The Gay Marriage Column

Snide Remarks #600

"The Gay Marriage Column"

by Eric D. Snider

Published in EricDSnider.com on November 17, 2008

Well! There has been quite a rhubarb over this whole gay marriage thing! If you'll permit me, I'd like to employ my usual measured, careful analysis of this controversy to see if I can help us understand both sides a little better.

On the one side, you have the fags. The fags, the queers, the dykes, and the lesbos. They want the government to let them marry each other the same way people of the opposite sex marry each other, i.e., expensively, and followed by a lifetime of sexless drudgery. The homos also want to require kindergarten teachers to promote homosexuality to their students, complete with visual aids and in-class demonstrations; they want to destroy the traditional family unit and replace it with a society where everyone just walks around naked all the time, sometimes pausing in the street to do it with a stranger; they want the First Amendment rewritten to make all churches illegal except for the ones with fashionable interior design; and they want the national anthem replaced with something by Sondheim.

On the other side, you have the religious nutjobs -- the zealots, the whackos, the crusaders, the cultists. These bigots want to enforce Christianity -- their particular brand of it, of course, since all the other kinds of Christianity are wicked -- throughout the land, first by putting up Nativity scenes in federal courthouses, and eventually by replacing every American city's street lights with giant crucifixes and all state constitutions with copies of Guideposts magazine. They believe that gays are second-class citizens whose deviant behavior strips them of any rights under the Constitution, and that if the gays want to get married they should all just move to an island somewhere, start their own little gay-marriage colony, and eventually kill each other with AIDS (which religious people believe is spontaneously generated, like fire, when you rub two gays together).

There. Have I summed everything up?

California's recent vote on Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state, was a close one -- 52% in favor of the ban, 48% against. What especially frustrated those opposing the proposition was that early polling had indicated a handy majority of voters agreed with them. It wasn't until a certain church got involved -- a certain church known as the Latter-day Saint LDS Church of the Mormons -- that the tide turned the other way. For those in favor of gay marriage, it was like playing a game of basketball where your team is outperforming the other team until the fourth quarter, when suddenly they bring in 750,000 extra players. The analogy is imperfect, because in this case the extra players did not violate the rules of the game, and because of course gays don't play basketball, but you get the idea.

The LDS Church made the unusual move of specifically encouraging its members in California to not just vote for Prop 8, but to donate their time and money to encourage others to vote for it, too. And for the most part, rank-and-file Mormons responded to their leaders' directions the way they usually do: they had a meeting, served refreshments, ran over by about 10 minutes, declared Democrats evil, talked about BYU football for a while, and then went out and did what had been asked of them. About $40 million was raised in support of Prop 8, and at least half of that was contributed by Mormons. Many church members also canvassed neighborhoods and made phone calls for Prop 8. It was an all-out effort, and there's no disputing it was the Mormon involvement that got Prop 8 passed. Mormons should be proud to know that their efforts paid off.

Strangely, however, now that gay-marriage proponents are expressing outrage and anger at the Mormons, many church members are acting like their involvement was inconsequential. They're celebrating on Election Night, and then the next day saying, "What? Why are you mad at US? We weren't the only ones!" There have also been several instances where it has become known that someone donated money to Prop 8 -- political contributions are a matter of public record -- and people have boycotted their businesses in response. This, too, has left some Prop 8 supporters hurt and confused.

What people failed to realize, I guess, is that when you get involved in a political issue, you don't get to choose what kind of response you get. You don't get to accept the congratulations for your victory but refuse the jeers from the losing side. That doesn't excuse the illegal reactions, of course. The physical threats, the vandalism, that's all out of bounds, obviously. But refusing to patronize a business whose owner contributed to a political cause you disagree with is a perfectly legal and reasonable thing to do. If you're going to take a stand for something, you have to accept that there's going to be a negative reaction from those who disagree with that stand.

A man named Dave Leatherby, owner of an ice cream shop in Sacramento and a devout Catholic, contributed, with his family, about $20,000 in support of the gay-marriage ban. He's now shocked and bewildered that the people who view his contribution as an attack on their civil rights are boycotting his business. According to an article in the Sacramento Bee, "he is particularly confused because his business has participated in the annual gay pride Rainbow Festival." Which is sort of like saying, "Sure, I punched you in the face and threw you in a ditch. But don't forget -- I also came to your birthday party last year!"

Some of the boycotting takes things too far, though. Some activists are calling for a boycott of the entire state of Utah, including the gay-friendly Sundance Film Festival, which is held in Utah's most liberal town, Park City. That's like boycotting Nevada because you don't like hookers. I guess "Utah" equals "Mormonism" in the same broad, stereotypical, mostly-true-but-not-entirely sense that "gay" equals "un-athletic."

Then there was the head of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center organizing a drive to send protest postcards to LDS Church "president Thomas Munson," whose last name is actually Monson. Or gay columnist Dan Savage saying on CNN that a letter in support of Prop 8 had been read over the pulpit at all Mormon "temples," unaware that Mormon temples are quite different from the regular Mormon churches, which is where the letter was actually read. (Ask any Mormon -- the difference is huge.) Or the various calls to hold protests at Mormon temples on a Sunday, apparently unaware that Mormon temples are closed and empty on Sundays, because all the Mormons are at their churches. (See? Told you there was a difference.)

What we're finding is that the average gay activist knows as much about Mormons as the average Mormon knows about gays, i.e., mostly unflattering half-truths that they once heard from someone who doesn't like them.

There are some legal misunderstandings, too. Many Prop 8 opponents are saying the LDS Church's involvement in this political issue means it should have its tax-exempt status revoked. This refers to section 501(c)(3) of U.S. Title Code 26, which a lot of people didn't read because they heard it wasn't as good as U.S. Title Code 25, so I'll summarize it. It's laying out which groups are exempt from taxation, and it includes:

"Corporations ... organized and operated exclusively for religious ... purposes ... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." (The ellipses are to simplify the sentence by removing the parts that don't apply here.)

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but the church's lawyers are lawyers, and I'm guessing their defense lies in the word "substantial." You'd have a hard time showing that the church's attempt to influence the passage of Prop 8 constituted a "substantial" part of its activities, given that it's a worldwide church with billions of dollars in holdings and 13 million members. Only a small fraction of that money and those members reside in California. "Revoke their tax-exempt status!" makes sense until you actually read what the law says. Then you can see it's not so cut-and-dried.

But some Prop 8 supporters have been misunderstanding the law, too. I've been hearing a lot of this lately: "Prop 8 opponents should just drop it. The people have spoken and the measure has passed! It's over!" And that's a lame argument. Are you saying that if the outcome had been the other way around, you'd be saying, "Oh well! We lost. Time to move on and just accept gay marriage"? Of course not. "You lost! Get over it!" reeks of gloating and smugness, and it's as unhelpful as a lesbian in the kitchen on Thanksgiving.

Most of these people were upset that there even had to be a vote, considering Californians had already banned gay marriage once before, only to have that law struck down by the state Supreme Court. They complain that it's not fair for the court to go against the will of The People. Well, that argument's as useless and hollow as Bill O'Reilly's head. There's not a gentle way of saying this, so I'll just spit it out: It doesn't matter what The People want. Part of what the U.S. Supreme Court and the individual state supreme courts do is compare the will of The People against the state and U.S. constitutions. Those documents trump everything else. If The People vote for something that the Supreme Court determines is a violation of the Constitution, then it doesn't matter how many of The People voted for it. It's out, period.

So the issue isn't whether the state Supreme Court should be overruling The People, because the answer is yes, it should, if what The People want is unconstitutional. The issue is whether the Supreme Court was correct when it determined that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. That's the question, and obviously there are strong arguments on both sides. Even the court itself was divided, 4-3, and if seven robe-wearing old people whose names you wouldn't recognize can't agree on something unanimously, then what hope is there for the rest of us?

As usual with these things, both sides are convinced of their own moral rightness, and each side is upset that its intolerance is not being greeted with more tolerance by the other side. Everyone claims to want to reach an "understanding" or a "compromise," but all they really mean is that they want the other side to give up and back down.

This is all wrong! Gays and Mormons should focus not on their differences but on what they have in common. They both love being persecuted and telling the world what martyrs they are, for example. They both love Disneyland. They both prefer Mitt Romney over John McCain. They're both always well represented on "American Idol." They're both unwelcome in Alabama. They're both suspicious of Catholic priests. The list goes on and on.

As these emotionally charged debates continue, it's important to remember what we share -- our desire for happiness, our inherent worth as human beings, and our gratitude to live in a country that lets us hash these things out without anyone having to raise an army or execute any dissenters. In the stirring words of our national anthem, let's send in the clowns.

Comments & Reaction:

The Munson/Monson thing happens at about 7:40 in this video, and she says it a couple times. Dan Savage's "temple" reference starts at around 1:45 in this video, though you might watch the whole thing if you're interested in seeing two people on opposites of an issue behaving like complete jackasses toward one another.

I think this column will be appreciated by those who complained during the election that I didn't do an adequate job making fun of both sides equally. Alternatively, it's possible that those people will merely be offended by half of this column's jokes. It's hard to tell.

I have never used the word "rhubarb" on this website before.

You might have noticed that this is "Snide Remarks" number 600. Hooray for round numbers ending in zeroes! The column considered to be "Snide Remarks" #1 was actually published 614 weeks ago (Feb. 6, 1997), which means the weeks I wrote more than one column have almost exactly balanced out the weeks I didn't write any. Math is interesting!

This item has 187 comments

Lisa says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:10 am
Brilliantly written and hysterical. Yes, you will get comments telling you lesbians can cook or Mormons don't all love Disneyland....but we can laugh at those comments, too.
Marc says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:25 am
This is probably the most offensive thing you have ever written...I loved it! Enjoy the calm before the storm Eric because you are about to be deluged with angry letters. :)
peptidefarmer says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:34 am
As both a Mormon and opponent of Prop 8, I applaud your excellent column and eagerly await the imminent comment storm.
Braden Ellis says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:35 am
Your ability to completely eschew anything resembling political correctness is truly awe-inspiring.
carolynpepsi says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:50 am
". . . AIDS (which religious people believe is spontaneously generated, like fire, when you rub two gays together)."

lawling

Great job! You insulted both sides pretty evenly - impressive.

Are all women who are useless the kitchen on Thanksgiving lesbians? I hope not - for both mine and my husbands' sakes.
carolynpepsi says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:51 am
[add the word "in" above - thank you]
Kaydria says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:58 am
Eric. Please marry me. It's legal in Portland. I checked.
Holly says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:08 am
Mmm...rhubarb.
Bundy says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:26 am
Nice to read something about prop 8 that is light hearted. The hyperbole is fun because it is true.

I thought the following line was very insightful: "if seven robe-wearing old people whose names you wouldn't recognize can't agree on something unanimously, then what hope is there for the rest of us?"
Tom says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:48 am
That was delicious. I know some people think certain topics are not appropriate for snide remarks, but now I see certain topics are BEST approached with snide remarks.

This is a complex issue and simply responding with "I don't see what the big deal is", probably means a little more research is in order. Thanks for the great column.
Cameron H. says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:50 am
Here's my totally unfounded prediction: the California Supreme Court will find Prop. 8 to be an illegal constitutional revision and strike it down. Public outcry will even more intense than the current brouhaha over the passage of Prop. 8 and eventually lead to a legal revision of the state Constitution allowing for some sort of power-check on the court system.

In the end, though, all that will change is that the protests will happen in front of gay temples instead of Mormon ones (they have really great curtains), and conservatives will be the ones threatening to move out of the country instead of the liberals.
Heidi says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:08 am
FINALLY!!! So nice to have something to laugh about on this serious subject. Thanks for the great Snide Remarks.
Phil Cardenas says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:40 am
"It doesn't matter what The People want." I guess I'm still waiting for the Court to declare John McCain president. (Hey, it happened in 2000).

Well, Eric, I disagree with you, but I still love you, ya big lug! (That wasn't too gay, was it)?
Paul Norman says:
November 17, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I am impressed that we have this many comments and none inflammatory enough to shut down the comments section. I thought this was a great column, but I am surprised that no one yet has read part-way through (especially not through the note at the end) and begun flaming. Be careful, Eric. The "endless sexual drudgery" line is funny, but it can come across as sour grapes. Better an unmarried man coming up with that than a married one though.
Bridget says:
November 17, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Maybe I'm just not principled enough, but:

"Are you saying that if the outcome had been the other way around, you'd be saying, "Oh well! We lost. Time to move on and just accept gay marriage"?"

