martinets like Kilian Melloy are real big these days on attacking easy target. I wonder if a big brave demagogue like Melloy has the balls to go after the true authors of the defeat of his radical agenda? Got any tough words for the bros, bro? No, I didn’t think so.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 10:46:41

    Above poster is correct. Just boycott all Mexican restaurants and stop going to Laker games. Liberals don’t even understand who voted for Prop 8 and why.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 12:53:13

    Regarding polygamy: The Church abandoned it when the laws forbidding it were declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise." "And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1But also: "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice." "But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . . " President Wilford Woodruff, 1890


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 13:08:46

    "...defenders of marriage equality [Read: gay marriage advocacy groups] produced an advertisement.The ad showed two Mormon missionaries acting as enforcers of religious morality... "We have rights!" the women protested, to answering laughter and a smug reply of, "Not if we can help it...." What manner of advertising do you, gentle reader, expect gay marriage advocacy groups [euphemism: marriage equality defenders] would produce? And why the author’s effort to hide group identity under euphemism?A discussion of the Christopher Street article, "Waging Peace: A Gay Battle Plan to Persuade Straight America", makes for some interesting reading: http://www.afa.net/journal/september/homosexual_agenda.asp


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 13:14:56

    The church does not endorse any political candidates or party platforms. They do have a first-amendment right to speak out on moral issues and encourage their members to get involved in moral issues.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 13:47:11

    This is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual are protected against the tyranny of the majority.Religion and government are supposed to be separate. That is a conservative stance.California has made it a hate crime for a teacher to express moral disapproval of sodomy on campus, but they ban gay marriage. Blacks who claim to know something about oppression vote 70% to ban gay marriage. Perhaps this secret ballot allowed what people really feel about gays to come out of the closet. Those who would impose their religious beliefs on others don’t really want freedom of religion or freedom at all, for that matter. You can be free as long as you agree with them.http://ewebsmith.com/gov/govnindex.html


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 14:01:48

    by Zyskandar A. JaimotThe GAY MOB’ mentality and sturm&drang&angst of SCAL is angering peeples across this country with GAYS who are demanding to be loved and acceptedon their own terms!!! Similar to the way the FRENCJIES conducted their’revolution’ in the late 1700’s against all the bourgeosie with the head-loppings and loss of a whole class of society they did not like or approve of!!! The GAYZ don’t accept that the MORMON CHURCH is a WORLD RELIGION that has twice defied the UNITED STATES government - once with force/muder in the MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE of the late 1800’s. The MORMONS ’allowed’ BLACKS/peoples of colour to be redeemed/’as saints’ not because of some epiphany like ST. PAUL tumbking from his horse or JOSEPH SMITH finding new golden tablets while plowing cow-turds in NEWYORK STATE - but because they needed more monies to use in their ’missions’ in SOUTH-AMERICA the 3rdworld!!! Instead of antagonizing MORMONS and others in this silly ’replay’ of ’states rights questions’ from two centuries ago in the ’slavery’ issue - ’beat’/force them to your side of this position through economic compulsion. The question of ’states rights’ versus enumertaed powers will not cut it this time around!!!


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 14:27:22

    as a mormon looking for info on this event, i have to say the article is well written and free of bias, unlike the postings below it. i dont think hate speech on either side of the issue is helpful or kind, and only flames the fires preventing people from communicating different beliefs in a safe and useful manner. we are better than that, right?


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 14:38:48

    Mormon poster: First of all, your self-description begs credulity. However, there is nothing now nor has there ever been anything "free of bias" that has come from the vicious rantings of Kilian Melloy; a left wing demagogue and a woerully sorry excuse for a "reporter." This is an adult site, and here people speak as adults, including brusque, sometimes profane language, ridicule, wit, insult, and accusation. There are passions going on here, and namby-pambyism is both inappropriate given the topics and phony as hell. If you require conversations that are safe for kindergarten ears, I am sure there is some place for you - but adults are debating here, and if that is too painful for your refined sensibilities, then you’d best seek your "information" elsewhere.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 15:52:12

    The last time I checked political protest was a foundation of our democracy. Right now it is angry (and understandably so). If it continues I would expect a more civil tone.The big mistake the anti-prop 8 folks made was trying to be civil and fair from the beginning while the pro-prop 8 folks played loosey goosey with the truth. That Mormon missionary ad should have been the FIRST ad run, not the last. The airwaves should have been filled with pictures of Rev Phelps and his "God hates fags" signs which is where the pro-8 folks are really coming from. Thankfully I dont think we will make that mistake again!


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 16:25:27

    "This is an adult site, and here people speak as adults, including brusque, sometimes profane language, ridicule, wit, insult, and accusation"I’m not sure how you can honestly think an adult conversation includes ridicule and insult. That’s more fit for a kindergarten than "refined sensibilities", as you put it. There’s a stark difference between so-called namby pambyism and thoughtful, reasoned debate. there is a stark difference between empassioned opinion and childish ridicule. and there is a stark contrast between an adult conversation and anything that you have said on this site.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 16:40:12

    Mormons are cruel close minded people. Their cult is equivalent to the kkk. Just imagine what life will be like for our children if we don’t act now. No matter what your belief is keep it to yourself. Mormons should not interfere with love. Do not let them separate us. The truth is the mormon religion has no substance without preaching hate. I feel sorry for their misled followers. I raise my 3 children to love one another and that includes the gay community as well as the mormons or other radical religions.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 17:38:39

    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. This has already happened in Massachusetts (CatholicCharities and Lexington Public Schools), New Jersey (Methodist Church lost its tax exemption), etc. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality. 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.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.’’


