TheAgitator.com
Compensate Much?
Friday, November 7th, 2008I think John Stewart had the best take on California’s Prop 8 ban on gay marriage, and the fact that the Mormon Church spent $25 million to get it passed.
This one, however, probably went a bit too far:
52 Responses to “Compensate Much?”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
This one, however, probably went a bit too far:
I couldn’t disagree more.
When the church spent that kind of money and explicitly directed its membership to vote for the proposition, they entered the political arena and thus became fair game.
Isn’t the point of the discussion really that judges should not be legislating from the bench?
Too far?
Nope. A is A.
Why does that go too far.
Fuck the mormons. Fuck them hard.
@jwh:
You said Isn’t the point of the discussion really that judges should not be legislating from the bench?
That is not the point of the discussion at all. It would have been straightforward to frame an amendment to the constitution along the lines of “No part of this Constitution, notwithstanding any judicial findings to the contrary, shall be construed by any court to require the recognition of marriages other than those between a man and a woman.” That would have reversed the court’s decision, while leaving the legislature free to act. As it is, gay marriage is not unconstitutional in California and future legislatures’ hands are tied.
Voters were presented with a choice of continuing to legally recognize gay marriages in California, or to amend the constitution to discontinue the recognition. It would be strange indeed if very many voters voted yes on Prop. 8 out of a principled stand against judicial activism in spite of their support for same sex marriage.
I should have said As it is, gay marriage is *now* unconstitutional in California and future legislatures’ hands are tied.
In what sense does that go too far? For now and for the immediate future, the state of CA is in charge of licensing marriages. Mormon fundamentalists spent millions of dollars to convince Californian citizens to amend the Constitution such that this current state power would be used in an obviously discriminatory fashion. Imagine the uproar if a liberal, gay-friendly California Protestant church had spent millions of dollars to help pass a ballot proposition in Utah declaring that those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may no longer receive state marriage licenses because marriage would now be defined as existing “only between two followers of mainstream, Protestant Christianity.” These people want to use the power of the state in a place they DON’T EVEN LIVE in order to restrict the rights of a weak minority segment of the population. The least we can do is razz them a little.
Maybe a California-based organization should fund a drive for a constitutional amendment to the Utah state constitution banning the wearing of underwear.
Damn that html…Radley we need a preview button!
Is there a more obvious example of a tyranny of the majority in modern politics than the Prop 8 vote?
You’ll find no sympathy from me on characterizing the Mormon church as an institution of bigotry. Similar to Jim Crow, I expect the leaders will have a “revelation” on this issue only when their position becomes completely socially untenable.
I’m with tde. Trying to keep in the spirit of shiny happy comments here, but fuck them. Hypocrites. They should have used Harry Dean Stanton in his creepy Big Love character to trash the house of those lipstick hotties and then run over their tulips in his H1 Hummer before returning home to his plural marriage.
I concur that the second clip did NOT go too far. I also loved Jon Stewart’s point regarding the history of polygamy in the Mormon tradition and now they are into spending all that money to legislate “One Man, One Woman”. I mean, if gay marriage passes, then polygamists when want equal rights too eventually, then Utah might lose its statehood…. right? Right?
The first one, whether it went too far or not, maligned the middle ages. Afaik, no one has found evidence of jus primus noctae. And marriage was an expensive thing that most people didn’t get,
I feel it’s my sacred duty to mock all religions. Especially ones with magic underwear.
That’s right, guys. Pile on the bigotry. See if anyone listens to you afterward.
How screwed up have we become…
Judges create law from bench. yikes…thats no good, so…
Mob Rule used to amend state constitution. yikes…
Oh wait this isnt me, it’s the left coasties…carry on.
I know I’m setting myself up here, but as an active member of the Mormon church, and a libertarian, I feel I should chime in. Trouble is, I’m not quite sure what to say. Like many members of the church, I feel incredibly conflicted. On the one hand, the principles and teachings of the church have made me into a better person. I think by and large most mormons are honest, hardworking, compassionate individuals and I feel that it’s unfair to villianize the church as a whole over this one issue. On the other hand, I recognize that by actively supporting the amendment to ban same-gender marriage, the church has played a role in denying homosexuals an earnest sought right. I understand the anger many groups, including libertarians, feel towards us mormons.
