You are viewing livelongnmarry

 
 
06 November 2008 @ 03:32 pm
The passage of Prop 8  
As I'm sure we all are, I am sad and angry about the passage of the discriminatory Prop 8, and also of other anti-GLBT propositions in other states.

But the battle is not over, and neither is Live Long And Marry. Please continue watching the site. We will put out an announcement within the next week or so regarding our new direction.

In the meantime, please feel free to comment with suggestions or feelings.

However, I request that you not blame specific groups for the passage of Prop 8 here. I have more detail on why I think that's a bad thing here: Don't be the hatred we're fighting against. Of course you're free to say whatever you like in your own LJs. For the sake of clarity, I don't mean that you shouldn't say, for instance, "The Mormon Church's fundraising for Prop 8 was wrong." I mean that I'd really prefer no comments along the lines of "All Mormons are fascist pigs."
 
 
 
( 30 comments — Leave a comment )
Boo-Boo Honey Sweet Cakes Puppy Face McCuteCute: misc | rainbow onebrixisxonfire on November 6th, 2008 11:43 pm (UTC)
I'm disappointed, but I'm not as upset as a lot of other people are. Like you just said, this is not the end. It won't be the end until we win, which we will win. It's only a matter of time. I believe that anything is possible. Yes we can.
Chasechik: lollipopchasingtides on November 7th, 2008 01:50 am (UTC)
I'm upset by the passage of Prop 8 and am ready to fight against it as best I can from my side of the country.
Katie: Luke Snyder votes yay for the gaysazelmaroark on November 7th, 2008 04:13 am (UTC)
I'm also disappointed by the 8 situation, but am very hopeful for the future. Really glad you guys will be continuing this community. I've been watching my No on 8 emails eagerly to hear about what out of state supporters can do for the legal challenges.

This isn't the end of the story, guys. It's chapter one. =)
Mo: LGBT Obamamofic on November 7th, 2008 04:49 am (UTC)
I feel totally heartbroken about Proposition 8. I don't live in California and I'm not married. If I choose to get married, I can go to neighboring states (Connecticut or Massachusetts) or to Canada, where I was born and most of my family is. So it's not a personal loss in that sense. But at this moment when so many hopes are coming true, with this joyously historic election, to see the people of California choose to take away basic civil rights from gay men and lesbians feels so terribly wrong.

And part of me feels that if only Obama had come out for equal rights instead of against them, we would have won both the presidency and retained the California Constitution.
Raven: in love with a girlaki_hoshi on November 7th, 2008 06:18 am (UTC)
While I agree with wishing that Obama was for equal rights, I fear that might have actually lost him votes. He does, at least, agree with civil union, which is hardly fair, but at least a step in the right direction. This country still has too many ties to religion within the state structure, and until we can enforce an actual separation of church and state, it will be a horrible uphill battle to get people to realise that this isn't about granting people a right...it's about not taking away a right that they were born with, being a citizen of this country, and a human being. But I'm ready for the fight, and I think America, with the hope of change ahead of us, is too.

I really love your icon, btw. :)

Edited at 2008-11-07 06:18 am (UTC)
Mo: Jews for Obamamofic on November 7th, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
I do think he made a political calculation and he had to do what he thought would win him votes. I don't believe him when he says that he is opposed to equal marriage rights because of his Christian faith - after all, the man is a professor of constitutional law and has been well able to separate his religious beliefs from public policy on other issues. And I didn't want him to die on this issue - I wanted him to be POTUS. But I can't get over feeling bitter.

When Bill Clinton ran for POTUS he was the most pro-gay candidate we had ever had in a major political party. And we did make huge gains under his watch, in spite of the disaster that was Don't Ask Don't Tell. But I felt really betrayed when he signed DOMA even though I knew he needed to do it to get re-elected. I'm feeling similarly now. I am almost overwhelmed with joy at Obama's win, but this puts a damper on it.
Ravenaki_hoshi on November 7th, 2008 06:46 pm (UTC)
I completely agree. I, too, am overwhelmed by Obama's win, and while I think he can do so many good things for this country, so much of that joy is shadowed by the upset of gay rights across America. I guess I was overly hopeful for more change, and now I'm grounded by the fact that our struggle will be that much harder, because while there will be changes across America, the gay community has had major setbacks as well.

