Wow. I always kinda assumed the whole "it's so nice that my religion keeps me from having to form opinions on things" thing was hyperbole.

Look, amending the Constitution of the State of California is obviously trivial. Get your thingy on the ballot, and get 50+ percent to sign off. Tim Eyman as done this a half dozen times. Dominic Holden did it in his spare time.

So just amend it again. It's not like California has one of those real constitutions that takes a super majority and multiple votes to change it. It's not carved in stone, OK?

David, We hear you, you're upset. Patriotic Americans see the evil of this discrimination and how Un-American it is (these are the folks Sarah mentioned FYI). Equal Rights WA has sent out an email asking for support NOW BEFORE THE STORM to begin the work of getting mad, getting angry, getting equal rights SO THAT we won't be swinging at the wind after the battle. What say you David and The Stranger step up and really start the movement here in Washington for civil marriage equality at the legislative level and WORK WITH E.R.W. to tell our stories, create our MEANINGFUL PSAs and win marriage equality here in WA. WE know that when the legislature allows us to marry, The Mormon Church will pay for the referendum to defeat the law. NOW is the time to build the war chest here in Washington, now is the time to get active, NOT AFTER THE FACT.

"If it were just me, I’d probably be firmly on the other side. But I feel like 'just me' is not the supreme authority and I have to acknowledge that I might be wrong."

Then don't vote!

At least she's honest. "I do what I'm told, and I don't care how much it hurts you."

Look, maybe it's petty... but if I was sending one kid money to support them, and they spent that money trying to deny rights to another of my kids, I'd stop sending the support.

Hold on, let me get this straight: by subscribing to this religion, I get to pass the buck on my bigoted beliefs to God? And not-insignificant numbers of people will actually buy it? Where do I sign up?

Holy crap. I'm sort of speechless here. "If it were just me"... Jesus! It is just you! You have free will! You can make your own decisions!! It's okay to disagree with your church on an issue! And, if it's not okay with your church to disagree with them on an issue, it's not a church, it's a cult!!

I'm trying very hard here not to call your sister-in-law some choice words.

Also, I have used up my exclamation point quota for the month.

You don't get it. If you call your beleifs 'religion' then no one gets to disagree without being a bigot.

I'm in the market for a new laptop, and had figured on buying a Dell. Now I won't, and I just sent them an email telling them so. I would suggest anyone else out there ought to notify them also of their dissatisfaction with the policies funded/supported by their founders/owners.

partychief: Apple donated $100k to "no on prop 8."

Ana is a fucking tool. Plain and simple. Why are all of her adopted kids brown, and why such a variety? Can she not have babies? Either way, it sounds like she's been instructed by the divinely called leaders to spread her Mormon oats to as many unlikely races as she can. Hell, while they're so young they're so easy to indoctrinate. Gotta get rid of some of that beloved white they loved so damn much.

God I fucking hate Mormons. At least suicide cults kill themselves. Mormons stick around and spread like a disease.

This response is eerily similar to the reaction to the passage of Amendment 2 in Colorado in 1992. A boycott of Utah can be effective but it will take someone high profile to act as a catalyst. In 1992 that catalyst was Barbra Streisand and it snowballed from there. Colorado did experience a backlash and its businesses took a significant financial hit. Ultimately SCOTUS spanked the majority of civic stupid dumbshits who to this day make a majority of the electorate here in Colorado (re: they reaffirmed their desire to discriminate against gays and lesbians in 2006 by passing a marriage amendment and simultaneously defeating a "civil unions" benefits initiative by the same percentages as Amendment 2 in 1992). Congrats Cali! You join Colorado as the 2nd Hate State in the union.

You know - I never did like any of my in laws at all - I was in bed with their son, brother, uncle, cousin, and we had horny all around the moon queer sex thousands of times.

David, he is yours. You won. Why do you care about these people at all?

You sound a bit self oppressed, mired in the small shit put out by small people.

And yes indeed ALL of the religous right have been our enemy for 30 years and will continue on that track. It works for them in many way to have a devil somewhere in the woodwork, and we are the incarnate of the devil.

