Dear G, thanks for your “concern” for our welfare.

You and your side made your hatred and contempt for LGBT Americans and their civil rights quite clear.

Now, it’s our turn to hold you to account. And we shall do so, loud and often, despite your concern that continued criticism will bring your organization’s moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy to light.

Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biiaNNSBa8I

Clearly passions run high on this issue, and I guess my feeling is, when approached from a purely intellectual viewpoint, there are no valid arguments for banning gay marriage, its good for business, good for communities and good for creating family economic units.

And I recoil at religious/moral arguments as I am a strict secularist.

But, you have definitely raised the level of discourse and forced me to look beyond my blinding sense of injustice quite and to answer your questions slightly more objectively.

I think the outpouring of rage from many in the community here is a result of holding our tongues for years of publicly sanctified gay bashing/baiting by the right/republicans (not to mention on the street and in the schools). We expect his from Arkansas… California was shock and now there is a line in the sand.

I know it is hard from me not to answer with rage and sarcasm and I am about the calmest dude one would ever meet. I live in Boston, I am getting married this spring to the best man in the world, the thought that someone could come in and vote that out from under me is terrifying.

Thank you.

Re: “Now a question for you.. how, specifically, would my gay marriage impact your life AT ALL?”

It wouldn’t. I am gay. I am not necessarily NOT on your side on this issue. I just believe it ought to be argued intelligently and with intellectual honesty, and I just don’t see that happening.

Re: “”jews and the blacks” as you so lovingly describe them.”

I take it that that was sarcasm. In fact, I do love Jews and Blacks, and everyone else…or at least I try hard to. I don’t want to provoke a false argument here, but it may say more about you than about me that you seem to find those terms offensive.

Well, I can’t say that you buy my positions any more than I buy yours, which sadly means that I am not sure we have gotten anywhere here, but thank you for the time and for offering your thoughts clearly and honestly, and for responding to mine in the same way.

Now a question for you.. how, specifically, would my gay marriage impact your life AT ALL?

And imagine for a moment how it might feel, if we got to hold a public referendum on your marriage.

Hateful Christians blow my mind… this is NOT what Jesus would do. Jesus was a punk rock rebel, who didn’t give a fuck about the establishment… love each other and care for the less fortunate was what Jesus was about…Where did that message go…

Thank you.

In my view, there are several difficulties with the view you express:

1. When a person becomes a bishop, he does not, in so doing, relinquish his civil rights. True, he may not, acting specifically as a bishop, publicly endorse a specific candidate by name. But there is absolutely no law that prevents him from expressing views, either as a bishop or merely as a citizen, on policy issues. If you dispute this, I would be interested in seeing what you believe to be the dispositive case law. I believe you will not be able to produce any because there is none.

2. You refer to having legislation “inflicted” on you. But Prop 8 was a public referendum. The competing sides fought out the issue in the public square. The side that won over more hearts and minds ended up winning. The people have spoken. How is something being inflicted on you?

3. Much law is based on moral principle, and much moral principle stems from religious belief. How do you seperate out the laws that are ultimately rooted in religious principle from those that are not?

4. Most interestingly, you are silent on the main questions I originally raised:

A. Why only AFTER they lost did the protesters claim that 8 was unconstitutional? If they felt it was unconstitutional, why did they not seek to nulify the proposition beforehand? Why did they participate fervently in a referendum they believed was illegal?

B. The protesters shout basically meaningless generalizations at the temples. If the head of the protesters could sit down with the head of the Mormons for an intelligent debate–let me just say that again: AN INTELLIGENT DEBATE–then what exactly would the protest leader’s complaint be?

C. Why do the protesters not confront the Jews and Blacks?

Wow, someone who actually sees all this for what it is.

1. If, as protesters have argued, 8 was unconstitutional to the extent that it sought to gut rather than amend the CA constitution, they should have sought to nulify, rather than win, the vote. Would we have seen the protests we now see had the prop not passed? Doubt it. Well, it either is or is not unconstitutional; it doesn’t become one or the other depending on whether your side one. Everyone knows, and no one respects, intellectual dishonesty when they see it.

2. Until the protesters become clear-headed in their complaint against the Mormons, the protesters will look to the rest of the world like little more than a mob of sore losers. Is the complaint that the LDS may not advocate politically? If that is the case, the protesters reveal more about their own ignorance than they shed light on any shortcoming of the Mormons. The law is clear that a church enjoys the same free speech rights as does any other citizen, with the exception that they may not explicitly support a particular candidate by name. If you don’t like that, protest at the graves of the Founding Fathers, not at the Mormon temples. Relatedly, does anyone believe that the protesters would be saying boo if the Mormons had been on our side? C’mon. Tell the truth: the protesters are not pissed off because the churches spoke up, but because the churches spoke up for the other side.

3. Ultimately, then, what is the protesters’ complaint? That LDS organized well? Too bad. That it had money? Too bad. The same was true of the Obama campaign, and we heard no protests about that. In the end, all that can be said is that the protesters have one set of values and the Mormons and Jews and other Christian groups had another, and the protesters’ side lost. That happens. But there is not a hell of a lot to protest about in that.

LA Resident

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

If you believe, then please do something. Please speak up. Please raise your voice. Please share your energy. Please shout out loud. Please take a stance against PROPOSITION 8.

Yes, I am a gay man. Yes, I am a gay dad. –And yes, I do believe that all people are created equal. I do believe that all American citizens should share the same legal rights, the same legal protection.

