http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2008/11/19/the_mormon_church_jumps_the_co Comments On: The Mormon Church Jumps the Couch by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by WhirlingDervish]]> Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:33:30 -0800 The Stranger
As for tax exempt status for religions who engage in the political process, I agree, it should be removed. If they're going to take stands, endorse or condemn candidates, then they have to be treated like any other organization.
Posted by Rob]]> Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:39:13 -0800 The Stranger
Suggestions?

No?

OK, to take the long view...it would be great if any two people (or more) could commit to each other as "family"--not limited only to romantic love partners. By backing that up with legal requirements for financial support (for 10 or 20 years, no matter what), a US citizen could legally bring any such "family" into the US. That would be lovely. But y'know, for all my friends who are 30-, 40-, 50- or 60-something, and still trying to make long distance relationships work, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, pushing for marriage (or truly marriage-equivalent unions, not some watered down crud) seems like a fine way to go.

You, of course, will always be welcome to not use the option, if it does not apply to your life.
Posted by JFS]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:37:00 -0800 The Stranger
It's not about "assimilating" into a more "straight lifestyle." It's about having access to the equal legal protections from the government of which we are all citizens.

You're right to choose not to get married is taken away when the choice of whether or not you can marry is put into someone else's hands.
Posted by BrinkleyBoy]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:33:15 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes…
Posted by Quintus Slide]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:40:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Darcy]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:45:58 -0800 The Stranger
But I guess i also view gay marriage with a bit of skepticism. I am under no impression whatsoever that gay marriage is going to give us equality - and, frankly, I don't care, as a gay man, if I receive it from the straight world. Yes, I completely agree we should have the same legal rights, but I can't comprehend the entire backlash against Prop 8. Your love with a partner isn't compromised because some dipshit preacher tells you it is wrong - no more than you being gay was compromised by it.

I find it, in some ways, offensive that after spending decades thinking being gay was wrong, and I needed to be "straight", that gay leaders are once again telling me I need to assimilate myslef more into the straight world to find acceptance. I am happy I accepted being gay, and don't need the term "marriage" attached to a relationship to validate it or my sexuality. If the heteroes want marriage - let them have it. We are creative enough to start our own unique tradition, one that heteroes, one day, might want to copy.

Posted by marc]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:52:57 -0800 The Stranger
When someone thinks someone else is wrong - just like many gay people thought Prop 8 was wrong and the LDS church was wrong to support it - they are allowed to say so. How is this anti-free speech or anti-tolerance?

The organized gay and progressive communities have made no attempt to curtail the religious freedoms of Mormons. Mormons have made many attempts to curtail the civil rights of gays and lesbians. In other words, gays tolerate Mormons but Mormons don't tolerate gays.

What is your definition of "TOLERANCE?" In my mind, it means that as long as someone is doing you no harm, you live and let live. What harm does same-sex marriage do to Mormons? None. You don't have to change your beliefs. You can't get arrested for preaching against us, just like the KKK can't get arrested for preaching hate against blacks and Jews. You don't have to marry us, just like you don't have to marry anyone you don't want to now.

Religion, which is a total matter of choice, is protected in this country. Even if you believe, (despite all the evidence to the contrary,) that being gay/lesbian is a choice, it is equally deserving of protection. You have the freedom to marry and live how you see fit. It is not "INTOLLREANCE"(sic) when we ask for the same thing. It is not "INTOLLREANCE"(sic) when we decry those who will deny it to us.

Please seek the tiniest bit of empathy and imagine yourself in the shoes of a gay/lesbian family for a moment. We just want the same things as you. We want our families to be protected and to be treated with dignity. That's all we're trying to get you to understand. We not trying to change your beliefs. We're not even trying to make you accept us. We just want to be treated equally by the government of which we are all citizens.
Posted by BrinkleyBoy]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:58:44 -0800 The Stranger http://www.wwrn.org/sparse.php?idd=6100

Like all religions, Mormons have some weird ideas (to throw in a couple more: they believe polygamy still exists in heaven, which means according to the church, my divorced and remarried Mormon parents will live together after they die. Fun! And they also believe in baptism for the dead, allowing people to become Mormon after they die - goes over really well with Holocaust victims' families).

