Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Also in Morning News | Currently Hanging »

Friday, November 7, 2008

The Prop 8 Backlash Continues

posted by on November 7 at 9:59 AM


Towleroad (which also supplies the above pic) reports on the avalanche of protests taking place in California today and through the weekend.

(To the numbskull troll types decrying these “attacks on the Mormon Church”: Fighting back against an attack is not the same as attacking. Please make a note of it.)

RSS icon Comments


I haven't been able to find any updates on the legal challenge to Prop 8 that was trying to overturn it because it was a revision to the constitution of CA and not an amendment and therefore had to go before the legislature and blah blah legal speak. Anyone know something I don't?

Posted by zephsright | November 7, 2008 10:09 AM

We need to challenge their tax exempt status.

Posted by Jim Demetre | November 7, 2008 10:13 AM

What about sexual harrassment? What's that?

Posted by w7ngman | November 7, 2008 10:17 AM

They are expecting 1,000 people to protest church headquarters in SLC today at 6 pm.

Posted by Tom | November 7, 2008 10:22 AM

And what are you hoping this will accomplish? It's not going to repeal the amendment, it's not going to take away tax exempt status, it's not going to even put a dent in the Mormon church, it's nothing but an annoyance to them.

Posted by N | November 7, 2008 10:24 AM


There is an irs letter that is pre filled out you can email or send in.

Posted by um | November 7, 2008 10:26 AM

numbskull troll types decrying these “attacks on the Mormon Church”

Fuck the Mormon Church. Tally ho, I say.

Posted by K | November 7, 2008 10:32 AM

I think the Mormons are bitter over their own revision of the definition of marriage getting knocked down back in the 1880s. Their reasoning seems to be if they can't redefine marriage, no-one can.

Posted by flamingbanjo | November 7, 2008 10:33 AM

5: Sometimes, such as when the majority votes to take away the rights of a minority, you just have to freak the fuck out, long and hard.

Posted by David Schmader | November 7, 2008 10:36 AM

Attack 'em like it's France in 1789.

Posted by BWA | November 7, 2008 10:44 AM

hey #5
trust me when i say, if you annoy white folks long enough things eventually change.

Posted by reverend dr dj riz | November 7, 2008 10:44 AM

@5, @9 - I understand the desire to lash back at the enemy, but at the end of the day, what have you changed? Prop 8 passed in part because the proponents were organized from day 1 on their issue. I sincerely hope there is a group making plans for a counter prop 8 proposal/law/amendment/whatever-you-call-it instead of just a bunch of people making signs about Mormons. The only way to get your rights is to fight for them within the system. So, yeah, protest, shout, and rage all you want, but at the end of the day it will require planning and $$$ to get the rights you deserve.

Posted by winna | November 7, 2008 10:48 AM

Right on. Now it's time for Pres. Obama to speak out. We helped elect him, by god, and he better do something about this. A direct message to the minority communities that helped pass 8 would be a good place to start.

Posted by crazycatguy | November 7, 2008 10:49 AM

"'s nothing but an annoyance to them."

You just answered your own question. And if you've ever been annoyed, you know how well it works.

Posted by whatevernevermind | November 7, 2008 10:50 AM

@13 - Don't expect anything more than supportive words from President Obama (I love typing that) on this issue.

Posted by Mahtli69 | November 7, 2008 10:55 AM

I'm fucking pissed. And right now, my anger (fair or unfair) is directed at Mormons.

I've spent 20 years being nice, being polite. I was nice and polite while Reagan ignored AIDS and gay men died in droves. I was nice while Clinton passed DOMA and Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. I've been nice as I watched state after state write discrimination against gays into their constitution.

Well, now I'm done being nice.

Fuck the Mormons buying discrimination.

Fuck the conservative black churches that supported this travesty.

If I lived in CA, I'd be rioting in the streets right now.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | November 7, 2008 10:57 AM

and yet, my gay cousin got married in MA during the administration of Mormon Governor Mitt Romney

Posted by and yet | November 7, 2008 10:59 AM

I think the embarrassment factor might come in to play too. Anything that attracts protests is going to make non-Mormons pay a little more attention to what Mormons are doing. The Anonymous protesters certainly didn't take down the Church of Scientology, but I would imagine that a few more people are now looking at the church with a skeptical eye.

Posted by Q*bert H. Humphrey | November 7, 2008 11:00 AM

Yeah, the LDS bankrolled the yes campaign, but ultimately it was CA voters who passed Prop. 8. There's your scapegoat.

Posted by joykiller | November 7, 2008 11:05 AM

Maybe it would have been a good idea to have those protests LAST week.

Posted by pox | November 7, 2008 11:05 AM

Maybe this is a losing battle. The solution might be to not expand the state definition of marriage, but to end all state regulation of marriage whatsoever. No more tax breaks, fiscal benefits, health care preferences, etc based on your relationship status. Let people define their relationships how they choose, rather than being put in a position where they're dependent upon Mormons for permission to receive health care benefits.

Posted by Trevor | November 7, 2008 11:17 AM

@22: A similar strategy that might be a little more palatable to the majority is to redefine the public component of all marriage as civil union. That's how it is in reality now - "marriage" is a civil contract, plus whatever religious component the couple wants to graft onto it. If you just take the M-word off of it, the churches can feel like they saved marriage for Jesus, and everyone can have their equal civil unions.

Posted by pox | November 7, 2008 11:24 AM

As long as the protests culminate with a mob of angry homos burning down the holy Mormon undergarment factory, I say more power to 'em.