Queers are very upset we lost in Calif. I am not sure why we thought public opinion had shifted to a win. We have lost 29 of these election battles. If the Mormons had not paid the bills the Catholics, Baptists, and all the other christian right wing bigots would have.

We are the targets of a fascist movement. Not called Nazi so it is not easy for some to see. But, I think the far right neo fascist movement in America is housed in the cults, churches and other religious stuff of the fundie christian right.

Far bigger the Mormon bucks which should have been no surprise. Sarah Palin as a Holly Roller will be their new champion, a worthy replacement for the dead Jerry Falwell.

The battle is bigger than getting married, bigger the dumb ass in laws, and the fight will go on. These force control 40 per cent of America, like it or not.

And interestingly, the block of christin neo fascist power had to this date NOT included Mormons. If they had their way, they would kill the Mormons before gay folks.

Interesting and scary and makes you angry, but, the far right political machinations, neo fascism, of the christian right wing should not be forgotten in these discussions.

@12 and 13, you're my all-time favorite Slog commenter.

It was a democratically voted on measure that passed. Do you only believe in democracy when your side wins? Prop. 8 sucks, and should be repealed, but if you really want to point fingers, point them at the lack of organization and motivation for the No campaign. Race-baiting and trashing religion isn't going to make it legal. For once, liberals should take a cue from Obama's organization, non-drama, and steadiness to work on the campaign to repeal this bullshit in the next election.

@17

Explain why the majority have a right to strip a minority of their rights? If someone can explain that to me (and I really doubt they can), then maybe I wouldn't be so pissed off on behalf of a minority that is being unfairly treated. Just because it happens doesn't make it right and acting like it's OK isn't going to get anything changed. America has rarely been right on the issue of civil rights until the hand is forced and maybe it's time to demand it.

Check out this interesting but jargony piece. (I found it via Andrew Sullivan).

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/dicamillo_polling_on_prop_8_ca.php

It looks like many many church going Californians drank a big jug of Yes on 8-flavored Koolaid on the Sunday before the election. LDS $$ paid for a lot of TV time, but a butt load of xtians went along with the superficial, simple-minded, dishonest message.

Here's an in-state big donor who is not a Mormon, and he sounds alarming, and so does his apparently limitless disposable income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson,_Jr.

Just because LDS is getting a lot of attention and their "it came from outer space" architecture is easy to spot, it doesn't make sense to let the rest of them off the hook.

Boycott (or move) the Sundance Film Festival:

is this a good idea?:

"DKOS CALL TO ARMS: PROP 8: Sundance Film Festival w/Poll
by Tackle [Subscribe]

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 07:12:10 PM PST

It's time to translate anger into action.

The most visible public event in Utah is the Sundance Film Festival.

It is largely operated by, patronized by, and financed by GLBT members of the entertainment industry and their friends and families.

Let's move this OUT of Utah and to a more suitable venue......VERMONT.

You know Vermont, where gay folks are treated with respect and dignity?

I believe they have some very nice ski resorts there.

Or how about British Columbia? Isn't gay marriage legal in Canada?"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/7/2214/93057/797/657220

@18:

It's important to remember that blacks had to work tirelessly for 100 years after the abolition of slavery to convince the majority of Americans that granting them equal rights and protections under the law was the right thing to do. Because of all that hard heart-and-mind-changing work, the legitimacy of the Voting Rights Act/Civil Rights Act/etc. has gone unchallenged since the 60s. Striving for democratic solutions takes longer, but ensures the permanence of the victory and paves the way for wider social, in addition to legislative, recognition.

Not being directly affected I do not wish to comment on tactics here. I just want to say to everyone who suffers from discrimination and to everyone who is fighting for equality please keep on fighting. You and we will win. I feel we are very much closer to full marriage euqality than we think. Just ten years ago it was pretty unthinkable. I think we'll be there in ten years or less.

And the narrative being developed is great, too: this is what America is all about.

thank you all-

#21 The Congress of the US gave African Americans the rights they now have, not a vote of the people. If the civil rights that African Americans now enjoy was left to the Democratic process, they would still be drinking out of their own water fountains. African Americans were so tired of being required to pay full taxes, obey all laws, pay full price, and YET did not have equal rights that they got real mad and real organized. Gay-Americans face a similar dilemma. Full governmental expectations with out full civil rights. It's time to get real mad and real organized.