Yeah, kind of.
Jon F says:
November 17, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Excellent. There is no doubt that there has been much ridiculousness on both sides.
Lowdogg says:
November 17, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Pretty funny, especially the aids-causing gay rub joke.

I would contend that your average Mormon just might know more about homosexuality than your average homosexual would know about the LDS Church.

Props to Sarah on the board for giving you that Munson line.
Jennifer says:
November 17, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Spontaneously generated AIDS and lesbians in the kitchen were my two favorite parts. I love how the article seems serious and then you get hit by a joke.
Steve says:
November 17, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Eric has a point. For example, you'll never hear me say, "Oh Well! We lost. Time to move on and just accept President Obama." But for the record, I'm not one of those who expects the opposition to just give up, either.
Roger says:
November 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Fantastic piece, albeit probably your most offensive to date. I look forward to this more often. :)
Ali says:
November 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I always love how Snide Remarks brings me down to reality with a little bitch slap of hilarity. I was totally one of those people that was saying, "It passed! Get over it and move on with your lives." But Eric let me know just how smug and ridiculous I was being. (It's hard not to be smug when you live in Utah. They issue it at the border along with "righteous indignation" and a huge wedge of "assurance of moral superiority.")

Thanks for the reality check. And the laughs.
Nate says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I thought this article was fantastic. I'm so tired of prop 8 stuff that I hope the court rules soon so we don't have to hear about it on the news ad nauseum.

Since I am a CPA, and title 26 is the US Tax Code (oh how I hate it), I feel I cannot leave the 501(c)(3) portion of the article alone. Hopefully my comments will not be considered inflammatory, because they aren't meant to be. The argument that the church would lose its tax-exempt status is spurious because it would be highly unlikely to prove that fighting same-sex marriage is a substantial part of the church's tax-exempt purpose. The fact that one could argue the church's involvement was substantial for the passing of prop 8 doesn't really apply to the question of violating the tax code. 501(c)(3) organizations are forbidden for campaigning for a specific candidate, not on things like ballot initiatives.

Sorry for all the nerdery. Thanks for the laughs.
Amp says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I second Lowdogg and Bridget.
Thoughtful Observer says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:11 pm
First of all, 20 comments and not an inflammatory one in sight. You might just pull this off, Eric.

Second, very amusing. I think you did a good job of balancing it out. As one of the few who live in a state where gay marriage is legal, I laugh at all the hubbub about it. CT and MA are still doing fine, so if we don't collapse or have a massive influx of interior designers and theater majors, I think the rest of the country will realize that everyone is getting worked up over nothing. Very nice to see something intellegent and amusing.
Jamie says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I agree that people can boycott businesses that supported prop 8, but I think that sending out black lists of all the private citizens who supported it is reminiscent of the KKK, the mafia, and communist countries. Now angry crazy people (not a good combination) have the full names of these donors, and the cities in which they reside.
Strude says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Eric, this was a great article. Well done, as always.
Niall says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Brilliant column.

And I second "Thoughtful Observer". It's really not as big an issue as everyone's making it. Unless you're gay and want to get married. Which, obviously, is only a small but still significant percentage of people. How it affects anyone else or is relevant to anyone else, I'm not sure.

Society is not going to collapse - there are already a number of countries to have legalised gay marriage, in addition to the two US states mentioned above. They haven't gone up in flames, or even flaming queens, yet. As they say, if you're against gay marriage, don't get one.
Clumpy says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Good analysis and good comedy. The only thing I'd add is that it seems strange to put a potentially unconstitutional bill on the ballot in the first place. Oh, sure, it would be okay to vote against a gay marriage ban (that way supporters will be able to say it's the will of the people and make the transition to gay marriage much quicker), but the moment you vote against it the judiciary will strike it down.

People will feel used if they vote for something only to have it immediately overturned. If a bill is unconstitutional then it shouldn't be on the ballot. (On the other hand, judges striking bills down before people have had the chance to vote is also fishy. I'm not sure if there's a solution.)
Randy Tayler says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Jamie said "angry crazy people" have names of donors. But you have to keep in mind, Jamie, that most of those angry crazy people are gay, which means that the most they'll do is stage an anger dance in front of donors' homes, with choreography that will show the extent of their rage. [...pivot, step, point!, step, jump, scowl...]

At least I think they will. I'm Mormon, so I could be mistaken.
Cat says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm
As someone who was actually in California when the letter from the First Presidency was read, I applaud the 52% of Californians who voted for Prop 8. (No I'm not a Californian but an Arizonian where we passed a similar amendment...with no uproar) I don't know how the State Supreme Court will find that 8 words are unconstitutional but I think that if they do end up overturning Prop 8 it is destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Max says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:46 pm
A friend sent this to me. Sorry I have never read your column before, but this was absolutely hysterical. I live in Utah, and I am an active Mormon. I never heard this letter read in church (maybe it was only in California)

However, I find it interesting that states are required to recognize drivers licenses, etc. so technically if I am married in a state that allows that, I should be married in all states correct? if not will we have states outlawing heterosexual marriage? where will it all end. ;-)
Dave the Slave says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Man what a great article. The reason there's such a huge stink about this issue is exactly because so many people truly act as if they believe those first two paragraphs. (not counting the opening paragraph I mean.) Saying flat-out what a lot of people really feel deep down will hopefully show them how silly they are, and promote a bit more self-restraint.

Honestly, I'm a big believer that the truth will win out in the end. That might be a bit too optimistic-sounding for some, but I really want to believe that if something is truly good and right for society, we can change our society for the good; not through *force*, but by patience and understanding. If the idea you believe is right, trying to build up and uplift those around you through genuine love will result in change, without having to result in their agency being over-ridden.

As with anything this emotionally-charged, the disrespectful bigots (on both sides) do absolutely nothing productive for their respective side. No matter how "right" you are, it doesn't give you an excuse to be a jerk. Being a condescending prick doesn't make you one ounce more "right", it just makes you a prick. *cough cough..Bill Maher..cough..* ;-)

Anyone who was in favor of prop 8, who's heart didn't genuinely break for their brothers and sisters struggling with same-gender attraction is not nearly as Christ-like as they pretend they are. Its the callused attitude of the appeased self-righteous that gives truth to the argument that the prop 8 people were the haters.

..I'm done ranting now I guess.. Thanks for the article, Eric- Very effective social-satire. :-)
Marley says:
November 17, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Your writing style is brilliant and ideas are clear and fresh. Beautiful execution. However, Mormon leaders (President Monson, etc...) did not issue a letter to their church members asking to raise money and support Proposition 8. The members were told to make their own decisions about each matter involved i.e. free agency. However, I do not know if the local leaders (such as Bishops, Stake Presidents) became personally involved in their wards (congregations) and asked that they would be supportive of Prop 8. In that case, their involvement would not be reflective on the church as a whole so section 501(c)(3) of U.S. Title Code 26 wouldn't apply. I'll step off my soapbox now and just end by saying this article was pure genius!
Department of Corrections says:
November 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Sorry, Marley. The Church certainly DID issue such a letter.

"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."
Christina D says:
November 17, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hehehe Very nice. This made me laugh a lot, despite the fact that all the vandalism etc is really starting to scare me. I guess it's a good thing I didn't donate to Prop 8, because I would be slightly worried for my home and family. :(

One thing I have to say is, we have to draw a line somewhere for marriage, or it's not going to mean anything anymore, especially when you start getting arguments for polygamy, incestual, inter-species marriages, etc (all minorities who think they are being repressed too). Homosexuals can do whatever they want IMO, but we can't just let whomever and whatever wants to get married get married, or there is no point in even having it. Civil unions, fine, marriage, leave it as it is or there's no point in having it.

Hopefully that's not inflammatory. ;)
lisapants says:
November 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Does anyone know if Dave Leatherby also owned Leatherby's Ice Cream shop in Provo? It used to be Carousel, and then it became Leatherby's. I haven't been in Provo in a while now, so maybe it doesn't exist anymore.
Turkey says:
November 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I agree with Dave the Slave. There are quite a few people out there who voted for Prop 8 that had a very difficult time doing it. In some cases, if they had not been asked by the church to do so, they would have voted against it. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as folks on both sides have made it seem.

"For example, you'll never hear me say, "Oh Well! We lost. Time to move on and just accept President Obama."" Really? Because that's precisely what I said. I voted for McCain. Obama won. Oh well, good on him. I hope he does a good job. The vote is over, America has spoken, and we're all moving on. Not everyone fights back when they don't win.

I love the similarities between gays and Mormons, especially the Catholic priests line. Ha!
Tara says:
November 17, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Very good article, it's nice when people can recognize the stupidity of both sides, regardless of which they agree with...I don't really care if homosexuals get married or not (what is having the title of marriage really going to change, one way or the other?), but I do think if the proposition had gone the other way, while the conservative right likely wouldn't have just 'gotten over it' and moved on, I doubt there would be this extent of hateful rioting targeted at homosexuals.
Ang says:
November 17, 2008 at 6:21 pm
(Partially in response to Niall above, with the caveat that I'm not going to take the time to verify this so it's mostly rumor-moongering.)

If gay marriage becomes constitutionally accepted, my sister-in-law's understanding is that, eventually, churches who are seen to discriminate against gays (since they would now be legally recognized and protected) would be punished (losing their tax-exempt status, for example). Churches would lose the right to decide morality on an issue as basic as fornication and sodomy.

Regardless, my favorite protest sign so far read, "Mormons can have 10 wives why can't I have 1?" Hilarious. (No, Mormons can't, by the way. Gave that up ages ago.)
Adhis says:
November 17, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Agreed with Tara's last line. We know there wouldn't have been the hateful rioting targeted at homosexuals because there wasn't any for the brief time homosexual marriage WAS legal in California.

Maybe homosexuals are just mad about losing to the group with a dull sense of style?
Native Minnow says:
November 17, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I believe my friend summed it up best when he said, "Gays want to get married, and they want to be in the military. Those are the two worst institutions we have in this country. Let 'em have both."
Tara says:
November 17, 2008 at 6:38 pm
"Everyone claims to want to reach an "understanding" or a "compromise," but all they really mean is that they want the other side to give up and back down."

Biting and brilliant. I love it.
Christi says:
November 17, 2008 at 6:41 pm
"...they want to destroy the traditional family unit and replace it with a society where everyone just walks around naked all the time, sometimes pausing in the street to do it with a stranger; they want the First Amendment rewritten to make all churches illegal except for the ones with fashionable interior design; and they want the national anthem replaced with something by Sondheim."

I see nothing wrong with any of this.
Aaron says:
November 17, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Eric, I've been anxiously awaiting your response to all this, and you didn't disappoint. Balanced, thorough and incredibly inflammatory. Bless you. I desperately needed some comic relief of this one.
Amy says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:46 pm
"the most they'll do is stage an anger dance in front of donors' homes, with choreography that will show the extent of their rage. [...pivot, step, point!, step, jump, scowl...]" I wish that was all they'd done. Most protested in a civilized manner, but some didn't. Vandalizing people's homes and places of worship is never called for.
Steve says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there is no possible way for the courts (at least in California) to srtike this down. They struck down the previous law, saying that it violated the constitution of California. Since Prop 8 has passed, it is now part of the constitution of California. I do not believe that the courts have the authority to rule parts of the constitution unconstitutional. A constitutional ammendment, by definition, is constitutional. As I see it, those who want prop 8 to go away have three options: They could prove in court that the passing of the proposition violated the established process for ammending the constitution (not likely, IMO), they could get it repealed by a future voter initiative, or the supreme court of the US could decide that this part of California's constitution is not consistent with the US constitution and is therefore null and void.

Responding to Turkey:
Allow me to clarify my statement of not just saying "Oh well" and accepting President Obama. I do accept that the people have spoken and the majority have chosen differently than I. I accept that the election was fair and that Obama won and McCain lost. I will not continue to dwell on the election itself (at least not beyond the inauguration). I also hope that Obama does a good job. But that does not mean that I will sit idly by when Obama initiates policies that I believe will be harmful to the nation. I will not say, "Oh well, he's the president, so I guess I should just accept these policies and move on." I will urge my representatives in congress to oppose such measures. I will encourage others to contact their representatives and voice their opinions. I will financially support organizations that advance the principles that I believe in.

As I said previously, I do not expect those whose ideals are contrary to mine to cease fighting for what they believe in, either. And they won't, if those ideals matter to them.
Scott says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm
re: Tara and Adhis... The supporters of Prop 8 would not have protested had the proposition lost because they would not have had any of their rights taken away. Every one of them would still have been free to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. None of them would have been forced to choose between staying single or marrying someone of the same gender. They would have "lost" the election but they would not have lost anything else.