I feel as though I am stuck in an impossible position. I sincerely believe that church leaders are called by God, though I recognize that they are fallible. At the same time, I believe that the state should not be in the business of defining, sanctioning or performing marriages, heterosexual or otherwise. Fortunately I don’t live in California, so I didn’t have to decide how to vote, but I’m curious how many mormons actually towed the line.
“You said Isn’t the point of the discussion really that judges should not be legislating from the bench?”
Many voters used this as excuse to vote yes which is simply asinine. They could of exercised their rights as a voter by simply voting no. They didn’t.
Besides this issue was going to be on the ballot regardless of any ruling by a court.
“Judges create law from bench. yikes…thats no good, so…
Mob Rule used to amend state constitution. yikes…”
They didn’t “create” a law but I agree with the sentiment. The strategy employed by the Mayor of San Fransisco and gay marriage supporters in California is WHAT NOT TO DO.
(gay and lives in a state where we’ve constructed a project to work this out through the legislative process http://project515.advocateoffice.com/ )
I used to not get bent out of shape about gay rights since I’m not gay. But I am really upset about what happened in California. People really feel the need to mistreat others and I just can’t understand why so many people have this horrible attribute. Its one of the saddest aspects of human nature.
How did that second one go too far? It just showed “the church (and the government) is going to be in your bedroom” thing literally. At this rate, it’s likely.
PS: The judges didn’t legislate from the bench. It was pretty clear that the original proposition was unconstitutional by the standards of the CA constitution. That’s why they needed the amendment. The people who are hell bent on making us all bible thumpers are the ones who say “legislating from the bench”, but anyone who has read the opinion (and is smart enough to understand how initiatives and courts work) can tell that they were not.
Oh, and Tim… I agree with you as well. The No on 8 advertising made me cringe. I think they could have had a different angle on it.
Personally, I find Mormons irritating because unlike many religious groups, they’ve actually experienced bigotry and persecution in fairly recent times, but have apparently learned all the wrong lessons from those experiences.
Too far!? Not far enough! That “No on 8″ ad was the only advert I thought that actually hit the nail on the head! This is the Church and Religinuts legislating my private life.
i don’t think it went too far. if we are going to put everything into the political arena, allow gov’t to dictate terms for all areas of life, then we are facing a cage match, gov’t is why we fight.
I find Mormons irritating because they have a history of slaughtering innocent American settlers, persecuting people who go against the church and remain in largely Mormon Areas, maintaining a veil of secrecy about their religious practices, and the fact that the whole shebang was started by a convicted conman. L. Ron Hubbard must have been taking notes from Joseph Smith.
Freedom should always come before tradition.
Fuck tradition.
Honestly, I don’t know why any of you are getting so spun up about the efforts of the Mormon church. As Radley posted earlier, the gay marriage ban failed with whites. It was the minority vote that pushed it over the top.
I have a really hard time picturing the black and latino population in California being that easily influenced by Mormons.
Not that I hate religion, but when they start taking away my rights is when I’d like to tweak the part in the establishment clause about not prohibiting the free practice of religion. We’ll see how happy they are when their profit is banned.
When you start messing with me, I’ll start messing with you. Watch out, LDS. You’re in my sights.
So, overturning a governmental action that clearly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution is now legislating from the bench?
Uh-huh.
So, by that logic, I assume you believe that Gideon, Tinker, and Lawrence were all examples of legislating from the bench. I mean, after all, each one of those was an example of the government violating the fundamental rights of its citizens. But hey, there weren’t specific laws affirming those Constitutional rights, so you, know, no foul. Obviously decided wrong.
/eyeroll
Personally I care not what some desire as their form of committment to one another, legal marriage, or some other form of legal contract. One reason such is desired is so that health care and pass along provisions of property will be insured to a life long partner. Or I suppose.