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 17:50:28

    The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage crowd ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a "lie." However, the same groups who said it’s a lie - "public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not" - were in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: ", it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents." [p 5]From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:"(parents have) no right to remove the books now in issue - or to impose an opt-out system." [pp1-2]From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:" parents do not have a constitutional right to override pedagogical judgment of the school ...King and King." [p 9]Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 17:52:02

    To the poster above. Mormons are not cruel, and they are no more closed minded then you are. That’s like one side of a coin accusing the other of being flat. Your reaction to the passing of Prop 8 is cruel and narrow minded. How many gay places of worship have been vandalized by Mormons? Go see what your friends did to the walls of the LDS Temple in California. There is absolutley no resemblance to the Mormons and the KKK. Being black and a Mormon I personaly resent that. Don’t try and make this a civil rights issue. You haven’t lost your right to marry. You can marry the opposite sex like everyone else or choose to enjoy your queer a.k.a. strange lifestyle. Mormons aren’t interferring with love, they are standing up for traditional marriage. The same marriage your fathers and their fathers had, and by the outcome the same marriage our children and their children will have. Maybe you missed out on anatomy 101. 2 men nor 2 women can continue the human race. This isn’t a love issue, this is a moral values issue. Go visit www.lds.org and learn a few facts about Mormons before you start spewing your ignorance.


  • etio, 2008-11-08 21:03:03

    If a church wants to impose their beliefs onto the political realm then they must pay taxes. You cannot have representation without taxation! I am not surprised at the convoluted logic employed here. Allowing homosexuals to marry does nothing to the sacredness of MY marriage. Get a grip: if homosexuals got married in secret would the value of your marriage be in jeopardy????Gays are imposing their values????? Mormons are the ones changing a constitution for heaven’s sake and preventing a whole group from exercising their rights! Mormons are deprived of nothing if gays marry. The stance against gay marriage is no different than the interracial marriage laws of the past. These laws were also based on fear and hatred, and used many of the same arguments posed here.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 22:44:59

    Mormons are not marriage material anyways. I don’t know where they get off trying to preach it. Since the beginning of the Mormon religion they have been involved in politics that is the only way that they were allowed to congregate. Politicians gave them a place to practice their belief in return for votes. Now the tables have turned they have infected our government. I feel very sad for the gay community today. However this will finally shed some light on the truth of the mormon belief. Money, Power, Deception. 99 percent of mormon people are good and do good things. They would never harm anyone. However they are cultic puppets they believe what they hear and they eat what they are fed. Why is their such a small number of them married. Why are their over 70 percent of their followers male? Why? Is it because their is no place for women in their belief. Or are they just happy to share the few that they have.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 22:45:46

    Anti-8 protestors should think twice about what they say and what they do. A lot of younger (more liberal mormons) are more inclined to supporting gay marriage than the older, more conservative members. The more you bash all mormons the more you are turning away the younger mormons that you will need to support you when (and if) you get another chance of passing legislation allowing for gay marriage. So before you start bashing all mormons think about future.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-08 23:18:04

    The truth hurts sometimes. The road is uphill now and the Mormon political agenda needs to be stopped before they change more of the constitution. Mormons won’t care until it effects them.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-09 06:41:38

    As some commedienne said, "if you’re against gay marriage don’t marry someone of the same sex"


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-09 16:54:37

    WHAT SOCIETY HAS EVER ALLOWED SAME SEX MARRIAGE.........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. This has already happened in Massachusetts (CatholicCharities and Lexington Public Schools), New Jersey (Methodist Church lost its tax exemption), etc. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality. 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.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.’’


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-12 18:03:21

    When I lived in Oregon, my kids were going to be reading "My Two Daddies" (or some such book).If the gays would just live quietly like everyone else, this wouldn’t be an issue. But they don’t. They have paradesThey have marchesThey have protestsThey push books in schools (sorry, know first-hand on that one).That’s why I’m for Prop-8. Do what you want in the privacy of your own home, but don’t afflict me with it.


  • Anonymous, 2008-11-13 20:31:41

    Prop 8 dealt with one single issue... said another way, the proposition asked voters one question "should the Government deside whom a person can marry? It did not have anything to do with kids, nor did it have anything to do with schools, or any of the other "red herring" lies that were bought and paid for by religious extremists. History teaches us clearly that when left to the majority and influenced by religious extremists then Race and Religion are determining factors prior to the State permitting a Marriage. I for one don’t want to go backward to those ugly days... my mixed race Grand Children are just too great a blessing. Shame on the religious zealots for forcing their beliefs and restrictions onto everyone else. In California that was nearly 50% of the people forced to live under the religious dogma of the other (slightly over) 50%. Keep the faith, and remember... this too shall pass. Pete... A happily married Grandpa of five, who’s 45 year marriage is not threatened by anyone elses marriage.


Add New Comment

Comments on Facebook