Gays had (for four months, anyway, in CA) the right to marry and that was taken away from them. They also lost the hope that California's influence would hasten the acceptance of gay marriage across the country(*). They had more at stake, and more reason to be upset by defeat.

(*) Even though gay marriage is legal in MA and CT, and civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide benefits substantially similar to those afforded to married couples are recognized in several states, full equality will not be realized until same-sex partnerships are recognized at the federal level. Currently same-sex partnerships cannot file income tax returns jointly. A foreign-born partner in a same-sex union (even a state-recognized marriage) is not automatically granted a green card. The list goes on and one.
Savvy Veteran says:
November 17, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Very funny. I love how you constantly went out of your way to make strange comparisons "Well, that argument's as useless and hollow as Bill O'Reilly's head."
Ron says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Wonderfully written! By making fun of both sides with such equality, it truly made me step back and re-examine my thoughts on the issue. And, like everyone else here, I am extremely impressed that not one inflammatory comment.
Carrie says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I was uncomfortable when I read the word "fags", and I knew at that moment that this was going to be awesome! The column was both hilarious and insightful. I think I will pass the link around to some friends.

I can't imagine this issue not ending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jesse Harris says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Clumpy made a really good point: the entire matter is a case of "heads I win, tails we flip again." The same thing was threatened here in Utah last year on a ballot issue. Opponents said they would file a lawsuit to overturn the law they were challenging if a ballot initiative didn't do it. It's sad that we've come to this.
Pherber says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:35 pm
This column did a fine job of defining the parameters of the debate, but then failed to pose any central questions with its "let's just come together over this, shall we?" attitude.

Fact: There is no hiding behind your "church" when it comes to taking political stands that diminish another person's status as less than equal.

If a church, or any institution for that matter, makes a political statement, it risks provoking a political response. Period.

So, when will gay people have "the right" to vote on the status and rights of heterosexual marriage?

And, more centrally, why should heterosexual people have the right to tell gay people what they can and CANNOT do?
MattP says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:49 pm
"If gay marriage becomes constitutionally accepted, my sister-in-law's understanding is that, eventually, churches who are seen to discriminate against gays (since they would now be legally recognized and protected) would be punished (losing their tax-exempt status, for example). Churches would lose the right to decide morality on an issue as basic as fornication and sodomy."

This is untrue for multiple reasons. For one thing, gays are already recognized as a protected class in California. You can't refuse medical services based on sexual orientation, you can't refuse adoption services based on sexual orientation, etc. Preventing SSM does not change the laws that prevent discrimination against gays.

Also, churches have never been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to marry. Orthodox Jews don't have to permit marriage between a Jew and a Catholic, Catholics don't have to marry divorced people, Mormons don't have to allow non-members of any sort into their temples, etc. There is nothing special about gays that would make them exempt from the 1st Amendment protections that allows churches to choose who they will and will not permit to take part in their ceremonies or ordinances.
Dan says:
November 17, 2008 at 8:52 pm
What bothers me most about this whole brouhaha is the way the news covered the success of Prop 8 coupled with the Obama election as ironic, paradoxical, hypocritical, etc. They seem to have embraced the idea that this is just 1960s civil rights all over again.

I don't mind people having differing opinions from mine, and writing about them in newspapers. But it bothers me that this is quickly becoming the accepted narrative, with clearly labeled "good guys" and "bad guys."

There was a lot of debate about what state recognition of gay marriage means for public schools. I don't think it's a big deal in the short term. But, if you're younger, think about how the civil rights movement was presented in elementary school. The heroes and their views were (rightfully) lauded, and the opposition was (rightfully) demonized. So twenty years from now, if we're going to accept this as just another civil rights battle, just more of bad guys oppressing good guys, what's the elementary school story of this debate going to look like?
MattP says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:01 pm
"I don't mind people having differing opinions from mine, and writing about them in newspapers. But it bothers me that this is quickly becoming the accepted narrative, with clearly labeled "good guys" and "bad guys.""

I'm sure there were similar sentiments at the time of the civil rights movement.

"It's not that I don't like colored folk, it's just that I really don't think they aught to be drinkin' from the same fountain as white folk'. It just aint right."

Certainly there are a lot less angry voices on the anti-SSM side than there were on the anti-black equality side, but the soft-spoken message of anti-SSM isn't all that different from the perspective of the pro-SSM side of things.
Ampersand says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Eric, only you could find the humor in this slog of a situation. Thank you. Also, "Mormons responded to their leaders' directions the way they usually do: they had a meeting, served refreshments, ran over by about 10 minutes, declared Democrats evil, talked about BYU football for a while, and then went out and did what had been asked of them": fantastic and so very, very true.
Jacob says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I wonder along with Lisa's Pants if the Sacramento Leatherby's and the Wasatch Front Leatherby's are the same Leatherbys's? And if the revelation that the are Catholic is the reason why the one in Provo closed this year?

Also -- and I admit to being smug -- but I was against prop 8 (as one more facet of dubious orientation) and still said, "Okay, Californians decided. Let's move on." I also agree with Brother Elton that pushing for the word Marriage is a bad idea.

Lastly, has anyone noticed that all these comments in the paper and such about the amount of money raised by Mormon's are estimates? The Californian official donation numbers are much less than $40 million in support of it (and even the against side which raised more money than the Pro is a ways under that mark), and I can't find any commentary from Protect Marriage (which is who the NY Times cites for the stat that Mormons donated so much) on a percentage of contributers by religious affiliation (even the tracker Mormonsfor8.com is suspect since I know of members of other faiths who are tagged as Mormon on it). I just wish we all could get along!

Then again, as a wiseman once said, "Careful the wish you make
Wishes are children . . . Sometimes the wish may last
Past what you can see And turn against you."
Tori says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:35 pm
My husband and I are LDS, and I have to say that I really appreciated the humor you used regarding the Gay/Lesbian community AND the LDS community. There is and has been a lot of misunderstandings on both sides... so it was wonderful to see such a light-hearted approach taken where we could laugh at both sides of the issue.

My brother is gay, and fits the typical stereotype. We also have a nice Lesbian couple who live down the street from us whose son is in our childs class. Your comment, "it's as unhelpful as a lesbian in the kitchen on Thanksgiving", made me laugh out loud because Mary fits that description to a "T". Laura on the other hand, will be the one in the kitchen fixing the most delicious Thanksgiving dinner you could imagine, and Mary will be as FAR away as possible! LOL

Thanks for taking the edge off this very heated debate, at least for a while. I'm going to keep this piece on my computer so whenever I feel down about how heated and hate feel this topic can be, I can pull this up, and laugh about all the misconceptions on both sides.
Oz says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Bravo!
notJoeKing says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Excellent article. I have definitely been waiting for a Snide Remarks on this topic since last week when I saw the hilarious picture of VERY angry protesters outside an LDS building holding signs saying "NO H8" and "The Church of MORON". Gotta love a world that fights intolerance with intolerance and hate with hate. Thanks Eric for the article pointing out the absurdity in both sides and the commonality of both sides.

Now if both sides would just adopt a "live and let live" attitude and stop pretending that they just KNOW the existence of the other side will be the end of the civilized world as we know it...
Carina says:
November 17, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I am offended!

I'm trying to find a part of your article that offends me Eric D. Snider. I'm won't rest until I find something that really gets my goat. Just you wait, Eric, just you wait.
Jeremy Mathews says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Nice article, Eric. Among other commonalities between Mormons and gays—musical theater! Let's not argue over Osmond and Minelli, but celebrate the commonality! At one point there was talk of a Mormon march to counter the gay march, and I had a vision of the two groups approaching each other, snapping their fingers a la "West Side Story." Unfortunately, the Mormons didn't show up in any *substantial* numbers. Speaking of that word, I do have a few points of disagreement to share...

The word "substantial" means "of considerable importance, size or wealth." It does not have proportional connotations like "majority" or "plurality." If it did, your point would seal the deal. As it is, it wouldn't make a difference how large the church is, just how substantial its campaigning was. The matter is definitely fuzzy, as is whether it only applies to political candidates or any political campaign (a friend showed me different codes that used different language—some specified "candidate," others didn't). But Nate would know more about that than I would. Like you said, the church surely had a team of lawyers to check their actions, and those lawyers believed they were in the clear.

Regarding Dan Savage's lack of knowledge of a temple versus a church, I rolled my eyes when I heard him say that the letter was read in all the temples. But that doesn't really make his point any less valid. When you live in a big city with a low Mormon population, you might never see a ward house, but you'll know about a bigger architectural landmark like a temple. I think he just assumed that Mormons call their churches temples—an assumption that should be corrected, no doubt, but I don't see any effort to mislead.

I also don't see what you describe as the intolerance of both sides to be equal. The important thing to remember from the gay perspective is that they never claimed nor set out to become experts on the Mormon religion, and have reacted to how the Mormons treated them. They are likely to have a strong emotional response because they were just stripped of a right that they held. If Prop 8 had failed, the Mormons would still have all their rights—including the right not to allow gay marriage in their church.

This emotion leads to some completely idiotic and uninformed ideas, like boycotting the entire state of Utah. At Sundance, I once saw a movie in which a man has sex with a truck—somehow I doubt the Institute or its Film Festival financed Prop 8. As you stated, once you enter into the political arena, you must be prepared for the consequences. The homosexual community, having been stripped of its rights, and those who believe in equal rights for all, are simply responding to groups whom they consider responsible for the stripping. (And who would have expected that the Mormons would be accused of stripping anything?)

Regarding Adhis and Tara and those who don't think that the anti-gay campaigners would've made a stink, please note that homosexuals have been the targets of protests and, much worse, victims of hate crimes for many years. Ironically, many of the people who lead anti-gay demonstrations also express a strong dislike of Mormons. (There were anti-Mormon signs mixed with the anti-gay ones in the counter-protest group at the City County building rally in SLC on Saturday.)
mildlyinteresting says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:08 pm
am i the only one that didn't find this hilarious? good point that everyone should try to get along but was it really necessary to poke fun at the parties involved? you'll only offend people and only discredits your 'expertise' in this area.
Dan says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:18 pm
MattP: "I'm sure there were similar sentiments at the time of the civil rights movement."

You're already there. You've already declared this to be a parallel situation, with the same good side and bad side.

I don't agree. I think the analogy is imperfect. I think the fact that there are laws against gay marriage in just about every state demonstrates that the majority feels that way, too -- there are a lot of people that are somehow able to reconcile being for civil rights and against gay marriage. I think it's closed-minded of the media to dismiss these people as either ignorant sheep or knowing hypocrites.
aaron says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Very funny. Also very funny to see some comments from people who fail to admit that their side lends itself to hyperbole just as easily as the other.

Hey, since people are discussing this rather rationally here, can I ask a question? Are gay people being discriminated against when SSM is banned? When SSM was banned by Prop 8, weren't the rights of straight people to marry members of the same sex also stripped? It would only be discriminatory if it removed rights of a subset of the population, right? It seems like the Maryland Supreme Court made some such determination during their SSM fight. I can see how it seems discriminatory, since it only really affects a small group of people who would want to marry. It's a minor point, but I've wondered since things heated up what others might think.
Dan says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:40 pm
aaron: "It would only be discriminatory if it removed rights of a subset of the population, right?"

If the state of Washington passed a law stating that anyone with a net worth over $50 billion would have their excess assets confiscated by the state, I think Bill Gates would rightfully feel singled out. Never mind that the law applies to anyone who acquires $50 billion.
Jen says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:45 pm
We were so close to having a completely non-inflammatory comments section!

I just wish everyone would remember that you're not here to tell us about your personal opinions, you're here to talk about this (very funny, I might add) column.

Still, I have enjoyed reading all of these... almost as much as I enjoyed reading the column.

Keep being offensively funny, Eric! Most of us can handle (and like) it.
Ampersand says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:48 pm
@ Jeremy Mathews: Even though your definition of "substantial" is correct, I think that in the context of the tax code "substantial" is usually interpreted to mean "majority." Thus, organizations that use more than 50 percent of their time, revenue, etc. to promote political causes are not eligible for tax exemption. Of course, take this with a big grain of salt, because it's been a while since I've studied up on campaign finance issues.
Dan says:
November 17, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Jen: "We were so close to having a completely non-inflammatory comments section!"