Both of Jake's parents and his two brothers came to the Church Office Building protest tonight.

It might be a teeny, weeny bit hard boycotting all Mormon owned businesses. It might just be easier to make an effort to spend your money at LBGT-owned businesses only. You can find a directory at the Gay Chamber of Commerce.

Ironically enough, the Mormons faced terrible discrimination in their early years. It was so bad that they left the United States and moved to the Utah territory, thinking the country would never grown that much.

Also, up until the 1920's or thereabouts, it was part of the temple ceremony to renounce the government of the US, and to "pray ceaselessly" for its demise.

The good news is that once they saw the writing on the wall, they changed their theology to fit in. Just like they changed their theology to accept blacks. They go where they need to go to keep the church coffers full. They'll probably evolve on the gay marriage issue for similar reasons.

@ 18 - because that's how a democracy operates. The majority has the qualified right to do what it wants.

UnoriginalAndrew, didn't your high school require Civics? We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Our constitution was specifically designed to protect people against the tyranny of the majority.

David,
Thanks for sharing your personal story as a gay in-law of an LDS family.

I had similar experiences with my (gay male) ex's Southern Baptist family. Very kind, loving people who warmly welcomed me on a personal level, but who apparently always classified the relationship that brought me into their family as an abomination, theologically.

It's infuriating that these idiotic organized religions can twist good people into committing hateful, harmful acts against people they love.

This is what comes of elevating blind faith to a virtue. She believes she is serving a higher good by surrendering her critical thinking skills on the altar of obedience.

It appears that Ana isn't dumb. Well, the blog is named after her astonishing ability to use Drano and fix a sliding door, which is dumb, but she isn't dumb.

When it comes to gay marriage, Ana seems to always be in a struggle with her Church. Jake isn't the only gay brother she has, there's another. Naturally, this has opened her mind a little.

I'm not sure gay marriage is a great social ill. I understand that it wouldn't work in the Church. But I think there could be solutions that wouldn't require the Church to perform such marriages. And I think there are rights we often associate with marriage (like health insurance or being with a dying loved one in the hospital) that are basic human needs or rights having nothing to do with sexual orientation. Without direction from the Church I would probably campaign for legal domestic partnerships with the same rights as marriage. With direction from the Church ...

A friend replies...

Personally, I am completely and wholly against gay marriage with or without the Church. I'm all for civil unions and giving them the same rights that married couples and enjoy, but marriage is sacred. It was designed with the idea in mind that a man and a woman would marry and create children (a family), something that homosexual relations cannot accomplish. The family, as designed by God, is eternal.

Ana responds, and I was right about one thing...

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Legal unions should be only civil, and the same for everyone. Then whoever wanted to have a church-sanctified marriage could do so within the church of their choice. Inevitably there would be churches willing to sanctify gay marriage. But each church would be able to set its own limits. So that's just another way of making gay marriage legal, but I think it would protect the freedom of individual churches to preserve their doctrinal preferences.

And BTW, my marriage cannot create children, either. Pull on that thread and see what happens to the cloth. That's why to me no solution seems cut and dry.

Oh snap. (The person never responds.) Ana seems to occasionally have her head in one area, but the split-second thought of the Church seems to gear her away, even blindly. The blog teeters back and forth and back and forth.

One of the first "gay" issues in the blog involved a Style Guide to a University she was writing. Or her husband was writing. In the earlier posts, it's really hard to tell who is writing what. All of the posts are listed under her handle, yet some of them appear to be her husband, and some of them appear to be both, talking about each other as if they were both at the computer taking turns writing every two or three paragraphs but forgot to tell us when they would switch off. This was one of them. I think it's the husband. Aaaaanyway...

It's been interesting for me to write some things I'm not sure I agree with 100%. One suggestion is not to refer to "the gay lifestyle, because there is no one gay lifestyle." I believe there is a difference between gay and lesbian people who are sexually active with members of the same sex, and gay and lesbian people who by their own choice are not. And I believe that's a lifestyle difference, in fact I think it's the lifestyle difference I think most social conservatives are referring to when they say "gay lifestyle."