But focusing on their oddities, however entertaining, does miss the point: who cares what they believe? What matters is their efforts to take away rights. And for this reason, focusing on any religion's beliefs is missing the point. The point is, we have to fight against ANYONE who wants to deny rights. The question of marriage is a legal/civil rights question. ANY religion should have no part in determining who gets rights. That is unconstitutional. We should advocate in those terms, which I think are much stronger than the "religions are wrong about this" argument. The Catholics are wrong, the Baptists are wrong, the Mormons are wrong, and the legislators and communities that deny these rights are wrong. But most important, the laws are wrong.

The solution that would be legal and constitutional would be: civil unions (call it marriage or whatever) for everyone (gay or straight) who wants to create a family unit, recognized by the government. Religious marriage performed in whatever church to whomever that church sees fit to marry - those marriages having no bearing on the status of the civil union (whatever you choose to call it).

Like rights for women and people of color, I expect this will happen first on local levels, then regional, then finally will be written into federal law. California is but one battle - the real target as I see it is the federal level. And that will take a long time. Gird your loins, people! Keep on suing!
Posted by arighteousbabe]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:35:03 -0800 The Stranger I am embarrassed for the people I see in the protests. Acting like they do does not help your cause. INTOLLREANCE!

Heidi
Posted by park]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:20:17 -0800 The Stranger
Let's also remember that, presumably, the common goal is to advance and protect gay rights in the entire country, not just in select spots here and there. Pulling the trigger too early might backfire. That's what an idiot like Gavin Newsom doesn't understand. And Savage doesn't appear to either. One day, we'd like to see gay marriage enacted in Utah as well - surely that's not going to happen if we start some kind of pointless war with the LDS church.
Posted by jordan]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:11:04 -0800 The Stranger
First, their beliefs really are that crazy. I think the racist stuff (native americans will become white and delightsome when they repent and return to god!) is so much worse than the weird underpants and the becoming gods and goddesses of your own worlds stuff. The history of polygamy and their complete unwillingness to deal with that history is also disturbing.

Mormons that disagree with the church on this issue will sit by and let the church wage these campaigns against gays just like they did when blacks were not allowed as full members of the church. They are slaves to the prophet. It is time to make them uncomfortable. I am sick of their complacency and blind faith in things that they know are wrong. Being sweet with them about this issue just allows them to smile and make excuses for the church. Confronting them puts them in a difficult place and creates the chaos that change requires. I am going to keep pushing my family and friends on this one.
Posted by lanik]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:43:27 -0800 The Stranger
Congrats on your good work in Canada. Yes, consensus building is important. Maybe some day about twenty years from now there may even be a pro-same-sex marriage consensus here in Georgia. In the meantime, Dan Savage is a breath of fresh air.
Posted by pat]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:31:46 -0800 The Stranger
That's hard for me to answer... except among my many talents, I'm a great dog-trainer. And I know that by trying to force a dog to do something, I'm likely to reinforce his tendency to fight back and refuse.

So, yes, Obama is right to seek common ground - and gays might be better served that way, too.

I was fortunate enough to see all Dan's public appearances last week. He seemed quite reasonable to me and I don't think his behavior would provoke that attack response.

Tony Perkens was as rude as he could be and blaming Dan for daring to speak. The only other person who seemed to be upset with him was the preacher who was blaming gays for the problems AA's have in their marriages. (A totally unreasonable argument.)

I think that in another month or so, most of us will be ready to get on your bandwagon. Maybe not Dan, but most of us.
Posted by Ayden/VA]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:06:42 -0800 The Stranger
I'm sure you're right that most Mormons don't know who Dan is - but let's not forget they are less than 2% of California's population. Let's remember that, in order to move this forward, we have to convince a good number of people that what we're asking for is just. Let's further remember that Prop 8 was stacked in our favour, thanks to what I'd call status quo bias, and that in order to get an affirmative proposition passed in a future election, we'll need to get a whole lot of people to change their mind about gay marriage.