Posted by Hernandez | November 7, 2008 11:31 AM

@23: Fine by me. I just see some of this as unnecessary. Cultural conservatives feel like their religion is under attack, but they are being (willfully?) naive about the legal and economic rights that the state currently attaches to marriage which have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Marriage rights advocates are often extremely insensitive to the fears expressed by cultural conservatives unaware of the difference between civic and religious rights, and have failed to get the message through that marriage rights are about full civic equality, not equality of opportunity to be married by a pastor of a conservative church.

It may be more palatable to social conservatives to have separate but equal civil unions, but personally I find the whole process of certifying some relationships as deserving of rights that others do not deserve to be the source of the whole problem. It reinforces the idea that some relationships are normative and some are deviant, and pits people against each other in unproductive struggles for and against the status quo.

Posted by Trevor | November 7, 2008 11:41 AM

Agreed with 22/23. Really, federal civil unions (for everyone) are the answer.

Posted by jrrrl | November 7, 2008 11:44 AM

What @16 said. But it's time to start getting ballot initiatives written and start collecting signatures, right now, in every state, preventing the state constititutions from being amended to infringe on the rights of any minority group. It's horseshit that a 51% vote can enshrine bigotry in any state.

Posted by Geni | November 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Trevor, I agree with everything you said there. I think legally separating civil and religious marriage, explicitly, would be a political jiu-jitsu move around those cultural conservatives, rather than trying to power through them. It wouldn't be a separate but equal situation because every marriage would be a civil union. Every birth certificate is a civil document, with baptism and christening as optional private add-ons for those that choose.

Posted by pox | November 7, 2008 11:48 AM

Causing a ruckus makes people think twice. Media coverage is a plus.

As a result - I sat down my parents who I found out voted yes on Prop 8 and had a talk with them. Using a couple of gay family members as examples - I informed them of the rights that were now lost. They looked chagrined and said they had never thought of it like that. I really think they will vote differently next time. These gay family members are a couple of their favorites. A lot of people fall unwittingly to all the scaremongering and don't think it through. Someone has to educate them and by having all of the protests in the media it is possible to make people think more about what it is they have done or are doing.

Posted by subwlf | November 7, 2008 12:01 PM

@17 and yet it was despite everything Mormon Gov. Romney could do to to stop it. The Mormons learned in Massachusetts that they needed to spend more money in future battles against same-sex unions elsewhere.

Posted by inkweary | November 7, 2008 12:38 PM

Here's a lovely LDS take on Prop. 8 from the Deseret News - consider your gag reflex before reading:,5143,705260852,00.html

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | November 7, 2008 12:40 PM

@17 and yet it was despite everything Mormon Gov. Romney could do to to stop it. The Mormons learned in Massachusetts that they needed to spend more money in future battles against same-sex unions elsewhere.

Posted by inkweary | November 7, 2008 12:42 PM

Take a lesson from the Women who struggled for civil rights, take a lesson from the Blacks who struggled for civil rights, take a lesson from any oppressed group and you will see that at some point they had to get mad, get vocal, get angry, and upset other people. It's nice to read that FINALLY some Gay-Americans are seeing that being nice and polite all the time gets one nowhere.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | November 7, 2008 1:06 PM

#22 Silly suggestion, give it some thought and you'll see why.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | November 7, 2008 1:10 PM

I hope this doesn't interfere with the new season of Big Love.

Posted by jackie treehorn | November 7, 2008 1:25 PM

Somebody said "attack them like they were France in ..."


Remember naming French Fries as Freedom Fries?

Why not rename things owned by LDS (the alternatives to them) as "Freedom [NAME]" ...

That would bug em.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 7, 2008 1:29 PM

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.

Posted by Mark in Colorado | November 7, 2008 2:13 PM

Many commenters (22,23,25,29) suggest redefining marriage. That would work only if the goals of the haters were really to "preserve family values." But since their goal is to attack gayness (which includes denying legal protections), the only solution is to win in the court of public opinion.

This is after all a struggle for human rights.

Posted by Lars in Florida | November 8, 2008 7:36 AM

Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Why is sticking with that suddenly defined as hate? Civil unions are still allowed. Why so much hate toward those who stood up for what they felt was a moral issue?

Posted by Tozze | November 8, 2008 5:10 PM

Civil unions and marriage contracts are not the same. People with civil unions don't have nearly as many benefits as people with marriage contracts.
If marriage was so sacred, why do people marry just to come to the US? Isnt marriage about love? Or is it about 'man and woman?"
It definately is not a word owned by jesus freaks, because many atheists are married. And no one owns the word "marriage".
So, what if they put EVERY single benefit on the Domestic Partner law? And then we ban heteros from being domestic partners? I know PLENTY of heteros who are domestic partners and I cannot see them appreciating the ban.

Posted by Catholics4NOon8 | November 9, 2008 12:42 AM

Where do we draw the line on marriage?? A man could love a dog and be unconditionally loved back, be intimate with the dog, would that be wrong?? Why couldn't they marry the dog?? What about a pedophile who was in love with a preteen who loved them in return, could they marry??? What if someone loved more than one person, could they marry many??
Marriage is way more than just love......
Where do you draw the line??
Who gets to choose who deserves rights anyways??
People should spend there time fighting for what they believe in not attacking those who they believe took their rights away....
Most of these posts talk of hate, and it is sadly the posters hating others, what good does this do your cause....

Posted by Bobyjoe | November 9, 2008 11:49 AM

Bobyjoe: two consenting adults

Posted by Phil M | November 9, 2008 11:55 AM

Add Your Comments

Please click Post only once.