I don't think there's anything "inflammatory" here. "Inflammatory" means personal attacks, intentional offensiveness, general rudeness. Nothing wrong with talking (intelligently and politely) about what you think about the issue when commenting on an "issue" column, if you ask me.
MattP says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:03 pm
"You're already there. You've already declared this to be a parallel situation, with the same good side and bad side."

The dialog has created itself. "You're taking away our rights", "No I'm not/You aren't entitled to those rights.", etc. Whether your side is good or bad will largely be determined by history.

"I think the fact that there are laws against gay marriage in just about every state demonstrates that the majority feels that way, too"

As was the case when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws and Jim Crowe laws. Both Supreme Court was acting against the will of the majority.

"I think it's closed-minded of the media to dismiss these people as either ignorant sheep or knowing hypocrites."

I don't see where this is happening. The media is reporting the message from both sides from what I've seen. Can you reference a report from a major news organization which is calling anyone ignorant sheep or hypocrites?
MattP says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:06 pm
"Are gay people being discriminated against when SSM is banned? When SSM was banned by Prop 8, weren't the rights of straight people to marry members of the same sex also stripped? It would only be discriminatory if it removed rights of a subset of the population, right?"

Were couples of different races discriminated against when miscegenation was banned? Weren't the rights of couple that were the same race to marry members of different races also stripped? It would only be discriminatory if it remove rights of a subset of the population, right?
Gwyn says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I loved it, Eric. Well done.

Have any other anti-Prop 8 Mormons had other mormons come out and tell you that you're going to hell? Some people were absolutely rabid about it. I think it offended me more than the protests at the temples.
Jeremy Mathews says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Dan: "I don't agree. I think the analogy is imperfect. I think the fact that there are laws against gay marriage in just about every state demonstrates that the majority feels that way, too -- there are a lot of people that are somehow able to reconcile being for civil rights and against gay marriage. I think it's closed-minded of the media to dismiss these people as either ignorant sheep or knowing hypocrites."

As Eric discussed in his comments of the courts, the opinion of the majority isn't the issue. The majority was against multi-racial marriage when the courts decided that it was a right. During the Civil Rights movement, the people in opposition to it didn't consider themselves the "bad guys." The truth is that many religions believe homosexuality to be wrong. They have every right to believe that, but I fail to see the arguments that these beliefs should be incorporated in government. The reason Prop 8 has been so widely publicized is that it actually revokes an already-held right. That makes it sting worse than other states that were just passing anti-gay bills for kicks.

Jen: I think it's hard to have a conversation on the topic without anyone expressing their opinion on the subject. That said, it is possible to have a civil conversation and not throw insults at anyone—something I hope we can do!
mommy says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:18 pm
gays rubbing together cause fire? isn't that inflamatory?

thanks for the total lack of political correctness.
JimD says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I wonder along with Lisa's Pants if the Sacramento Leatherby's and the Wasatch Front Leatherby's are the same Leatherbys's? And if the revelation that the are Catholic is the reason why the one in Provo closed this year?

Yes, same family.

I suspect the closure of the Provo restaurant was due to the new place they moved to with its absurdly inadequate parking--and the neighboring Burger King's practice of towing any Leatherby's customers who dared park in the BK parking lot.
Adrienne says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Really good; I needed a laugh after today's horrible news with regards to our economy. I wonder if they will start throwing flour bombs and if the friction will start a fire since Aides causes to gay people to light up
Dave says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Dear next person who responds to this humorous column with some serious response about prop 8, the LDS church, or other political delights:

Thhhhhhpppppttt!

With love,

Dave

PS I love these two lines:

The fags, the queers, the dykes, and the lesbos.
the zealots, the whackos, the crusaders, the cultists.

awesome.
Dan says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:46 pm
MattP: "Can you reference a report from a major news organization which is calling anyone ignorant sheep or hypocrites?"

Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, from Judith Warner. Most of the coverage (excluding strict news-reporting) I saw in the days following the election had a similar tone. Especially people noting the contrast in black voters who were for Obama and for Prop 8. Headlines used words like "paradox." I don't think I read anything that gave the views of the other side more than a token mention. Like I said, it's fine that people are stating their opinion. But what bothers me is the sense that there is consensus, that this is the accepted story.

Jeremy: "the opinion of the majority isn't the issue. The majority was against multi-racial marriage when the courts decided that it was a right"

Yes. I'm not saying that side is right simply because they're in the majority. I'm just saying that it's no small thing to dismiss them all is hypocrites. And I'm saying this is an area where the prevailing presentation in the media is inconsistent with the prevailing view in the public.
MattP says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm
"Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, from Judith Warner."

Dan, that's an editorial blog. I know what the editorializing sounds like from both sides. I just haven't seen very much of it presented in major media networks as news. That is the claim I understood you to be making. If your complaint is that a lot of editorialists disagree with your position, then I don't know what to tell you - it's not their job to present a balanced view. That's what the news agencies are for and so far the news agencies seems to be reporting the news.
Amp says:
November 17, 2008 at 11:59 pm
To answer the question posed by #64, from my understanding of the opinion written that overturned Prop 22, and thus made SSM legal, the CA State Supreme Court articulated the right to marry as a more narrow 'right to marry the person you choose' (which assumes that person chooses you, isn't a close relative or a minor, and neither of you are already married). So that is why it is deemed a civil rights issue.

As far as rights, domestic partnership laws in CA already gave SS couples the same rights as marriage, though the Defense of Marriage Act (at the Federal level) specifically prohibits civil unions/domestic partnerships. Personally, I'm not in favor of altering the definition of marriage, but I really have no problem with civil unions. It's a different relationship, why shouldn't it have a different name? That remark may sound a little flippant, I know, because obvious the difference is that in some people's minds, a civil union will always be, ipso facto, secondary to a marriage. If the gay community is looking for a legal recognition that affords them the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, they have that (in CA) with domestic partnerships. If they're seeking to be accepted by society at large, frankly, I don't think having SSM legal will do that. The majority of the people will still think it's wrong. So I guess my point is I have no idea how to best make the whole thing work out for everyone. Ahem, good thing I'm posting a comment...

But before I go, I just have to point out that I find the comments (a few here, mostly other places) along the lines of "SSM won't affect your straight marriage" a little hollow. Changing the definition of the fundamental unit of society will obviously change society as a whole. That's the point, right? Its not that Prop 8 supporters think that, with SSM legal, suddenly they will be less married. Their point is that making SSM legal will change their society in a fundamental way, and they don't want that change.
Amp says:
November 18, 2008 at 12:01 am
Sorry, one more thing: I wanted to say that I really appreciate being able to discuss this issue without all the rancor that I've seen pretty much everywhere else.
mattp says:
November 18, 2008 at 12:07 am
"Their point is that making SSM legal will change their society in a fundamental way, and they don't want that change."

Except no one has been able to articulate what this fundamental change will be. What fundamental changes have occured in Canada or the handful of other US states and foreign countries which have legalized SSM?
Lifelong Mormon says:
November 18, 2008 at 12:20 am
As a lifelong member of the Mormon church, I really have no other choice than to chuckle at the delicious irony of Mormons supporting a bill that would constitutionally define marriage as being between one man and one woman. My great great grandfather who chose to go into hiding rather than cease the practice of his illegal definition of marriage would certainly not have wanted it defined that way.

"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."

- President John Taylor
Chrissy says:
November 18, 2008 at 12:46 am
LOL. I actually hadn't laughed out loud until i came to the comment about the angry homosexual doing the nice ballet dance. That one I laughed out loud at.

I'm actually not quite sure what my opinion on this is yet, which I'm pretty sure is acceptable since I don't live in California. In my life I've only met one gay couple (not unheard of, I'm from Utah :)), so I'm not sure I can quite see it from their perspective. I believe homosexuality to be a serious sin, but lots of sins are legal. Then again, the LDS church, which I happen to be a member of, did come out against it. I do trust the first presidency's judgement more than my own, since I believe them to be men of God. Anyways, anyone care to enlighten me?
Amp says:
November 18, 2008 at 1:05 am
MattP, that IS the fundamental change--that the law of the land now recognizes SS and straight marriage as equal. People may not believe SSM is good or correct, but they will be living in a state wherein the law holds that it is. Your tone, that perhaps I'm misreading, sounds as if you expect sociological evidence that SSM-allowing states/countries have undergone a seismic cultural shift. But I think the answer is a very surface one--they want to be in a place where SSM isn't legal because they don't believe it's right; making SSM legal changes their society in that regard. My only point is that making SSM legal affects everyone in the state because it changes how the state administers the law. Whether that change is good or evil is another matter.

By the way, my brother is Matt P, so I think it's funny I could well be trading comments with him (though I doubt it).

And #82, do you have a reference for that quote? Just curious.
Joanna says:
November 18, 2008 at 1:07 am
I.... am in love with you.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 1:46 am
"People may not believe SSM is good or correct, but they will be living in a state wherein the law holds that it is."

The law wouldn't be declaring SSM as good or correct any more than licensing a restaurant to serve alcohol is declaring liquor to be good or correct. The KKK can march down the street, but the fact that they can do so legally, or that they are can get a permit to do so, is not an endorsement of their message.

It's not the purpose of the civil government to regulate what is good or not good. The state has to deal with concepts of harm and compelling interest. "I don't want to live somewhere with SSM" does not demonstrate harm and is not a compelling state interest.
Dan says:
November 18, 2008 at 2:19 am
MattP: " If your complaint is that a lot of editorialists disagree with your position, then I don't know what to tell you"

Yep. Look again at my original post. As I said, what bothers me isn't the existence of that view (treating this as just a rehash of the civil rights movement), but the utter lack (in what I've come across) of anybody in the mainstream media challenging that view, or even recognizing that the majority of people don't see things that way. They're just taking it for granted.
Carrie says:
November 18, 2008 at 2:20 am
I forgot to mention this earlier, but when I was little, I always wondered why giant crosses were used as telephone/electric poles. This disturbed me for a number of years, so that part of the column got some extra giggles from me.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 2:37 am
"They're just taking it for granted."

Part of the problem is that there really aren't any compelling non-religious arguments against SSM and there just isn't that much meat to the religious arguments upon which one can base interresting commentary. There's only so many ways that one can say "God said so."
Kaydria says:
November 18, 2008 at 2:40 am
Joanna - TOO BAD! I already proposed to him, we're practically married now.

Gwyn - I've had other Mormons stop talking to me for voting for Obama, making smug remarks about me being a blind follower of liberal media. Pretty cool.
chigirl says:
November 18, 2008 at 3:05 am
Longtime reader, first time commenter. But I just want to say well done, Eric, great commentary pointing out the lack of understanding each side has for the other. We will move much farther by focusing on the things we do share as opposed to our differences. I continue to look forward to your thoughtful and interesting writing!
treen says:
November 18, 2008 at 3:31 am
This is the first thing I've read about Prop 8 that did not literally give me an instant headache. Bless you, Eric.
daisy says:
November 18, 2008 at 3:43 am
Thanks for another great column, Eric. As a person of faith (not Mormon, in case that matters), I am uncomfortable with the government deciding who can and cannot get married, overall. I would prefer for the government to remain out of any decisions on theology, which this borders on, it cheapens the sacrement when it is dictated by law. It would be better, in my humble opinion, for them to sanction some form of civil union for everyone who wishes one which would grant all the legal rights, and for anyone who does want a religious blessing or solemnization of their union, for that to be handled by their religious leaders.

Wonderful column and look forward to more commentary.
cinncinnatus says:
November 18, 2008 at 3:44 am
Everyone in California currently has the exact same rights to get married. The protest sign that said, "Mormons can have 10 wives, I just want one" is ironically a perfect argument for prop 8 because, since polygamy is actually illegal, it shows that the government has the right to restrict marriage and can discriminate about who can get married.
Mormon Lawyer says:
November 18, 2008 at 3:56 am
Eric, have you ever considered law school? You should. You would make a great attorney, and eventually Supreme Court Judge. Your published opinions for the Court (whether concurring or dissenting) would really shake things up! Start applying now, before the Obama appointment window closes. :)
Esthew says:
November 18, 2008 at 4:01 am
Just had to say thanks for the laughs -- I have had a really hard time with prop 8 and all the idiocy that has been going along on both sides. I'm LDS, live in Utah, and our sunday school teacher brought it up yesterday. My husband and I both ended up walking out.
Amp says:
November 18, 2008 at 4:30 am
MattP, I'm not sure if you and I are even having a disagreement at this point. I never argued that the state has, or should have, a responsibility to regulate what is good or not good. I have not argued that SSM will or will not cause harm, or is or is not a compelling state interest. Would 'sanctioned' have been a more appropriate word than 'good or correct' in the line you quoted? I'm merely saying that changing the definition of marriage will have an effect on the society as a whole because it will change what is legally acceptable for everyone in the state, and I'm saying that without claims as to whether this effect is good or bad, because I believe that is another matter altogether. To continue your examples, the KKK might be the ones marching, but their march affects everyone who witnesses it. Ditto with alcohol. I may not drink it, but other people being legally allowed to drink it affects me. What the state allows or disallows affects the society within its borders and that is why SSM affects both straight and SS couples. That's all I'm saying.
whea-wix says:
November 18, 2008 at 4:42 am
A hundred comments ago, someone said, " However, I find it interesting that states are required to recognize drivers licenses, etc. so technically if I am married in a state that allows that, I should be married in all states correct?" I will speak to this.

