Prop 8 support cost him his job

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think we have a new qualifier for Darwin award. The only straight, LDS theater artistic director in Los Angeles who gave $1,000 to Proposition 8.

LOL. You forgot that he also has a gay sister in a "committed domestic partnership."

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I don't remember who said it offhand, but there was a general conference talk a few years back when one of the apostles said something like, (OK, I know it's an obvious point for enlightened ones like SU):

We frequently receive letters asking, "What about this advice you gave in conference pertaining to __________? I don't think it applies to me for the following reasons....."

The speaker went on to state the obvious: That general advice from the Church to its membership can't possibly apply to every member in every situation. A lot of Church members seem to forget that fairly obvious point.

If somebody figures out what talk I'm referring to from my very vague description (may have been Oaks?), that would be cool.

I remember that talk well. Unfortunately, I don't remember the speaker, but it seems like it was in April conference. I'm going to try and find it.

[MikeWaters]

it's very unpopular for Mormons with gay relatives, from what I can tell, to oppose Prop 8.

SocalCoug, The Tick, my dad.

It's always "I support Prop 8 AND I have a gay relative."

Ok. I have a gay relative and I don't support it. Wrap your mind around that.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it's very unpopular for Mormons with gay relatives, from what I can tell, to oppose Prop 8.

SocalCoug, The Tick, my dad.

It's always "I support Prop 8 AND I have a gay relative."

Ok. I have a gay relative and I don't support it. Wrap your mind around that.

Blood is thicker than the waters of baptism.

[MikeWaters]

The two wisest people on this board have serious problems with Prop 8.

One of them is PAC.

I will let you guess who the other person is.

It's me.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The two wisest people on this board have serious problems with Prop 8.

One of them is PAC.

I will let you guess who the other person is.

It's me.

You are pretty wise for an anti-mormon.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU is an idiot. Don't lump me in with him.

We are opposites, as black to white, oil to water, light to darkness, good to evil, matter to anti-matter, God to Satan.

Well, I seemed to detect more than a hint of schadenfreude (sp?) in your and Seattle's analyses of the unfortunate Sacramento guy who was chased from his job. Was I wrong?

And Seattle, I invite you to think about what I said. Seriously. Intimidation is wrong, and I know you well enough to know you think so too. The Sacramento guy was arguably not silenced, but the purpose of such purges is to intimidate others into silence. Anyone who has been close to the Prop 8 debate in California knows about this first-hand. Take it from me, my Ute brother, you know I don't make stuff like this up.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Well, I seemed to detect more than a hint of schadenfreude (sp?) in your and Seattle's analyses of the unfortunate Sacramento guy who was chased from his job. Was I wrong?

And Seattle, I invite you to think about what I said. Seriously. Intimidation is wrong, and I know you well enough to know you think so too. The Sacramento guy was arguably not silenced, but the purpose of such purges is to intimidate others into silence. Anyone who has been close to the Prop 8 debate in California knows about this first-hand. Take it from me, my Ute brother, you know I don't make stuff like this up.

I think intimidation is wrong as a general proposition; certainly that's true for any kind of physical intimidation. I also think that this issue is REALLY serious to both sides; the stakes are as high as they get outside of war. I don't live in California, but it sounds like it was trench warfare, a literal Verdun in those last days. Our political/legal system can be pretty reptilian sometimes, but it works. The bishop in the area where I used to live in Seattle is a very tough, successful litigator; he does IP work and sometimes those are fights over the life of a company. He's notoriously tough. I know lawyers I respect a lot who think he's despicable, a terrible person. The bishop even said to me once that he sometimes doesn't like himself very much in the thick of battle in his work; I think he was wondering at some things my colleagues may have said to me about him. But I've never judged him because he treated me well when I knew him, and he has a remarkable record of success in the courtroom. I have a kind of important respect for someone who knows how to do what it takes to win an important legal battle that means everything to his client even if it means pushing propriety right to the line.

I guess what I'm saying is that economic intimidation is definitely in a gray area but you guys aren't playing tiddly winks down there. You're playing for keeps and I'm not sure anything within the law is offlimits. I'm often amazed at the irony of there being so much decency in America, but our economic, legal and political systems being so hard and pitiless. I think that irony is a key to our success and prosperity. By the way, I'm not a liberal.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Intimidation is wrong, and I know you well enough to know you think so too. The Sacramento guy was arguably not silenced, but the purpose of such purges is to intimidate others into silence. Anyone who has been close to the Prop 8 debate in California knows about this first-hand. Take it from me, my Ute brother, you know I don't make stuff like this up.

Is this the real purpose? Or just a vigorous reaction to reversal / denial of civil rights? One thing is clear - this issue is not a straight up dispute, both sides see the premises, motivations, intents and results dramatically differently than the other. Not at a diametric opposition, such as an environmental issue.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Is this the real purpose? Or just a vigorous reaction to reversal / denial of civil rights? One thing is clear - this issue is not a straight up dispute, both sides see the premises, motivations, intents and results dramatically differently than the other. Not at a diametric opposition, such as an environmental issue.

The notion that marriage is a civil right is misplaced.