Given those parameters, lashing out wildly is not just stupid and annoying, it actually does considerable damage to long term prospects.

Put another way, simply imagine yourself in the shoes of one of the people who might have voted for Prop 8, but is a good target constituency to be in favour of gay marriage in the future. Would you be convinced by Dan's harangues? Or would it merely convince you that you were right to support the proposition all along?
Posted by jordan]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:22:32 -0800 The Stranger
I promise I'm not trying to be dense here. I just don't understand... Exactly what has Dan ruined? And what do you have to work at fixing?

I do understand about having to 'get along with people', but I'm thinking most Mormons don't even know Dan exists. Does he really have that much impact?

(Admittedly, I'm one of the many who really wants to *lash out* at the ones who've hurt me. We tend to be Dan's cheerleaders. At least for the moment.)

Posted by Ayden/VA]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:14:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by BrinkleyBoy]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:50:55 -0800 The Stranger
I don't recall that it's an official publication of the Church, but it's very popular. I would say a high percentage of Mormon kids grew up with that book.
Posted by BrinkleyBoy]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:50:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Willie Wilson]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:30:44 -0800 The Stranger
Nobody is legally compelled to join a religion in this nation. If someone's chosen church preaches something with which they strongly disagree, they are free to leave. Conversely, if they willingly stay they can expect to be called to account for the actions of that church, since those actions represent the collective actions of its members.
Posted by flamingbanjo]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:23:19 -0800 The Stranger Posted by candice.]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:00:27 -0800 The Stranger
Dan Savage and the gay community in general didn't pour money into a campaign to restrict the rights of Mormons. Mormons did pour money to take restrict the rights of gay people.

Why don't Mormons want gay people to marry -

Short Answer: "The Prophet tells me so." And when the Prophet speaks, the discussion is over.

Long Answer: I guess because they think that their religious mythology is more important than the lives of real gay families like my partner and I or Dan and his boyfriend and son. They would rather the law reflect what they think other people should do than allow people to choose to do something with which they disagree. They don't want their kids to be aware of the existence of gay couples because they fear that their kids will then think it's ok to "choose a gay lifestyle." Basically it's like Lucifer's plan in the pre-existence that people would be forced to obey God, rather than having Free Agency to choose right or wrong. The LDS church sided with Lucifer's plan on this one.

BTW - Here is a great Children's song they taught as in church; it's very popular still today:

(chorus)
Follow the Prophet,
Follow the Prophet
Follow the Prophet,
Don't go Astray

Follow the Prophet,
Follow the Prophet
Follow the Prophet,
He Knows the way.

(Final Verse)
Now we have a world where people are confused.
If you don't believe it, go and watch the news.
We can get direction all along our way,
If we heed the prophets-- follow what they say.
Posted by BrinkleyBoy]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:59:29 -0800 The Stranger I can't speak for Dan, but I know and have known many Mormons. You will notice I don't use the word friend, they do not see me as such, nor I them. As a gay man, they neither trust or accept me. Ultimately it comes down to tolerating those that are different than yourself, but if it tolerance isn't recieved, one shouldn't expect to get to be given it.
Posted by Pizmosf]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:56:11 -0800 The Stranger ...vitriolic mumbo-jumbo.

@65: Vitriolic mumbo-jumbo is a great phrase. Would that be like when you claim that God is forcing you to support and fund attempts to suppress other people's rights? Or that, gosh you'd love to help out all your gay friends, but there's an important mystical, theological reason why you can't, and it's not open to discussion because who are we to question (what church leaders assure us is) God's will?

Like that kind of vitriolic mumbo-jumbo?
Posted by flamingbanjo]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:46:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by candice.]]> Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:34:52 -0800 The Stranger