I have a valid drivers license for that state in which I reside. Any state I go to that has drivers licenses must recognize my home state DL because their state offers their own version. Same with my hetero marraige. I go to MA, CA, GA, or anyother-A, and my hetero marraige is recognized because all those states offer hetero marriages. My state does not recognize SSM (a similar ban was passed two years ago), so if I go to MA and get a SSM, it will not be recognized in my state because my state does not offer it's own version. Clear?
Laremy says:
November 18, 2008 at 5:29 am
I haven't read all of the comments, so I don't know if this is new ground - but I take a more pragmatic view of this whole debacle. Simply put: culture, as a whole, gets more liberal throughout time. I don't mean the pejorative "liberal" that Rush spews out - I mean that people get more freedom and rights as history marches on.

Yes, there are exceptions. There are still countries women can't vote and still places that same sex couples are put to death. But now, more than any other time in history, people can live the way they to want in more places. There are bumps in the road, sure, but in general people are of more use when they love and are happy. They are more likely to be productive members of society, and more productive societies, in general, accumulate power quicker.

Thus, regardless of the ideology here, by the time we all die same sex couples will allowed to be married. It will be no big deal, and people will look back on it with the same confusion we look upon segregation and the 3/5ths clause.

So you can believe and feel whatever you like. Your God can tell you how to live, and you can follow certain rules. Clearly God is a positive force in many people's lives. This is a good thing, and actually gets right back into "happy people" and the value they have.

The conflict is one of competing interests and poor communication, just like all conflicts the world 'round. But the outcome isn't in doubt. Only the date is. The more interesting conversation is what's next? What will the issue be in 50 years, when our generation is pushing back against social progress?

Personally I think it will be loud music.
Kimberly T says:
November 18, 2008 at 6:57 am
Thank you, Eric! I am so tired of all of the fighting over this! I am so happy to finally read a article about Prop 8 that makes me laugh! I am LDS, and loved your descriptions such as "Mormons responded to their leaders' directions the way they usually do: they had a meeting, served refreshments, ran over by about 10 minutes, declared Democrats evil, talked about BYU football for a while," so true! You offended each side of the argument equally! Thanks for the laugh!
Danielle says:
November 18, 2008 at 7:29 am
Good post from Laremy. I have to say I've had very similar thoughts on the subject, though some people chide me for being "over-optimistic". But really, I'm just all about the happiness. :)

@ Amp: Thank you for finally clarifying something that has puzzled me for a while--what exactly these "effects on society" people keep saying gay marriage would bring. Most others cannot articulate their points as well as you, and end up resorting to the dramatized "degradation of society" doom and gloom which I doubt anybody really believes. I think what they're really trying to express are the kinds of changes you spoke of, instead.

In any case, I still can't agree with you, just because I personally value tangible, practical change (or rather lack thereof, as many are arguing) over the more abstract, fundamentalist kind I understood you to be speaking of. But I appreciate you trying to define it in terms I (think) I understand.

Jeez, I hope this post makes sense. Sorry if it doesn't, haha.
TashaKay says:
November 18, 2008 at 7:57 am
As an annual passholder and fan of all things Disneyland (though I live 700 miles away from it), the comment about Mormons and gays both loving Disneyland just cracked me up. It's hilariously true. I'm a member of a nerd Disneyland website and it's fairly obviously that both of us just love that place.
Sara says:
November 18, 2008 at 8:35 am
I'd like to echo Steve, at 7:46 pm, and probably others as well (because I didn't have a strong desire to read all comments made). The state supreme court has no power to declare the constitution unconstitutional. The process by which the ammendment was put in place (i.e.- voice of the people), does in fact trump the court in this case. Not to say that it won't be changed by other means in the future.

Great column. Love love loved it.
Brandon Burt says:
November 18, 2008 at 9:21 am
As a Utahn, having accepted--under duress--such linguistic terms as "ignernt," "flip" and "zoobie," I have to applaud the fact that my fellow state citizens have finally adopted enough respect for the English language that they would so passionately defend the lexicographical sanctity of the verb "to marry."

Indeed, they are so passionately antagonistic of the term as applied to married gay and lesbian couples that they have spent tens of millions of dollars to protect it against the dastardly forces of linguistic descriptivism.

If only their passion could be universally applied, we might avoid such blunders as, "Good lard, Darathy, that's a gargeous awrange farmal."
Amanda says:
November 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I would have to disagree that the measure passed simply because the LDS church got involved. Mormons make up about 2% of the population in California - and probably at least half of those are children. Exit polls showed that 70% of African Americans voted for the proposition (and they mostly voted for Obama). Catholics overwhelming supported prop 8 as well - and they make up about 30% of the population in California. Targeting the Mormon church is undeserved and unfair.
Clumpy says:
November 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Amanda, they're referring to the Church's overwhelming role in supporting advertising and other public awareness for the proposition, not because Mormon votes made the proposition pass. I doubt Prop 8 would have passed without the Church's involvement.
aaron says:
November 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm
"Were couples of different races discriminated against when miscegenation was banned? Weren't the rights of couple that were the same race to marry members of different races also stripped? It would only be discriminatory if it remove rights of a subset of the population, right?"

I didn't ask it was wrong to allow SSM, just whether disallowing it is discriminatory. Good grief, man. Of course anti-miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory (as far as I know, things weren't more lenient for whites), that doesn't make them okay.

By the way, to the above poster who questioned whether there were non-religious arguments against SSM, there are a few mentioned in this Wikipedia article.
Steve says:
November 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I disagree with Laremy's assertion about societies in general becoming more liberal over time. I personally think it's more cyclic. We have not quite reached the level of Ancient Greece, with their naked olympics and widely accepted homosexuality. From what I have read, ancient Greece was even better at the whole "freedom of speech" thing.
Q says:
November 18, 2008 at 5:17 pm
The 'balance' seemed a little forced and asymmetric to me, and I didn't really think it was that funny (Leno-esque). As for the comments, given the response from factions of the gay community since the election, I find it hard to take anyone seriously who says that both sides are being equally unfair at this point (which is not to say that intolerant, religious bigots don't have their own special place in hell too). There is no way born-again Christians would have marched on West Hollywood.

To me it seems like there is a serious oversimplification of the issue. The most glaring omission here from my perspective is the fact that many people don't see SSM as an equal-rights issue. Poor Mr. Leatherby, for example, while unfairly ridiculed by Eric, is probably genuinely confused. People are entitled to think that gays deserve equal rights, but that those rights don't include marriage. Or put another way, believing that marriage should be between one man and one woman should not be interepreted as saying that gays don't deserve equal rights.

I think many opponents of SSM are more about protecting their view of what they think marriage should be than punishing gays. I have many gay friends, and support them in their struggle, but we disagree on a number of things about that struggle...and we don't hold it against each other. I agree with Elton John on the SSM issue--most states have provided a vehicle by which same-sex couples can enjoy the rights afforded to married couples. It's not perfect yet, but we can work to get there.

This battle to me feels a lot more like a battle of agendas, and I am sure that some opponents of SSM see this more about the progress of the gay agenda--and agenda that most people disagree with--than a disenfranchised group wanting their rights restored/conserved. Marriage becomes a bellweather on how each agenda is doing, and those who disagree with the gay agenda see it as them crossing the Rubicon.

So to me, as has been mentioned here a few different ways, those who oversimplify the issue and paint SSM opponents as intolerable homophobes are as intolerable as homophobes themselves. It's a complex issue without an easy answer.

But speaking of intolerable homophobes, one bright spot of this debate is my being reminded of SNL's take on Ahmadinejad's anti-gay statements at the UN. One of the best skits in a long time--Armisen absolutely nails it, and I have a very non-gay man-crush on Adam Levine.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 5:32 pm
"By the way, to the above poster who questioned whether there were non-religious arguments against SSM, there are a few mentioned in this Wikipedia article"

I said there were no compelling non-religious arguments. There's a difference. You'll note that most of the people making these arguments are still motivated religiously. In other words, these are post-hoc arguments used to shore up a religious position, not well-reasoned arguments that have developed by their own merits.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 5:41 pm
"The state supreme court has no power to declare the constitution unconstitutional. The process by which the ammendment was put in place (i.e.- voice of the people), does in fact trump the court in this case."

Actually it does have that power, and there are a couple ways that it can do so. For instance, there is a distinction between an "amendment" and a "revision" in California. A revision must be put on the ballot by the legislature, while an amendment can get on the ballot merely by collecting enough signatures. The process for determining whether a given initiative constitutes a revision rather than an amendment is tricky; enough so that legal scholars are split on which way the court could go on that.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm
"I didn't ask it was wrong to allow SSM, just whether disallowing it is discriminatory."

It depends on how you want to frame the question. For most people I know, the gender of the person they are marrying is incidental. Of course you're going to marry someone of a gender you are attracted to, but half the population is that gender. What really matters is that you are marrying the person that you love; the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, raise children with, and grow old and die with.

If the government is in the business of supporting rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then any structure of marriage which does not allow a members of a large segment of the population to marry the person that they love is discriminatory.
Conservative Guy says:
November 18, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I recently found an interesting, non-religous, argument against SSM. It really delves into the institution of marriage itself, as it was fifty years ago and what it is today. Worth a read, IMO.

http://www.slate.com/id/3642/entry/23841/

One point made here is that gender roles are not necessarily religious, and that children do better growing up in homes where a mother and a father are present. Marriage is about children and society, not just about individuals and what they want.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 6:34 pm
"One point made here is that gender roles are not necessarily religious, and that children do better growing up in homes where a mother and a father are present."

All we really know from available data is that, all things being equal, children do better with two parents than with one. This has a lot more to do with the resources that are available to raising the child when two parents are available than the gender of the parents. In any case, this is an argument about parenthood, not marriage and we don't currently discriminate against people who wish to be married but do not wish to have children nor do we do anything to prevent sub-optimal heterosexual couples from marrying or having children. If you're poor, alcoholic, abusive, or mentally or physically disabled, you can be married and have children. What threshold does "gay" cross that makes it so much less optimal that we can single it out for discrimination?

"Marriage is about children and society, not just about individuals and what they want."

Unless you advocate that marriage be denied to heterosexuals who are uninterested or incapable of bearing children, this argument falls a bit flat. It also ignores that fact that many gays do raise children.
Brett says:
November 18, 2008 at 6:57 pm
As a Mormon and opponent of Prop 8, I loved your list of what Gays and Mormons have in common. I think I'll use it as my email signature (I'll give you credit, of course).
Niall says:
November 18, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Tori and daisy - great comments.
Brand says:
November 18, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Eric, you are wrong to imply that it is okay for opponents of proprosition 8 to target Mormons and Mormon businesses that supported proposition 8, or to suggest that it should be expected. Our country, I thought, had moved past religious persectuion. Now that they have lost, opponents of proposition 8 have specifically targeted Mormon supporters of proposition 8 and are now saying I will harras you and persecute you for being a Mormon that voted against my point of view. Because you are a Mormon that voted agasint me, I will drive away your customers and attempt to surpress your livelihood. If you think that is okay, then just replace the word Mormon with Jew and see if your argument still feels correct. In California and Florida 7 out of every 10 African Americans voted to preserve traditional marriage. Yet you don't see black places of business being targeted by opponents of Proposition 8. This is an attack that is aimed specifically at Mormons, and it is religious persecution.
Susie says:
November 18, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I appreciate the intelligent comments MattP, Daisy, and many others have made. Comment #83 by LifeLong Mormon, can you provide a reference for that disturbing quote? Wow. I am a 15 year convert to the LDS Church and this political issue is sad and difficult in so many ways for me, but for now I only know that loving one another is all I can do. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." For me this includes loving and respecting my gay friends and their choices, without needing to either agree with or ban what they feel is right. I teach my children to be tolerant and respectful and loving to all, and while we still choose the models we wish to follow, we wish to give all that same right. I don't know that gay marriage should be either banned or promoted, but I watch and pray for a loving and compassionate solution to heal our nation. I must agree with the comment: "Anyone who was in favor of prop 8, who's heart didn't genuinely break for their brothers and sisters struggling with same-gender attraction is not nearly as Christ-like as they pretend they are. Its the callused attitude of the appeased self-righteous that gives truth to the argument that the prop 8 people were the haters." I think in many ways that is another thing the softer spoken portion of the two sides share... that deep desire to be ambassadors of Christlike love, to understand that we have so many differences, but that focusing on the commonalities is the way to peace.
Hyrum says:
November 18, 2008 at 10:01 pm
@Eric: I tried to find the column funny, but I think it was too easy. I think a funnier column would have been a staged debate between two people with extremely opposing views on the subject rather than this neutral middle point mocking both views.