But that definition isn't accepted by most gay and lesbian people or by social liberals. And as a general principle I do believe in people's right to define the language used to speak about them. So that suggestion stands in my style guide. I want respect for my self-definition and my definition for my family. So of course I have to give it to others.

These moments are where it's hard to be open minded about their inevitable idiocy given that they're Mormons. This reads to me as:

"Fuckin' sucks when I can't randomly tell some homo that if they're having homo sex, they're living a different lifestyle than the A+ certified one where they aren't having homo sex, duh, and, like, if I'm going to be talking about anything gay I'm going to want to address this."

I can give you a decision and a lifestyle right now: being a fucking Mormon.

Anyway, if there's anything I can do after wasting an hour and a half jumping around that blog, well...I can tell you three things: Ana is a genuinely nice person with a good heart. Ana seems to be on the better end of the Mormon cult. Ana also definitely maybe has a brain tumor and will probably die in a year or so.

Poe-
that was a blog-within-the-comments-of-a-blog kind of comment.
I enjoyed it. You're getting good at this. Do you have your own blog yet?

I hope your sister-in-law is famaliar with the following quotes from Brigham Young:

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..." (New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue, Spring 1973, p.56)

And if you don't like that one...

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

Obviously, the LDS has changed their view on the issue of race. 150 years ago, however, the kids that live with your sister-in-law may have been someone's slaves instead of her adopted children-- and that would have been just fine with her so-called "prophets." Had Ana been living during that time, her logic would dictate that she should not only tolerate these actions, but actually *support* said practices.

I'm certainly not trying to equate slavery to prop 8. That said, it absolutely blows my mind that a religous organization raised $20 million to write discrimination into a state's constitution. I think history will find the LDS' actions to be absurd as well.

There's a big difference between "religious devotion" and "blind faith"-- it seems that the sis-in-law has fallen prey to the latter. I just hope that her kids don't turn out to be gay.

@32

Psh-ya! Check it out!

Suggestion: start using the phrase "the Morman lifestyle" right now. (e.g., instead of speaking of "Mormons" we'll say "people living the Mormon lifestyle".) That's clearly a lifestyle choice.

Whiney white people. Throw a tantrum when their rights get taken away and the first thing they do is blame black people. It sucks when the bubble you can afford to wrap yourself in because of the power and relative wealth white priviliege grants you gets burst amd you have to confront that so many of your neighbors think you are less than a person.

were the mormons wrong to blow $20 million on stepping on someone else? Absolutley. Imagine how many poor people could have been helped by $20 million in food and clothing.

Jesus said to feed the poor and love god and love your neighbor as yourslf. He did not say to spend all your resources trying to create a christian culture on earth and all the other stuff churches spend most of their time doing. That all came from Paul, who was not a christian, but a political operative and ultimately a fascist who took over and subverted the movement.

I am not convinced mormons and fundamentalists are gong to care if you call their magic club a lifestyle - more likely they would be proud, and point out that anyone could (and should) "choose" their lifestyle.

Remeber that Byrds song from "Sweetheart of the Rodeo:"

My buddies shun me since I turned to Jesus
But I am happy though it burdens my soul
And I'll try to lead them to walk in the night
I like the christian life

I won't lose a friends by heeding God's call
For what is a friend who'd want me to fall
Others find pleasure in things I despise
I like the christian life

Start by tying up loose ends in the legislative processes. Make it difficult or impossible to remove or restrict civil rights. A "either someone has it or they don't" approach.

David, do me a favor, will you? Tell your sister-in-law to go fuck herself.

Ad: good point

I have lots of Catholic friends. I wasn't raised Catholic, but went to a Catholic university. So, at first, in college, I was all like, why are all of my friends so blasé about the fact that their church says they can't use birth control? And that women can't be priests? And that marriages are just for producing babies? It seems crazy for a woman to belong to a religion that seems so anti-women, right?