The property transfer thing is not a big deal, but health insurance is a VERY big deal, as companies do not recognize non-married couples! Hetro or gay!
Though the Mormons were indeed a very visible presence in pushing for prop 8, there are not enough of them in CA or the nation for that matter, to actually create votes on the subject! That would require an ACORN to do.
Many other religious organizations were also involved in some pulpit lobbying of their own. One can bet with lots and lots of money in the bucket as well.
Oh and not all mormons give a crap about gay marriage either. Allot, yes, but not all.
Oh and that attack add against the church, was really out of this world! But in another defense of the “enforcement division of the missionaries”, (does not exist btw), hey they tore a reproducible govt. issued document in half, didn’t shoot anybody!
No animals were harmed during the typing of this drivel.
If anyone has any info on this magic underwear and multiple wives, please contact me discreetly. Sounds very cool.
By the way, I was added to my “wife’s” insurance without hassle (non-married couple). We don’t have a marriage license and were “married” by our friend. The belief that a state must recognize gay marriage or else a gay couple cannot get insurance might no longer be an issue.
Did the free market provide?
Damn shame the two ladies had no means of effective self defense against those home invaders.
Everyone should be able to enjoy all of their civil rights, and no group should be particularly catered to – neither gay, straight, atheist, nor religious.
But San Francisco lefties cheered when citizens were forbidden to own a firearm. They’re quite comfortable with taking away rights, and have a long history of doing it.
They’ll take your weapons, because they don’t like them. They’ll control your property, because they don’t like the way you wish to use it. They’ll take your money, because they want to give it to someone else.
California is one of the most regulated places in America, and it’s been that way for years… give govt a big enough sword, eventually it will cut you too.
Creating an environment in which rights are no longer something solid is a very dangerous game. They simply lost their own game this time around. Stings, doesn’t it?
Brian, it’s not necessarily that they were influenced “by Mormons,” they were more likely influenced by the commercials paid for by the Mormons without knowing who was behind them.
So, overturning a governmental action that clearly violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution is now legislating from the bench?
A gay man and a gay woman have the same right to marry each other as would a straight man and a straight women. Two gay men would have no more right to marry each other than would two straight men; likewise two gay women have no more right to marry each other than would two straight women.
Note, btw, that were it permissible, there would be situations where two straight men or two straight women might benefit financially from a “marriage”, even if they had no intention of sleeping with each other. I have yet to hear any straight people clamoring for such benefits, however.
The principle that a marriage should contain exactly one male–not zero, and not two–is not an invention of government. Indeed, that requirement predates by thousands of years anything resembling modern government. I have seen no indication whatsoever that the people who wrote the “equal protection” clause intended to overrule such a long-standing principle. The Fourteenth Amendment was held to protect the rights of newly-freed slaves, but that’s because the Thirteenth Amendment explicitly abolished slavery. Had it not been for the Thirteenth Amendment, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to slaves would have been an untenable legal stretch.
On the list of top 10 most laughable religions I think Mormons come in at #2.
The whole gay marriage thing started with over reaching Supreme Courts in several states. The “living constitution” is crap, just a convient way to avoid following precedent.
Now should the state be telling people who and how many they should be married to, no. Marriage is a religious institution, keep the two seperated. At one time it served a purpose, see bastardly bonds for example.
Let’s keep it what it really is, a domestic partnership.
It takes a 2/3 YES vote to amend California’s constitution. If Prop 8 had been a constitutional amendment, the 53% Yes vote that it got would not have been enough to pass.
So Prop 8 is merely a statute. And since California’s supreme court said in April of this year that it considers a gay marriage ban to be in violation of California’s constitutional protection against “sex discrimination”, that same court will quickly overturn Prop 8 for the same reason.
The only way a gay marriage ban in CA will ever withstand this type of challenge is if it’s enacted as a constitutional amendment, or if the membership of the state supreme court changes so that a majority of its members will uphold the ban. I don’t see either happening soon.
Prop 8 is doomed.