What I think most people seem to miss is why this is an issue at all. The reason is something we call morality. The problem with morality is that morality itself is nothing, a blank canvas, emptiness. It is only when someone who believes a certain way holds up morality and waves around their moral banner that morality begins to take shape. The whole issue of SSM is a moral one. Some people are morally opposed to it. Others are not. Both sides like to skirt around this crux, trying to present profound data-driven logical arguments for their opinion. But there can be no true argument for morality because morality is only what you believe it to be.

Let's not pretend that there are not already laws in place that are entirely based on questions of morality. One could easily question any of these laws, and there are lots that we should. Most of these laws are in place because most people, in whatever place the law is relevant to, believe in what the law is defending or disallowing on a moral level. When the opposite becomes true, that the laws do not agree with the moral majority, there is civil unrest, unstability, and eventual revolution. We've seen it time and time again throughout history.

No one is ever right. There are just majorities, winners who decide how things are. There are no rights, only illusions of right based on what we feel we cannot live without, for whatever reason. As such, I find the arguments about "equal rights" to be spurious but no more so than the arguments about the "sanctity" of marriage.

All that being said, I do have my own moral opinion. I can't help but think of the quote: "by their fruits you shall know them". I find it far more morally reprehensible to vandalize churches, burn books, and make blacklists than to exercise the basic American right to vote.

I don't expect you to agree.
kuri says:
November 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Very funny column, Eric.

On the constitution thing, IANAL, but as someone else pointed out, the California Constitution distinguishes between "amendments" and "revisions." My understanding is that "amendments" can be put on the ballot through the usual signature-gathering process; "revisions" can't. One of the arguments making its way through the California courts is that since same-sex marriage has been ruled to fall under the principle of "equal protection," Prop 8 is a "revision" rather than an "amendment" because it strips a basic right, equal protection, from a certain class of people. It's too soon to know how that will play out, but it's at least a plausible argument.

Another argument, BTW, is that since the California Supreme Court has ruled that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional discrimination, and since Prop 8 defines marriage as for opposite-sex couples only, marriage by definition is discriminatory, so the State of California can now marry no one/i>, gay or straight. IOW, if the court accepts this argument, only civil unions are now legal in California.

I kind of hope the second argument prevails, if only because it would be one of the most ironic/utterly hilarious unintended consequences in the history of law.
mark says:
November 18, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Your bigotry and stereotypes of gays and lesbians is glaring.

FIRST....the term fag or faggot or dyke, aren't terms you've EARNED the right to use. When you've had them shouted at you just before you are knocked to the ground and kicked in the head, when you've had them spray painted across the door of your garage, and an entire TOWN of 75 people say NOTHING....then use those slurs, until then DON'T....seriously DON'T!

SECOND I know hundreds of lesbians for decades, and most of my friends are very capable cooks....who do you suppose feeds lesbians, who for the most part earn 70 cents on two incomes, that their male counterparts earn a buck.

THIRD whatever goal you thought might occur by attempting a humorous column on same sex marriage battle, I doubt anyone but YOU chuckled at it.
kuri says:
November 18, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Hyrum,

"The whole issue of SSM is a moral one. Some people are morally opposed to it. Others are not."

And some people are morally in favor of it. Many people in favor of same-sex marriage believe that "non-discrimination" is a moral principle.

I guess that just proves what you said to be true: "there can be no true argument for morality because morality is only what you believe it to be."
mark says:
November 18, 2008 at 10:57 pm
As an 55 yo openly gay man raised by a Mormon mother, (who converted to my father's faith when I was 4 yo), and having HALF my family LDS members, who live in SLC and Vegas who love and respect me...I'm not ignorant of the Mormon faith, or the pretty lax and vague stickness of LDS tennents any of my family members have, since my grandmother, who died in the 80's. Maybe the newly converted Mormons globally jump when the LDS elders snap their fingers...NONE of my family members do, and while they may be the same as recovering Catholics who couldn't bear to not have the theater and pagentry of bells and smells, it's a momentary lapse of judgement on Christmas and Easter...and nothing more.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 11:02 pm
"Eric, you are wrong to imply that it is okay for opponents of proprosition 8 to target Mormons and Mormon businesses that supported proposition 8, or to suggest that it should be expected. Our country, I thought, had moved past religious persectuion."

It has nothing to do with religious persecution. It's a political response to a political action. As Dan Savage says, "When political attacks are launched from churches, political responses will be delivered to churches. If g**d***ed McDonald's had organized and paid for Prop 8, we'd be marching on g**d***ed McDonald's."
matt says:
November 18, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I'd like to see a percentage of Eric's columns in which MattP HASN'T been involved in a lengthy discussion which eventually derails the comment section into a personal argument.

Shouldn't he start his own blog?
Conservative Guy says:
November 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I concur that the act of speaking out politically invites (justified) disagreement and even protest (non-violent). And shoot, you can even choose to personally boycott an establishment if you want (for any reason, valid or not, of your choosing).

But standing outside a store and verbally harassing and/or intimidating those who do want to patronize said establishment is taking it too far, IMO. Post flyers, make a website, create a commercial... but when you turn your protest into direct, in-your-face confrontation, it becomes ugly and can lead to violence.

It's legal, but it's ugly and unbecoming. I believe all the stills and video broadcast of protesters yelling at little kids on their way to church or waving their "Mormons go to hell" signs do more to hurt the cause of SSM than help it.

Just my two cents.
MattP says:
November 18, 2008 at 11:44 pm
"I'd like to see a percentage of Eric's columns in which MattP HASN'T been involved in a lengthy discussion which eventually derails the comment section into a personal argument."

I've participated in two or three lengthy discussions here, depending on your definition of "lengthy". Eric encourages such discussion. It increases his page views and his income.

"Shouldn't he start his own blog?"

I talk to people here because there are people here to talk to and because the subject interests me. Should Eric ask me to limit my comments, I'd happily oblige.
Byrd says:
November 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Wow. 121 comments until someone freaked out. It was a good run, Eric. And Mark, I guess you didn't bother to read many of the preceding comments that congratulated Eric on making them chuckle. Evil, EVIL chuckles.
Josh says:
November 19, 2008 at 12:41 am
I think we should all pitch in and buy mark a sense of humor.
Jacob says:
November 19, 2008 at 12:50 am
Sheesh! You leave for a day and a hundred people freakin' comment.

Anyway, to those who are wondering if gay marriages must be accepted just like a Driver's License? No. The Gov't wrote in an exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause back a dozen years ago just for this. Click on my name for the wikipedia article thereon.

Also, mark, if a third the rumors I've heard (or angry letters) about Eric are true, then he's earned the right to use just about any term, epithet, slur, or kudos in the dictionary. And if they're completely not true, can't he also get double persecution points AND still use them?
Kristina says:
November 19, 2008 at 1:14 am
Good column. I too don't have a settled opinion on the issue, but get tired of people personally attacking other people for their beliefs.

Mark in #122 - I'm sure the terms religious nutjobs, zealots, whackos, crusaders, and cultists are just as offensive to religious people as the terms fags, queers, dykes, and lesbos are to gays. I think you may have missed the point of the column.
tia juanna says:
November 19, 2008 at 3:00 am
Eric,

As one of your most favorite aunts, I think you should take one of those marriage offers!
Keith says:
November 19, 2008 at 4:49 am
Kaydria, I am the one who will decide who you will marry, and it isn't Eric. You will be your cousin's 3rd wife. I just haven't figured out which cousin... Jake, Justin or Barbara.

MattP, seriously, I appreciate your non-inflammatory and informed remarks. Yours is the sort of dialogue that is needed. While hateful blacklists and boycotts might be justified by some, they will give nothing but hate in return. Honest, respectful and informed dialogue, along with a little humor, is the most effective way to get through to anyone, including Mormons.
Eric D. Snider says:
November 19, 2008 at 5:25 am
Sorry about the numerous abusive comments from Mark. I've deleted them (except for his original two, #122 and 124), and he has lost his commenting privileges. By the way, his e-mail address has the word "Mensa" in it, so I guess that makes two groups that he's representing poorly.
Allen Black says:
November 19, 2008 at 5:33 am
Overall, a well written column. You definitely kept me guessing as to where you were taking me, and made it entertaining enough to hold on to me to the end. I have to say, though, and to be fair this is the first of your posts I've read, that the end of the thing arrived at nowhere...just fizzled out and died.

You write well enough and seem to have just enough cynicism to entice me to read other of your posts, but not if you're another drab, gray personality. You know, somebody without enough belief of his own to stand for anything, who is too enlightened to accept the reality that life is about such things as right and wrong, good and bad, choice and consequence, cause and effect, true and false, and so on.

I'm not saying that people should choose a set of beliefs and then hate and persecute those who believe differently. No way. I just hope you're one who is willing to make choices, accept the consequences, and then is willing to use his gift of expression to explain why he made such choices and what he learned from the consequences.
Kimberly T says:
November 19, 2008 at 5:38 am
Thanks to everyone for keeping the comments clean. :) Its nice not to have to worry about reading abusive comments. And thanks to Eric for keeping a eye on the comments and deleting the nasty ones!
Laremy says:
November 19, 2008 at 6:08 am
Since I'm no expert on ancient Greece I suppose I could cede that they had more freedoms... if you admit that they were a far smaller percentage of the overall world than is now occupied by people with rights like habeas corpus.

Of course, you could mention that the US hasn't been so hot on basic constitutional rights lately, but I think it's coming back around.
yebbie says:
November 19, 2008 at 6:15 am
I just wanted to know if anyone bothered to check Marley (post#33)for a pulse...
marz says:
November 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Here is a thought that hasn't been hashed out in this discussion: Until the last 100 years (give or take a week) marriage has had little to nothing to do with love.
Fig says:
November 19, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Giggling at "he has lost his commenting privileges."
yebbie says:
November 19, 2008 at 6:08 pm
marz-

Considering the current statistics on divorce, sometimes I wonder how much it has to do with love TODAY.
Katrina says:
November 19, 2008 at 6:21 pm
To Comment #52 Pherber:

If a homosexual couple has been together for 30 years, marriage was not an option when they started dating. Nothing has changed. If you vote to declare all heterosexual marriages void it changes something that has always been in place. Big difference.

Heterosexuals are not telling homosexuals what to do, be gay, love life - I don't care. I do care about how "marriage" is defined.
Bee says:
November 19, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Katrina, as far as definition of marriage goes...

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. Does it really matter the gender? Saying marriage and civil unions are the same is a lot like separating the blacks and the whites and saying 'separate but equal'. It's unfair, and church and state are *supposed* to be separated, but it sure seems like religion has way more influence than it should on some very important personal rights. I'm not bringing up anyone specific's religion in this, just saying this seems to be the case in general.
Bee says:
November 19, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Oh, and awesome column, Eric, as always! You are incredible. =D
Amp says:
November 19, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Hey, this is in response to the people wondering how the CA State Supreme Court could rule against Prop 8. One idea I've heard passed around but not mentioned here is that since the Constitution already has a equal protection clause, and since the Court has already ruled that a ban on SSM violates that clause, they could find the Constitution internally inconsistent. I'm not sure what they would do at that point, but my guess is that, in order to make the Constitution consistent, they would strike down Prop 8, since equal protection either (1) was there first; or (2) is a more compelling state interest. I'm not at all a legal scholar, but it's another point to consider.
Your Name says:
November 19, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Ok well one thing I don't get is how they protest in UTAH! Seriously it's like it will help, because we have so much influence on CALIFORNIA!