But, all of them said something similar to what Ana said "we feel like as awful as those things are, we wouldn’t have wanted to give up on our most important feelings and beliefs because of them." Which I totally get. Their faith is important to them, the tradition and ritual of the church is important to them, the strong connection to their families through the church is important to them. They feel that they could use birth control, and still have all of those things. That using birth control doesn't mean that they don't believe in God.

But, here's the thing. None of them would have ever donated money to a cause that was working to outlaw birth control. It's so ridiculous even to imagine that happening... "Well, I personally believe in my right to use birth control, but the church doesn't, so I'm going to work to outlaw it."

I repeat my earlier point. If you can't disagree with your church on a particular issue and still have your faith, you belong to a cult, not a church. I've always thought it was inflammatory and a bit ridiculous to call the Mormon church a cult (sure, they do some crazy stuff, but how much more crazy is wearing magic underwear than some of the stuff Catholics do?), but Ana's letter may have changed my mind.

Will Ana also obey (to signal belief in a 'prophet') if/when her 'divinely called leaders' suggest that she & her family give up their possessions, move to Guyana, and eventually enjoy a cup of cherry Kool Aid laced with poison?

Ana's letter evinces some soul-searching, to be sure, but it looks like she's searching someone else's property.

Thanks David -- You took some of the anger that I have towards my sister (also Mormon, also Pro-8) and diverted it towards her religion, which I already hated. I may never understand why she chose this path for herself, or how she can continue on that path, but in some tiny way, I can now understand how that path works.

Prop 8 Civil rights or “Special Rights”

The No on 8 people continually try to claim this is a “civil rights” issue similar to the struggles of the minorities in the latter half of the 20 century, it is nothing of the sort.
As a minority I was born a specific class of people whose rights were being denied. I did not Choose to be born this was and I cannot change my skin color or heritage even if I wanted to, and herein lies the difference, the homosexual’s has “Chosen” this type of lifestyle and can choose to change it, (unlike those of us born a minority or handicapped)
Some in their community haven’t decided (bi-sexual) but it is still a choice.
They made a “Choice” to live a certain lifestyle and now want us to grant them “Special Rights” claiming we are unfair, and are trying to use the Equal Protection clause as an excuse, this section does not apply to “Choice” it applies to those denied their rights, through no decision/choice of their own (minorities, handicapped down syndrome etc) and cannot change it.
The No on 8 people want us to grant them a “special right” Not a Civil Right since that is Not what this, and in doing so we now, who have not made that lifestyle choice would become a discriminated class and to quote Senator Findstein “discrimination is wrong”.
Additionally the No on 8 people claimed this had nothing to do about religion, then why are they protesting the Mormon Church, they excised their “freedom of religion” and for that because they, and the rest of mainstream society (with Yes on 8 winning) have exercised our Freedom of Speech, now we are wrong!? So does that mean tolerance is ok as long as you agree with “their Lifestyle Choice”? but to disagree is Intolerance, they just showed what they claimed in their commercials it had nothing to do with
Lastly giving if we do give them this “Special Right” then we need to remove the domestic partnership and civil union laws and require them as the rest of the heterosexual community to either marry or do not claim these other special privileges (or grant them to the rest of society). If we do not repeal these laws then I as a heterosexual become discriminated against, because if I live with my girlfriend and we are not a same sex couple, neither one of us can claim the benefits or rights of the other as the homosexuals can, and that again is what Senator Fiendstein claimed she was against “discrimination” and this would be discrimination in its highest form against all heterosexual society.
No on 8 is not about civil rights, its about “special rights” and choice.
I did not Choose to be born a minority, but they can chose a lifestyle
I cannot chose, they can. Choice should not be given a “special right” as they can chose to change.
A great example is Anne Heche, she chose to be a lesbian, now she has Chosen to be Heterosexual, she is a perfect example of type of Choice
No to Special Rights and
Yes to Traditional Families and true civil rights to those who have No Choice

ErnieG: Equal rights are not special rights. Please make a note of it.

As much as I think gay rights folks need to try some sort of outreach to black people, I have to admit that Ernie is beyond hopeless. I'm trying to figure out how he finds his way home every night after work.

But of course not all black people are as dumb or as impervious to reason or empathy as he is.