California passes prop 8

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:03 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote: Another bright idea: What about polygamy? Why do we have laws against that? Maybe we should start a petition to repeal that section of the law.

There is no real reason other than religious; and possibly the government believing that 1 to 1 is better than 1 to many for our society--which again is probably based on religion.

It is interesting that the Mormons decided to ban polygamy from their religion for 'politically expeditious' reasons. Oh, we won't be getting aide and recognition and statehood from the government if we continue to have more than one wife--well, can't have that, from this moment on it is against the tenants of the church to have more than one wife.

JK

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:50 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
A fucking wall? I heard about that. You probably get splinters from using it. That would hurt.

I don't have a dog in the fight, really, but it's starting to show the flaws in CA's system of propositions, and is probably why we have such a bad budget mess.

Another bright idea: What about polygamy? Why do we have laws against that? Maybe we should start a petition to repeal that section of the law.

MARRY A GOAT.
My WIFE DID
and we have been happy many years.

Why should the State care about who, what or how many?
If the parties want to make a legal commitment to each why should I care?

Unless it is abusive....

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:16 pm

I'm sorry. I can be such an ass when I'm angry.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:42 am

Nation, here's the correct way to think about this:

[youtube][/youtube]

Thank you very much.

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:01 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:Nation, here's the correct way to think about this:

[youtube][/youtube]

Thank you very much.

thanks!

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:37 pm

I love his special comments. This one was excellent too.

JK

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:30 pm

My wife and I voted against Prop 8, and we contributed money against Prop 8. We still hope that it will be overruled by the CA Supreme Court (and there are some grounds for such a ruling), but it's not a sure thing either way.

I could support having CA get out of the marriage business altogether and just sanction civil unions. As a practical matter, though I doubt that it would happen. I can just imagine the furor over "How dare you tell me we're not married!" While I could be wrong about this, let's assume for the moment that there is no practical way in the short term to do away with state sanctioned marriage.

Assuming that the appeal to the CA Supremes loses, the right thing for those of us who believe that gays have equal rights is to push for the next round of amendment propositions. We can lose, of course, but then we go back and file it again. And again. And again.

It is worth pointing out that Prop 22 (the last anti gay marriage prop before Prop 8) passed in 2000 with 61.4% approval. Prop 8, with essentially the same language, but as an amendment, passed with only abut 52% approval. That's a 9% decline in 8 years. The next time around we might be able to pass a "no discrimination" marriage prop.

There has been the suggestion that Obama's win in CA brought out enough new black (or black and latino) voters to pass Prop 8. If you ignore the rest of the electorate this might have some merit. But exit polls indicate that 62% of new voters (all races) voted against Prop 8. So the most likely Obama effect overall is to have narrowed the margin.

Of more interest is the age demographic. Exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1) suggest that the vote is strongly age correlated, with 61% of voters under age 30 voting against Prop 8. As every year passes we lose (roughly) 5% of those voters over 65 (61% voted for Prop 8). To be sure, they are replaced, but if the attitudes towards gay marriage remain reasonably stable then eventually the electorate will decide that gays should not be outcasts.

Also see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ ... myths.html

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:52 pm

Here's one more reason to think long term about this civil rights issue. The Mormons do think long term.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... .html#more

The most annoying part is where the LDS leader (the late Gordon Hinckley) says that gays have a problem and that LDS want to "help" them (about 0:55 in).

Post by **Elderberry** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:08 pm

Mormons--religion in general; you all know how I feel about that, so I won't say it again.

BUT

Here is something some of you might be interested in:

Nationwide Protest against Marriage Bans â€“ this Saturday.

Tell ALL your friends and family. Ask your friends and family who live
in red states and counties to participate.

Find a time and location near you at this link:

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/

And on another happier note Connecticut just won a very important court decision clearing the way for gay marriage in that state!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyreg ... ge.html?em

JK

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:21 pm

dr.placebo wrote:Here's one more reason to think long term about this civil rights issue. The Mormons do think long term.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... .html#more

The most annoying part is where the LDS leader (the late Gordon Hinckley) says that gays have a problem and that LDS want to "help" them (about 0:55 in).

How do you think the batshit crazy theocracies in the Mid-East got started?
For those running these campaigns, it's not ultimately about the issues, but about how many people can be stampeded by fear and hate to join under a given leader's power base.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:13 am

Y'know, I wonder how much of this mormon involvement is vengeance? After all, a similar thing was done to them.....

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:34 am

The gays have persecuted Mormons? The gays have tried to take away equal rights from Mormons? And now the Mormons want vengeance? Is that the implication?

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:39 am

lurker wrote:Y'know, I wonder how much of this mormon involvement is vengeance? After all, a similar thing was done to them.....

LOL, ya, if I can't have 10 wives you can't have one???? Right

JK

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:42 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:48 am

We certainly have an 'interesting' history. I don't remember them teaching this in school.

JK

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:48 am

jkisha wrote:
lurker wrote:Y'know, I wonder how much of this mormon involvement is vengeance? After all, a similar thing was done to them.....
LOL, ya, if I can't have 10 wives you can't have one???? Right

JK

That's why a national discussion concerning polygamy would serve them right. The irony!

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:32 am

dr.placebo wrote:The gays have persecuted Mormons? The gays have tried to take away equal rights from Mormons? And now the Mormons want vengeance? Is that the implication?