I saw on the news the other day (and yes i was actually watching it) that they sent a suspicious letter to a seminary building, I mean come on I understand protesting at temples (though why do it on a Sunday is beyond me) but a SEMINARY BUILDING! Are they all idiots (and yes we are all idiots in our own special way.)
Rob says:
November 20, 2008 at 1:26 am
I enjoyed your column. I am an active LDS and only regret that I couldn't have been part of the 52% (I live in Nevada). By the way, Obama's "landslide" was with only 51% of the popular vote---maybe Prop 8 should be a "major landslide" at 52% (twice the amount north of 50%)?

I live in Las Vegas and I've never (to the best of my knowledge) ever even seen a hooker. Why limit yourself to offending Californians and Utahans, when you can add Nevadans to the list?

As a life-long not-living-in-Utah Mormon, I'm quite used to being an "outsider". Fortunately, our Church has generally been well-respected in most of the Western US where the majority of non-LDS have had some contact with those of us that are, and hopefully the associations have been generally positive (although I can personally name a number of idiots who are LDS).

I was pleased to see that the LDS Church received both the credit and the blame for the passage of Prop 8, whether deserved or not. I've wondered why no one's bothered to protest Catholics as a whole (who are nearly up there to us in terms of "credit" or "blame", depending on your perspective) or East LA where I understand something like 70% of the largely black population voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8.

I think if you'd poll LDS, you'd find that the overwhelming majority individually have positive associations with gays and lesbians. My nephew is gay. He's one of the genuinely nicest people I know. His "friends" that he brings to family reunions I inevitably find to be more interesting to talk with than the more boring "straight" ones. I wish them all the happiness and prosperity that they can have together. I just don't think it's appropriate to redefine marriage to include same sexes. Hence my vote here in Nevada several years ago for the same issue.

Keep stirring the pot! I enjoy the entertainment value.

Rob
yebbie says:
November 20, 2008 at 1:52 am
I'm not too worried about them boycotting Utah-it's not like the state's tourism industry is based on attracting gays and lesbians to come and spend their dollars here so the prophesied "tanking" of our economy is highly unlikely. A hard nosed boycott could also backfire and result in "pity/solidarity" tourism by those who feel the same way about how marriage is defined. Stranger things have happened.

Besides, they don't know who they are messing with.In under an hour we can mobilize a statewide telephone campaign that produces any number of plagues upon the demonstrators, for example:
*24 hour free concerts featuring performances by Vocal Point, Kenneth Cope, and the West Salt Lake 849th Ward Primary to entertain our guests
*An ongoing parade of LDS fashions made entirely from denim,wheat storage bags and quilt squares
*Millions of seagulls circling overhead (which I can only imagine would be terrifying to a group of people who have to dryclean everything they wear)

So I reply to that infamous poster named Mark-We've walked in the Valley of the Shadow of the Everlasting Hills all our lives and we're the nicest Sons of the Pioneers you'll ever meet. We're ready dude. Bring it!
Davey Boy says:
November 20, 2008 at 5:11 am
#148 Rob: Obama's victory was 53% of the vote, and it was against McCain's 46%. That's a much bigger difference than the 52%/48% on Prop 8.
Kaydria says:
November 20, 2008 at 8:07 am
Whoa, sorry Eric. My father has spoken. I guess I can't marry you after all! Don't weep for our lost love, Eric. There are other girls in the world. I want you to be happy.
Grandma Glenda says:
November 20, 2008 at 8:10 am
Eric Snider! Wow, I've found you at last. I missed you muchly when you abruptly left the Daily Herald and I have wondered where you were hiding.

This column was forwarded to me. Now tell me how to stay tuned.

Gigi
Brady says:
November 20, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Your're political correctness was perfect. As long as you offend both sides equally, who can whine about that? As a lifelong Mormon, although inactive for many years, I had to chukle at your comment on the typical Mormon meeting, been there done that many times. Yes, there is a huge diference between temples and churches (meeting houses)but most people who like to bitch are not interested enough to find out the purpose of the two. As for the gay/lesbian side, I'm a const. contractor and have done work for many gays and have found them to be very good clients, as long as I know they are gay and they know I'm not we get along fine. I also lived nextdoor to a lesbian couple for 5 years who were some of the best neighbors I ever had. I also loved your referance to rubbing two gays together and BAM you've got aids. Its sort of like when two cars collide on the TV or movies, they burst into a huge ball of flames. Come on folks, it's reality time. I still strongly believe that a marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman. Although to quote a comedian on same sex marriages,"whats the big deal with the same sex marriage issue? Everyone knows once your married, its the same old sex for the rest of your life anyway."
Karen says:
November 20, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Thank you!
Anon says:
November 20, 2008 at 7:16 pm
You know what. Let's put it to vote. I think we should vote whether a man and a woman can be married. That would be fair to the gays/lesbians, right? And while we're at it, let's vote on marriage between siblings (those are even MORE of a minority group than gays/lesbians). How about we vote on marriage between a father and daughter? And Mom and son! And cousins! Neices and Uncles! Yeah! And then we can throw animals into the mix to. Then before you know it plants! And inanimate objects! Because we need to be fair to everyone, right? Please stop me if this is sounding ridiculous . . .
MattP says:
November 20, 2008 at 7:58 pm
"Please stop me if this is sounding ridiculous."

It sure does, but probably not for the reasons you think.
matt says:
November 20, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Well, MattP, that last statement (#156) makes me feel bad for saying anything negative about you. Because it was rad.

Anyway, you're right. Eric has said that the only reason he has the comments turned on is for people to keep checking back to see if someone has responded to them. More clicks, more money. I do not begrudge the man his hard-earned internet dollars.

Carry on, good sir.
Sue says:
November 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Amen. THANK YOU.
RFS says:
November 20, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Thanks Eric. for pointing up the hilarity of the extremists in both camps.

OK, Now that Prop 8 has passed did Gays loose any of the rights Marrieds have? Well no, the rights of Civil Union couples are the same as Married couples and these rights are backed by California law.

But, what about the marriage ceremony? Can they no longer have a wedding, with guests and family and a cake? Of course they can, just like they did before the court decision in May and the months after leading up to the Nov. election.

Well then, what can Gays NOT do now that Prop 8 has passed? Well, they can't use the word "Marriage" as a loophole with which to teach the Homosexual lifestyle in California schools (As the pro 8 people pointed out had begun to occur in CA in the months since the court decision - just like it has been going on in Mass. since they legalized SSM)
MattP says:
November 20, 2008 at 11:57 pm
"OK, Now that Prop 8 has passed did Gays loose any of the rights Marrieds have?"

Yes. There are a handful of rights that aren't available to domestic partnerships. The original California Supreme Court decision that legalized SSM identified nine such issues. Also, there's a fair chance that some portion of DOMA will be repealed in the next few years, which would grant certain federal rights to married gays (such as allowing non-citizen spouses to live in the country) but not to domestic partnerships.

"Well, they can't use the word "Marriage" as a loophole with which to teach the Homosexual lifestyle in California schools (As the pro 8 people pointed out had begun to occur in CA in the months since the court decision - just like it has been going on in Mass. since they legalized SSM)"

This can still happen and was happening in MA *prior* to legalization of SSM. The materials people are offended by describe children who have "two mommies" or "two daddies" and sometimes refer to them as married. Regardess of the legal status of SSM in California, there still are families led by same-sex couple and in other places in the US and around the world SSM continues to be legal.

Accurately describing the types of relationships that exist in the world and encouraging children to tolerate their existence doesn't strike be as a bad thing.
judy sigmon says:
November 21, 2008 at 5:34 am
Yes teaching children that "two mommies or two daddies" is just fine and normal IS a bad thing. Also do gays have to sit in the back of buses, drink out of different water fountains etc. No of course not! Don't try to equate this with the terrible injustices that blacks endured for years.

Speaking of blacks- Why aren't gays/lesbians protesting at black churches? Maybe they didn't put as much money into it as an organized group but they certainly played a big part in the way the vote went.

Why do the militant gay activists think they have the right to protest but their opponents don't? (like knocking the sign or cross from the elderly woman in the video) If you want to be taken seriously stop throwing tantrums! Protesting is a right. Violent protests are not!

Also chuches have a right to voice their opinion on moral issues but they never ever have the right to tell anyone how they should vote.

Eric I enjoyed your wit.
SciFiGuy says:
November 21, 2008 at 2:38 pm
A person who uses offensive epitaphs (even if used to describe people on both sides of the issue) is NOT an enlightened person who we should be respecting as having anything worthwhile to say.
Matt Peterson says:
November 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm
"Yes teaching children that "two mommies or two daddies" is just fine and normal IS a bad thing."

And this is bad thing why? Should a child in the class that actually has two mommies be ostracized and insulted by the other children?

"Why aren't gays/lesbians protesting at black churches?"

Because black churches were not used to mount an organized campaign and donate huge amounts of money to Prop 8 at the direction of an out-of-state authority acting with the understanding that its followers believed it to be a living prophet of God. Because black voters, for the post part, merely voted their concience rather than actively campaigning to get others to change their votes.

"Why do the militant gay activists think they have the right to protest but their opponents don't?"

Because they are jerks and idiots. Fortunately they represent a very small portion of those who are protesting and a smaller yet portion of all people, protesting or not, that support SSM. There have been hundreds of protests in the past couple weeks, but you're only going to see the videos of bad behavior if that's all you want to see. Most protests have been peaceful affairs, like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0V6zQFr-_s
Anon says:
November 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
MattP:
Aren't you the little devil's advocate? Your postings were insightful and entertaining at first, but now a single post can't go by without your rebuttal or you showing off how smart and knowledgeable you are on the subject. Sure, Eric may enjoy what you have to say and you're just trying to defend your position and share your insightful light to those less educated (or you THINK they are less educated) than you. . . But it's starting to come off as a bit loud mouth, know-it-all. Can you not accept a couple of opinions?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of these posts I feel are rhetorical: people just trying to say what they're thinking. And your responses are very condescending. I think you've well established yourself that you know everything (Or THINK you know everything). Again, your comments keep things balanced, well, more so toward opposing Prop 8, but that's beside the point. Let people express their opinions, k? I feel like you have your own little political agenda and you're trying to convert everyone to your view point because you're right and we're wrong.

But insightful comments nonetheless . . .
MattP says:
November 21, 2008 at 10:58 pm
"Let people express their opinions, k?"

Which of the two of us is trying to prevent people from expressing themselves?

My comments don't remove the other ones. This isn't a small room where one loud voice can drown out the others. All of the voices here are available for all to see. If you don't like to hear mine then don't read my posts.
Dave the Slave says:
November 21, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Anon: that was painful man...

I'm not sure MattP is "starting to come off as a bit loud mouth, know-it-all" to anyone other than yourself. "Can you not accept a couple of opinions?" -might be a great question to ask yourself in my opinion..

Personally, I've enjoyed Mattp's perspective, even though I don't necessarily agree with him. I believe there are certain rights that can justly be called "basic human rights". Amongst these I'd list the right of life, liberty and, although a bit vague, the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is *not* a basic human right in my opinion.
I also believe that choices we make as individuals greatly affect our options concerning our broader spectrum of "rights", so while the gay-community might say marriage is in direct correspondence with the basic human right of "pursuit of happiness", (arguably a valid point) the ambiguity of the word "happiness" could cause quite a slippery slope. If marriage is a basic human right, by merit of impeding the full pursuit of happiness, what ISN'T a hindrance to someone's happiness? Something that might make ME personally happy others might not give a crap about, and vice-versa. If something impedes my happiness, yet violates the rights of others, who's rights are more important? The way see it, saying marriage is a "basic human right" is flat-out wrong, no matter how you look at it. If it truly were a basic human right, untouchable by regulation from any authority, there could be no laws against incest, polygamy, polyamory, etc. since it their "basic human right" to marry whoever, or however many they wish.
For the most part I've really enjoyed reading the comments to this article. Thank you to everyone who was able to do it respectfully. :-)
Dave the Slave says:
November 21, 2008 at 11:43 pm
*sigh* my kingdom for an edit button.... Eric, how dare you force us commenters to proof-read our comments BEFORE we upload them! :-P
Anon says:
November 21, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Sorry then
Holly says:
November 22, 2008 at 1:18 am
Your column was not only rude but offensive to both sides. This is a core moral issue to many people, and making light of it doesn't mean that they are wrong in believing the way they do.
Nicholas D says:
November 22, 2008 at 2:03 am
Here's my two cents:
Marriage began as a religious institution, not a governmental one. If a government wants to recognize this institution (as the U.S. has) it's up to the people of that country to do so. If the government wants to recognize an partnership similar to "marriage", they need to call it something other than "marriage". It belonged to the churches first. Churches are upset because people are attempting to bastardize their sacred institution. They have every right to be upset and take a stand on the issue.

