The Church is smart

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Solon

You're right. I'm a little bitter. I don't live in California. Its voters have spoken and I respect that.

My angst springs from the LDS involvement at an institutional level (note: I don't really care how individuals chose to vote. It's their state and their consciences). This - to me - was a chance for the (institutional) LDS church to divest itself of some of the commonplace charges of bigotry, parochialism, and provincialism, or at least to remain behind the scenes. Instead, it seems (as Santos initially suggested) that the institutional efforts of the LDS church and its administration may have been the difference. This discourages me.

Another close minded comment..that if an institution stands up for something for what they believe is morally right, someone won't hesitate to use the deliberately dishonest smear tactic of calling it bigotry.

Though I do understand the ease of convenience which this offers.

[The_Tick]

Someting else I find interesting....

Todays paper mentioned that there work 18k+ marraige licenses issued since June 17th (Day the courts said to start marrying everyone).

None of them have been filed yet because Prop 8 was being put on the ballot. So when Prop. 8 is finalized it will be up to a judge to determine if the marraiges that took place between June 17th and November 3rd are to be upheld and valid since they have yet to be filed by the State.

Very interesting.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Another close minded comment..that if an institution stands up for something for what they believe is morally right, someone won't hesitate to use the deliberately dishonest smear tactic of calling it bigotry.

Though I do understand the ease of convenience which this offers.

Why would it be "deliberately dishonest" to call it bigotry? Picking one group of people to descriminate against is bigotry.

[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.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

So when Prop. 8 is finalized it will be up to a judge to determine if the marriages that took place between June 17th and November 3rd are to be upheld and valid since they have yet to be filed by the State.

Very interesting.

A Con Law professor from Boalt Hall (Berkeley) testified to the Legislature that marriages that took place between June 17 and the passage of Prop 8 will not be affected. Don't know if he's right but it makes sense to me. I am not sure who would oppose such marriages from being recognized. Probably some extremist types.

[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.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Why would it be "deliberately dishonest" to call it bigotry? Picking one group of people to descriminate against is bigotry.

Yep it's deliberate dishonesty.

Standing up for a moral cause is now called bigotry. It's deceptive and dishonest mischaracterizations of ones beliefs.

Nice try though.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Yep it's deliberate dishonesty.

Standing up for a moral cause is now called bigotry. It's deceptive and dishonest mischaracterizations of ones beliefs.

Nice try though.

Good will be called evil, and evil good. This should not surprise you.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by exUte

Good will be called evil, and evil good. This should not surprise you.

Gerdy Eysser being a racist bastard doesn't surprise anybody.

[All-American]

Between you, me, and the kitchen sink, not even the proposition's greatest proponents in the quorum of the 12 thought it would pass. It was never supposed to work.