Can anyone explain what “the sanctity of marriage” means? I am very confused when I hear these words. Does this indicate that marriage is blessed by religion? If so, is there then an understood, yet unstated correlation that religion dictates our laws? Does this mean that religion stipulates the rights of American citizens? If so, what happened to the separation of Church and State? If my understanding is incorrect, please explain why your relationship protects the sanctity of marriage, but my relationship does not?

I am asking you to do something. I am asking you to speak up, to speak out. I am asking that you forward your thoughts, your support, to everyone you know. I am asking that you campaign for equality as strongly as you would fight for your family…because that is what this is about. This is about my family. This is about your family. This is about individuality. This is about equality. This is about the United States. This is about dignity. This is about human rights. This is about humanity.

If you disagree, that is your right. I cannot and will not, say that I forgive you. Yet I can say, that I can and will forget you.

–Can I get an Amen?

~Loren Wyatt

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

If you believe, then please do something. Please speak up. Please raise your voice. Please share your energy. Please shout out loud. Please take a stance against PROPOSITION 8.

Yes, I am a gay man. Yes, I am a gay dad. –And yes, I do believe that all people are created equal. I do believe that all American citizens should share the same legal rights, the same legal protection.

Can anyone explain what “the sanctity of marriage” means? I am very confused when I hear these words. Does this indicate that marriage is blessed by religion? If so, is there then an understood, yet unstated correlation that religion dictates our laws? Does this mean that religion stipulates the rights of American citizens? If so, what happened to the separation of Church and State? If my understanding is incorrect, please explain why your relationship protects the sanctity of marriage, but my relationship does not?

I am asking you to do something. I am asking you to speak up, to speak out. I am asking that you forward your thoughts, your support, to everyone you know. I am asking that you campaign for equality as strongly as you would fight for your family…because that is what this is about. This is about my family. This is about your family. This is about individuality. This is about equality. This is about the United States. This is about dignity. This is about human rights. This is about humanity.

If you disagree, that is your right. I cannot and will not, say that I forgive you. Yet I can say, that I can and will forget you.

–Can I get an Amen?

~Loren Wyatt

They should lose their tax exempt status.

I also wonder why so many super rich open and closeted gays just didn’t stand up and support the no vote
On Prop 8. Where was the mega rich gay mafia?
Shame on them also!

Pissed in NJ.

Maplewoody

However, I started a group on Facebook to boycott businesses that supported propositions 8, 102, and 2. Group members are taking turns compiling lists of companies that we will distribute to friends and family.

Again, in America people are entitled to their beliefs. Likewise, we can boycott those companies who support denying same-sex couples 1,049 federal rights.

This boycott seems like a more practical option than, say, picking out a handful of passages in the Bible that feel relevant to a person’s life. Furthermore, this boycott does not assume the support of anyone, black or white, gay or straight. It is a measure of action based on personal belief.

You can be brave at a protest against mormons, however, try another venue, say south central… I do believe you would be just as nasty in person.

G, you are a coward, and I suspect if you were in the same room with me, you wouldn’t have the courage to say the things you say here. You can be brave from your computer keyboard, right, waste???? Get a reason to live.

OK so we’re immoral but you don’t hate us. That makes me feel all warm & fuzzy.

On the other hand, we hate you, so deal with that.

Excerpt:

“[The Mormon Church]
Organized phone banks from Utah and Idaho
Sent direct mail to voters
Transported people to California over several weekends
Used the LDS Press Office to send out multiple News Releases to promote their activities to nonmembers
Walked precincts
Ran a speakers bureau
Distributed thousands of lawn signs and other campaign material
Organized a “surge to election day”
Church leaders travel to California
Set up of very elaborate web sites
Produced at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts all in support of Prop 8
Conducted at least 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 Western states.

All of these unreported contributions by the Mormon Church were on top of its massive fund-raising effort; the largest ever undertaken on a social issue ballot initiative.”

And this is just the beginning.

I’ll just give you one old queer’s take on ‘the gay agenda.’ If I miss something, fellow queerty bloggers, please help me out. We want the same civil rights and responsibilities all other Americans have. Generally, we focus on equality in employment,military service,housing and other marketplace issues, and currently marriage and family. Oh, and we’d prefer not to be beaten up or murdered or taken out to the edge of town and stoned, just because we’re gay.

Regarding your assertion that we don’t deserve special rights because we’ve chosen to be gay, I’d point out just as an aside that you have chosen your religion and that right is protected under our Constitution. More pointedly, there is indeed growing scientific evidence that being gay isn’t a choice, including the long known reality that homosexuality occurs in the natural world.

And even if it were a choice — now this is a reach — it shouldn’t preclude our having the same protections afforded those who make any other lifestyle choices, such as choosing a particular religion.

Now then, this old queer, agenda or no, is pretty down on religion and religious people. Not all of you, for to be fair, many religions and religious people don’t insist that their way, based on a narrow, literal, selective and inaccurate reading of a splendid but mythological work of literature is the only right way. If you want to believe that the first couple shared the Garden of Eden with a talking snake about 6000 years ago, well, I suppose you have the right to do that. I’m afraid I think it’s all a fairy tale, you should pardon the expression. And no one needs the Bible to know good from evil and right from wrong.

But your belief, no matter how sincere, has nothing to do with anything but your belief. It certainly has no role — again one would refer to the Constitution — in civil matters affecting anyone else.

Take religion out of this discussion, and there’s no discussion.