One could say that the Government probably shouldn't have recognized the term "marriage" in the first place and just used some other term or definition. If people really want a separation of Church and State, then the government shouldn't recognize ANY marriages; same-sex or straight.

The other option (which I agree with) is to give the same rights to same-sex partners, but call it something different. By definition, "marriage" (to churches and now by the California Constitution) is different than a same-sex partnership.

Honestly, I think the majority of people would be happy if same-sex partners had the same rights as straight partners. I see no reason why they shouldn't have them. But religion invented the term "marriage" and if they don't want the definition changed, they have a right to stand up for what they believe in. Gays and Lesbians just need to find some way of getting those rights other than changing the definition of a word.
Nicholas D says:
November 22, 2008 at 2:06 am
By the way, I LOVED the article. Best one I've read in a long time. The more offensive, the funnier.
Chris says:
November 22, 2008 at 5:01 am
Eric,

Your snideness knows no bounds and serves no purpose in this article but to prove displeasing to all parties and represent a Jello-like reality that you live in that defies any real conviction.
BMB says:
November 22, 2008 at 5:35 am
MattP some issues outside of religion advocating against SSM -

Things like impact on children regarding - increased sexual experementation, abuse, exposure to domestic violence, etc.

valuesadvocacycouncil.org/pdf/EvidenceIsClear.pdf

However, I would like to say that the religious arguement that you so blithly toss aside is comical at best and belittling at worst. If you have a faith, then that means that you live your faith, every day. And because active Mormons tend to live thier religion every day then it comes down to this. I (as a Mormon) think that SSM is wrong and will be bad for our country. You on the other hand think that it is good and will be good for our country. I believe this because fundamentaly I believe that God has blessed this country and that our future success or failure hinges upon "we the people" either striving to uphold his commandments or not. (and NO this is not what "seperation of church and state" was meant to define) Yes, I know there are many other things this country does wrong but this was an issue that was facing us now and we made a stand, as is our right.

As for the article, and many of the comments here, all I can say is I am disappointed. Eric and those who stand in the middle and laugh at both sides are well... Cowards. Take a stand, at least I can respect MattP, and all the people who oppose Prop 8 at least they are taking a stand. The rest of you remind me of the people in the "Great and spacious building" laughing and pointing at the people who were at least out there trying to do what they felt was right.
Nicholas D says:
November 22, 2008 at 7:07 am
Well, BM, that wasn't self-righteous at all, was it. Is the issue of Gay Marriage an important and serious issue? Yes. Are some of the arguments made on both sides of the issue ridiculous and obsurd? Yes. Do they deserve to be mocked? Yes, yes they certainly do.

For example: I'm against Terrorism, but I will readily mock those people who feel that anyone who even looks middle-eastern will blow up a plane, or that ALL Muslims want America to be destroyed.

Are these people technically on my side? Well, yeah. But do their crazy ideas and theories help my cause? Uh...nope. Would it better my cause if I called them out publically as being insane? Probably.

It's the same situation with Gay Marriage. If the NORMAL religious people openly denounce the actions of the extremists, it actually helps our cause. The same goes for the other side.

Making fun of the fanatical members of each side of the issue lets everyone know that we're not ALL fanatics.
MattP says:
November 22, 2008 at 7:32 am
"valuesadvocacycouncil.org/pdf/EvidenceIsClear.pdf"

Holy cow, that has some doozies. It looks like a mish-mash of every piece of research that proports to show same sex relationships in a poor light, but very little of it actually stands up to scrutiny. I'll pick one of the worst examples to show how awful that document is when it comes to making an honest, fact-based argument.

That document contains the following "fact":
"Studies in the Netherlands show that men with steady partners have an average of 8 other casual partners in a year and those without steady partners and average of 22 casual partners."

Man that sure sounds bad. Even gay men in steady relationships have 8 other partners over the course of the year.

I've read the study. The researchers excluded from the study any man that was over 30, any man that was HIV-negative (unless with a partner that was HIV-positive), and any man that was in a monogamous relationship. Also the criteria used by the researchers for a "steady" relationship was loose enough to include couples that had been together for a few weeks.

Oops.

So, are they being intentionally dishonest when they leave out the fact that this study was specifically targeted at promiscuous men, or were they merely being sloppy by passing along a dishonest argument from another source without checking it out for themselves?

There are similar problems with other "facts" presented in that document.
Jacob says:
November 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Scifiguy: you mean epithets up there? I'm afraid to see what kind of epitaphs are getting written up and thrown around in a case like this . . .

Have a nice day!
Dave the Slave says:
November 22, 2008 at 6:19 pm
BMB: Do you frequently get nose-bleeds? Those of us who are truly trying to show Christ-like love for our brothers and sisters with same-gender attraction, instead of dehumanizing them, isn't a lack of conviction.

If I lived in California I would have supported prop 8. I would have spoken with everyone I came in contact with about my own personal beliefs about same-sex marriage, and the eternal roles of husbands and wives as children of our loving Father in Heaven. In the end though, the most important thing we could do is show genuine love and concern for these people. Even the most immature, selfish, terrible person can love his friends. Christ has asked us to love our enemies. Can YOU honestly say you have grieved in your heart for your brothers and sisters in the gay community? Have you mourned with those that are mourning?

The flippant attitude of "well they're wrong so who cares if they're upset" is monstrously childish. To suggest that those who don't share your callused attitude are "disappointing" and "cowards" goes well beyond smug condescension and lands firmly in holier-than-thou hypocrisy.

Eric poked fun at the silly opinions of the over-zealous, bigoted, hate-filled, ignorant, militant people on both sides of this issue. If what he said stuck a nerve with you, perhaps you should think about why it bothers you so much. How does this put him, or "anyone else in the middle" on the same level as those in Lehi's vision, caught up in the pride and vanity of the world? Its cowardly to mock the terrible way immature people treat each other when it comes to serious social issues?

Before taking such pride in "living (your) religion every day", you might want to re-evaluate what your religion really is. From your post it sure isn't advocating humility. :-P
BMB says:
November 24, 2008 at 5:47 pm
MattP -

Actually the articles fromt the one referenced that I found most interesting are the 14 year study (followed children raised in homosexual homes for 14 years) and the only random sample study that was performed. Those have some truly disturbing insights.

Nicholas D - passion for ones beliefs is what moves the world pal. See also why Obama whupped McCain, he created passion for his movement while McCain put most of us to sleep. As you stated this is an important issue and one that deserves serious consideration. That is why standing on the sidelines and poking fun at both sides and not taking a stand on either side is cowardly. Taking a stand and then moderating the voices that are extreme in your camp is preferable than to someone who just makes fun of both.

Dave the Slave - maybe you didn't read my original post? I stated that I have respect for those who support the oppositions views. The only view I don't respect are those who don't take a stand. I also never mentioned my compasion, or as you believe - lack of, for those in favor of SSM. You mention a flippant attitude toward those in favor of SSM and then you put in quotes something that is not to be found in my post. The "disappointing" and "coward" comments are aimed at those who are un-willing to take a stand or those without conviction. So, "Mister compasion" and yet so eager to call me names - get some glasses.
MattP says:
November 24, 2008 at 7:48 pm
"Actually the articles fromt the one referenced that I found most interesting are the 14 year study (followed children raised in homosexual homes for 14 years) and the only random sample study that was performed. Those have some truly disturbing insights."

Each one of the referenced statements in that document that I took the time to look up either grossly misrepresented the actual data, cherry-picked data (one study says "X", others say "not X", but only "X" is presented), or referenced a study with methodological flaws.

The Australia study, for instance, which on the surface seems to be reasonably executed, has been criticized by the APA for several methodological flaws. They also note that the results of that study are not consistent with the bulk of other similar research.
Adam says:
November 24, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I wish Eric had been around during the civil rights era. I can only imagine the hilarious column he would have written about Brown v. Board.
Tha Byrd says:
November 24, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I think Chris in #172 was saying that this Snide Remarks was really snidey. Cool, because that is a compliment in this case. I think. Right?

But really, what was he/she trying to say? "Eric, your remarks were really mean and made both sides mad and you live in a bowl of jello. bye."
Nicholas D says:
November 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm
BM: Eric might not be taking a strong stance on his website because he doesn't want the gays blacklisting it (or his advertisers) or protesting on his doorstep. He DOES live in Portland. Besides, this is a humor column. If it's funnier to make fun of both sides of the issue, that's what Eric's going to do. To call someone a coward based on a single HUMOR column they wrote on the issue of Gay Marriage is just stupid and judgemental. But hey, if you feel like you've been appointed to be Eric's judge by your ecclesiastical leaders, judge away.
vicki h says:
November 28, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I looked up "marriage" in the dictionary - I know - lame - but it is consistently defined in terms of gender when referring to wedlock kinds of marriage. (rather than general mergers such as "flavors") The one that does not reflex genders male and female uses marriage to define itself - marriage - the state of being married - not helpful at all. My point being is that when you interpret the constitution you try and figure out what the writers had in mind. When the writers made laws about marriage (which every state has the legal right to do under the U. S. Constitution) marriage was a union between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 reaffirms the original intent of the word. When you redefine a word in law, it is redefined for everyone, thus everyone suffers or benefits from the new interpretation of the word/law. The federal government does not have to recognize a redefinition of a word including the word "marriage" just because a state redefines the word - hence the unfair treatment of gay married couples seeking a green card. I am curious. How is marriage defined under the four judge's ruling? Sorry, this is not funny.
drakepope says:
November 28, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Me, I can't see how you could in all fairness blame the Mormons for Proposition 8. The way it's been reported, it seems like they got involved after the actual proposition had been made, to get out the vote for it. The real blame falls on California voters as a whole, who approved the measure even though they had to have known that it would adversely impact homosexuals.

Yeah, the Mormon Church could have handled this a lot better, but it's not like they started it or forced everyone else to go along. If a simple majority of California voters really cared about the human rights of gays and lesbians, then the (comparitively) small amount of Mormons who could have even had the opportunity to vote the proposition could not have mattered.

Nicholas D: "Making fun of the fanatical members of each side of the issue lets everyone know that we're not ALL fanatics."

This is something that I can agree with. It's important for all of us to be able to see that other religions, belief systems, etc. are not monolithic in character. The tendency, especially for relatively cloistered Christian sects like Catholicism and Mormonism where more people are familiar with the stereotypes than with actual Catholics or Mormons, can really be effectively overcome if it was encouraged/acceptable to embrace the beliefs of the church without having to personally endorse every single decision that another church member makes.

Nicholas D: "Marriage began as a religious institution, not a governmental one"

Can anyone actually prove that? I've heard that statement made, that marriage was made as a religious institution (by which religion???), in some pretty high places without anything like a historical source. If you're going to pass discriminatory laws based on that history, then there should be at least some evidence.
jlouise says:
December 16, 2008 at 8:18 am
#30 and several others have mentioned taking this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court if the California Supreme Court decides that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. This just isn't possible.

The earlier decision of the California Supreme Court was based on its interpretation of the California Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. The California Supreme Court has the final say on what its state constitution means. State constitutions can and frequently do guarantee more rights than the U.S. Constitution (hence we have civil unions in Vermont and same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, based on their state constitutions). The only way the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved is if a state constitution or statute takes away rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The other route to the Supreme Court is if a federal statute, like the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" is involved. So a same-sex couple who legally married in Massachusetts, but then moved to another state which refused to recognize their marriage, might go to court to try to have the marriage recognized. If the court rejected their argument based on the DOMA, the matter could go to the U.S. Supremes -- but only if at least 5 of the 9 voted in favor of taking the case.
JT says:
February 6, 2009 at 9:45 am
This is all over the word "marriage." Civil unions in California have all the rights of married couples, so the vandalism and hate-mongering is really over the definition of a word.

The main problem with equating it to civil rights is that not all gay people feel like they were born that way. Camille Paglia, Anne Heche, the screenwriter for Priscilla Queen of the Desert, my friend Mike, etc.
Brian says:
February 16, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Civil unions do not have the same rights as marriages, and even if they did, that would be another "Separate but Equal" epidemic. I also don't believe that people are born gay, that still doesn't change the fact that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry no matter their race, gender, orientation, etc. The definition of marriage has changed over the years so many, many times. If we were to practice traditional marriage, then blacks and whites couldn't marry, women couldn't decline the engagement, several women would be sold to one man, etc. etc. etc.

This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.

Eric D. Snider