No, the United States did. And I'll bet there's not a few Mormons who are thinking 'If we can't have OUR alternate form of marriage--then NO ONE can.

But, y'know, I don't see a lot of gay people coming out in favor of Mormon polygamy.......

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:31 pm

lurker wrote:
But, y'know, I don't see a lot of gay people coming out in favor of Mormon polygamy.......

More importantly, have you ever heard a lot of 'gay people' coming out against Mormon polygamy?

JK

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:48 pm

When we lived in Layton (90 percent mormon) we were being "ministered" to and I inquired as to where was it written that a man no longer reached a higher plane in life by having and caring for more wives. Since I was told the Book Of Mormon says that a man should have the number of wives that equals his "investment" in the lord (or something like that). But the guys who were "teaching" us said it was an "understanding" that a Man no longer needed wives as a sign of their investment in the lord, not something written. I thought that was fasinating.

I also asked at what point could our relationship go bad and I was told that if they offered to Baptise me and I refused then I was the devil and we would no longer be friends.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:51 pm

maybe:
go out to the hot springs by the playa, and, find some golden tablets, run back to them and tell them what you read, and, take them back to see 'em, if they're not lost, that is...........

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:02 pm

ygmir wrote:maybe:
go out to the hot springs by the playa, and, find some golden tablets, run back to them and tell them what you read, and, take them back to see 'em, if they're not lost, that is...........

5000 years ago Jesus buried gold tablets in the mountains of (I think) New York State, maybe under Simon's current house. This guy Joseph Smith finds these gold tablets. I think Smith was out walking in the woods, eating berrys and mushrooms he would gather and he met this angel named Maroni (not macroni) who guided him for many great adventures. Smith was the only one who could read the gold tablets and with much magic they translated the tablets into the Book Of Mormon. We all know this really happened and is true because at the beginning of the book of mormon a bunch of people say they saw the tablets and that it was all true. It is interesting to me that most of the people who saw the tablets where named smith. (lots of smiths in those days) So that is how the Book Of Mormon was written, but that does not go into how the religion was treated in Ilinois and why they had to escape to Utah to be free in their belief of the above.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:05 pm

Golden tablets..
Seems like the ravers talk about those.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:35 pm

jkisha wrote:
lurker wrote:
But, y'know, I don't see a lot of gay people coming out in favor of Mormon polygamy.......
More importantly, have you ever heard a lot of 'gay people' coming out against Mormon polygamy?

JK

That would require thinking outside the box, wouldn't it?

Post by **Eric** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:27 pm

lurker wrote:But, y'know, I don't see a lot of gay people coming out in favor of Mormon polygamy.......

Why would we care? I don't know any "gay people" who would vote to oppose the right- or at least any who would have voted against it before the Mormon church came out swinging against our rights. Now I don't think you could pay us enough to vote for anything favoring the Mormons (or Catholics)

But as for voting against polygamy in general? Do you know any gays in relationships? Quite a few of them are non-monogamous, and I personally have friends in relationships involving 3 partners. The nice thing about being outside the mainstream so long and having our relationships of any sort ignored, is that we got to develop versions that work for the people involved instead of having to conform to a societal norm.

Don't get me wrong- plenty of us want to be be in traditional 2-partner pairings (myself included), but that's not the only form of relationship seen as valid in most of our community.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:16 pm

lurker wrote:
dr.placebo wrote:The gays have persecuted Mormons? The gays have tried to take away equal rights from Mormons? And now the Mormons want vengeance? Is that the implication?
No, the United States did. And I'll bet there's not a few Mormons who are thinking 'If we can't have OUR alternate form of marriage--then NO ONE can.

But, y'know, I don't see a lot of gay people coming out in favor of Mormon polygamy.......

So, Alice does something bad to Bob, and then Bob in his anger does something bad to Charlie. I don't call it vengeance; I call it spite.

Those who favor Prop 8 are not against gay marriage because the gays have actually attacked them. For many, in my opinion, the anti-gay sentiment is due to religious bigotry that reminds me of that practiced against women, non-whites, and people of some alternative faith to that of the haters.

All is not lost, however. Here's an interesting take on why Prop 8 might be overturned:

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=6292

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:02 pm

dr.placebo wrote:
lurker wrote:
dr.placebo wrote:The gays have persecuted Mormons? The gays have tried to take away equal rights from Mormons? And now the Mormons want vengeance? Is that the implication?
No, the United States did. And I'll bet there's not a few Mormons who are thinking 'If we can't have OUR alternate form of marriage--then NO ONE can.

But, y'know, I don't see a lot of gay people coming out in favor of Mormon polygamy.......
So, Alice does something bad to Bob, and then Bob in his anger does something bad to Charlie.

And I go home and kick the dog.

Um...

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:04 pm

You have a dog?

Lifeisshort · Post by **Lifeisshort** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:03 pm

Wow, when I started this thread I had no idea that so many people would be so supportive and really downright amazing. YOU PEOPLE ROCK!

As far as the Mormon Church, I am not a fan... But this conversation has made me stop and ponder why polygamy was such a threat!

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:38 pm

Lifeisshort wrote: But this conversation has made me stop and ponder why polygamy was such a threat!

that's easy--it's not the 'christian' way. Sinful, don't you know.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:57 pm

does it say somewhere in the bible polygamy isn't ok?