The Church is smart

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by Solon

[I]t seems (as Santos initially suggested) that the institutional efforts of the LDS church and its administration may have been the difference. This discourages me.

I got a slightly different perspective on that last night at the campaign victory party. The LDS Church was not driving this effort. The Catholics started last December and did all the hard work of gathering signatures for the petitions, raising funds, etc. We jumped in after the Supreme Court decision -- about July, I think. It is undeniable that the effort would not have succeeded without Mormon money and organizational help. But we were undeniably part of a coalition. It would not have passed without us, but it wold not have passed without the Catholics or the Evangelicals. We were not leading the charge.

Also, and although some here will undeniably snark here about this, the Church does this kind of thing very rarely in modern times. This was seen as a moral issue. I don't think the Church can be expected to stay out of such matters.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

This was seen as a moral issue. I don't think the Church can be expected to stay out of such matters.

They stayed out of it in Ohio four years ago.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

I don't think the Church can be expected to stay out of such matters.

This is not intended to be snarky. I actually agree with your statement here. One silver lining is that enlightened Mormons like some of my friends on CG here who have been telling me I'm all wrong about their church have received a clear message about what their church is at a cellular level.

In fact, I wouldn't have a problem if you anti-gay marriage folks would just cast this as a moral issue and leave it at that. But as the Wasington Post article linked by MRD (which criticized pro gay marriage advocates for targeting Mormons for special criticism) stated, "The Yes on 8 campaign has been cynically skillful in changing the subject from whether gays deserve marriage equality to more highly charged questions. Will churches be sued for refusing to marry gay couples? Or will young children have to be taught about same-sex marriage in schools?" Another one we've heard here, government would revoke religions' tax exempt status. These are all lies. But the article urged "progressive groups" to not get into the gutter with pro propositon 8 groups including Mormons.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Also, and although some here will undeniably snark here about this, the Church does this kind of thing very rarely in modern times. This was seen as a moral issue. I don't think the Church can be expected to stay out of such matters.

LA you had your boots on the ground there, do you have any sense about why the church chose this particular fight? AZ and FL had similar measures we didn't get involved in, there were other moral issues on the ballot around the country including abortion and gambling that we stayed out of.

Do you think it has to do with how heavily CA influences the rest of the western US? Do you also anticipate that we will fight this again and again? I understand the church taking a moral stand, that makes sense to me and I have no problem with it. I would have held my nose and supported prop 8 if I lived in CA. I'm wondering if you have any insight about why we got involved in this particular battle with so many others available and so many other worthy ways to spend 20M (if we believe that funny/silly commercial).

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

LA you had your boots on the ground there, do you have any sense about why the church chose this particular fight? AZ and FL had similar measures we didn't get involved in, there were other moral issues on the ballot around the country including abortion and gambling that we stayed out of.

Do you think it has to do with how heavily CA influences the rest of the western US? Do you also anticipate that we will fight this again and again? I understand the church taking a moral stand, that makes sense to me and I have no problem with it. I would have held my nose and supported prop 8 if I lived in CA. I'm wondering if you have any insight about why we got involved in this particular battle with so many others available and so many other worthy ways to spend 20M (if we believe that funny/silly commercial).

I'm not LAUte and I'm not in CA and I don't speak for the Church but I'll offer my opinion nonetheless:

The Church chose CA as the battleground (eschewing AZ and FL) because of the following reasons:

1. Size of CA - the most populous state in the union
2. Probability that the issue would go in the Church's favor was already high in FL and AZ - in other words, the Church didn't step into the fray in those states because it didn't need to.
3. Number of "boots on the ground" available in CA. Not as many boots in FL. Plenty of boots in AZ but, again, they weren't needed.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Whether you think the church's position was right or wrong, you have to admit the church is damn smart. It's not going to throw resources at a lost cause. I admit my faith on that was wavering, but the church proved itself again.

This had nothing to do with whether the Yes vote was or wasn't a lost cause. Up until 2 weeks ago, most thought Prop 8 would fail.

The efforts of the LDS community was what put Prop 8 over the top. It was an absoultely overwhelming effort - well financed, well coordinated and well carried-out.

The No on Prop 8 campaign was less than impressive, from what I observed. It was everything that the yes campaign wasn't. It was vitually non-existent anywhere north of Sacramento (admittedly a very very small percent of the overall population). They did nothing effective to win the swing vote, imo, whereas that was the focus of the Yes campaign.