PS. I believe Nick (#31) goes too far — but I *am* going to petition the IRS to revoke the Mormons’ tax exemption. Live by the rules, die by the rules.
I have no problem with polygamy. But this whole “Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a religion out of my hat!” meme is too funny.
John David Galt (#41): A 2/3 vote is required for the California Assembly to amend the California Constitution, not to pass a proposition to amend it. Prop. 8, like Prop. 102 in Arizona and a similar proposition in Florida, amends the state constitution.
I love the scapegoat thing after an election!! Let’s get the Mormons because they gave money for commercials!!
Come on!!! This was a VOTE. I don’t thing the Mormon population in CA turned this election. I read that the Anti-8 side outspent the Pro-8 side by a significant margin. In fact I read that it was the black vote that was the difference for Prop 8. But by liberal logic, blacks are a protected class and therefore can’t be persecuted.
The only way the second video would’ve been “going too far” is if the mormon guys had started kissing at the very end.
Wait, did I say “going too far”? I meant “become completely hilarious”. Sorry.
You’d have more credibility here (well, actually not, since you don’t have any in the first place, but work with me people) had Radley not already written about how sad and hypocritical it is that the black vote helped pass Prop 8.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129925.html
I don’t think it’s hypocritical, I just think it’s the natural result of the way our government functions. Somebody has to suffer. So, since we have a black president-elect and Bush as president, it’s defaulted to the gays. Come January, it will be the rich that are persecuted, and then, rational self interest being what it is, all of us, once the incentive to become successful is effectively destroyed.
@ Thorn,
I think you’re right. We often sow our own seeds. When you work so hard to take away other people’s rights, you shouldn’t be surprised when you lose some of yours. But I doubt anyone in the gay community would appreciate the parallel between them taking losing their rights to marry and them taking away gun owner and property owner rights.
The State has *NO* business regulating marriage.
One man, one women.
One man, one man.
One woman, one woman.
All are *ARBITRARY* constructs of the State.
There is *NO* logical conclusion, but that prohibitions against polygamy are *ARBITRARY* constructs of the State.
Why are more than one man/woman married any different? We’re all in love, stop judging us you bigots.
If gay marriage is ok, then polygamy *HAS* to be ok too. Both or neither. One or the other is just more bigotry.
Get the damn State out of it!
Radley,
As a journalist, you should be factual. The Church did not give $25 million to Prop 8. Members of the Church contributed $25 million. The Church expressed its moral viewpoint – a valid purpose of all churches. A couple of facts: There are more Mormons in southern California than there are in Utah. Non-members in Utah now outnumber members. A couple of questions: Did you evaluate how much money was contributed by Catholics, Jews, or Evangelicals? Is it your view that it is okay to use your site to distort facts and to incite hatred against a minority simply because you do not agree with them? Frankly, I had thought better of you. There are many of your readers who hold a libertarian political philosophy but are moral conservatives and have strong religious faiths. We feel that moral choices should not be legislated. I am one of them. I am against the drug war, nanny-statism, etc. I am also a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons).
I’m what you might call a “secular Mormon”. I grew up Mormon, my family is Mormon, my wife is Mormon, my in-laws are Mormon, most of my friends are Mormon, etc. I realized when I was a teenager that chances are that God doesn’t exist. I became an atheist and I remain one to this day. That said, I’ve seen that good that the Mormon church does for people. The welfare program that the church has set up should be an inspiration to all private charities. It’s a genuine alternative to government welfare and it works marvels for church members in need. Mormons are by and large as a group of individuals really nice, caring people to everyone they meet, not just other Mormons. There are many good things to say about them.
That said, the Prop. 8 thing is just absolute garbage. Something that I had admired about the church up to this point was its reticence on political issues. No more; that virtue has given way to a pernicious vice. This kind of thing is not okay. Just because something is contrary to their own doctrine is no reason to outlaw it. No one is suggesting that they would be forced to marry gays in their temples, so what’s the big idea? There is no big push to outlaw drinking, smoking, or pornography, so why this? If they want to play politics, they really, really need to understand that they are likely to get it just as good as they gave. What an absolute shame.