But, like I said, I'm ready for the fight. I too, was upset at Clinton for signing DOMA, but if I don't have faith that our new president will listen to us, then I shouldn't have voted for him at all.
Mo: Jews for Obamamofic on November 7th, 2008 07:05 pm (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said. I don't have faith that he'll listen to us, but I hope he will. And I didn't vote based on gay rights at all, really. On many issues I do feel like he represents what I want for the country and on others I feel like he's the lesser of two evils. I had much more enthusiasm for Obama than I've had for a candidate in a long time, because there was more of the former and less of the latter than I've experienced in a long time.
Ravenaki_hoshi on November 7th, 2008 07:17 pm (UTC)
Well, I suppose I meant, "listen to us all" as in the country, not just "us" as a gay community.

I will admit that I don't eye-to-eye on everything with Obama, but there is a site that might be a gateway into getting our voices heard on any and all subjects: http://www.change.gov. I think the important thing is that we as a whole nation are heard. All of our individual communities are heard, and that even if something isn't instantly changed, that we now have the opportunity to do something about it without being ignored or without persecution. That we can start change without worrying that it will be stopped in four years, or eight, or even a hundred. I have to have some faith and hope in that or... Well. I'm not sure how to end that sentence, but I guess the fact that I now have actual faith, and not just dwindling hope means something.
lee_rowan: Windslee_rowan on November 7th, 2008 06:22 am (UTC)
I think coming out for equal marriage rights would have cost Obama too many votes. He was against the prop 8 amendment, though, so it's encouraging that that didn't seem to make much difference.

And the fight's not over yet. Lambda Legal is challenging the validity of the amendment since it is a major alteration to the Constitution.

This is a setback. It isn't necessarily permanent.
Mo: gay unicornmofic on November 7th, 2008 01:47 pm (UTC)
I don't think it's permanent by any means. I think it will eventually be resolved at the Federal level, as Loving v Virginia was. I hope I live to see it.
lee_rowanlee_rowan on November 7th, 2008 06:19 am (UTC)
Have you seen this?
This links to a site giving the how-to of complaining to the IRS about the Mormon Church's use of a tax-exempt organization to engage in political activity.

The instructions are here: http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/


Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

The LDS church, through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8 (resulting in millions of dollars of cash contributions from its members and countless volunteer hours), and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supports Proposition 8, has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation.

Links, addresses, and specific information can be found here:

http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/
the girl's got moxietricksterquinn on November 8th, 2008 02:24 am (UTC)
Re: Have you seen this?
The problem with this is that "substantial" isn't defined adequately. They define, somewhere, a percentage of total holdings that such efforts cannot exceed, but the LDS Church's total holdings are pretty extensive.

I keep seeing this argument everywhere, and feel like I need to play devil's advocate - I'd be more comfortable if I saw people with more than layman's knowledge of this saying that this argument has any chance of working. The link you've provided above does a better job than I've seen elsewhere (and thank you, it's very interesting!), but I guess I'd rather know more about what the church's total activities consist of.

Does that make sense?

(note: this is totally a plea for more info, not an attack on this initiative!)
lee_rowanlee_rowan on November 8th, 2008 02:38 am (UTC)
Re: Have you seen this?
I don' t know what its entire activity consists of, but considering their money was (if I'm not mistaken) the largest single source of funding for the Prop 8 pushers, I think that could be argued to be a 'substantial' activity.

I'm more hopeful about the people who are taking the amendment to the CA Supreme Court as being inappropriate because it's a revision of the basic equal-rights foundation of the Constitution rather than a simple "amendment."
the girl's got moxietricksterquinn on November 8th, 2008 02:49 am (UTC)
Re: Have you seen this?
I'm also really enjoying the idea of all marriages in California being invalidated... (link here)
The Green Knight: Determinationgreen_knight on November 7th, 2008 08:48 am (UTC)
I'm suprised the Mormon Church would support something that goes against the Mormon notion of marriage - _a man and a woman_ means that _a man and several women_ does nto count as marriage, either. Then again, I am not suprised at hatred and homophobia coming out of the Mormon Church, unfortunately.

As previous civil rights struggles have shown, it's a long road, and progression isn't always linear. rachelmanija, I am assuming there is an ongoing campaign, and that it will need funds - can you repost the information?
Kimberly Wills-Starinfluffydragon on November 7th, 2008 02:42 pm (UTC)
I don't think mormon and LDS are necessairly the same, are they? I thought LDS was the one that was into the multiple wives thing.
the girl's got moxietricksterquinn on November 8th, 2008 02:27 am (UTC)
You're thinking FLDS.

LDS (Latter-Day Saints) is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church.

FLDS is Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints and refers to a specific sect of the LDS Church. FLDS people practice polygamy, while the mainstream LDS church does not any more (though it did when it was founded in the early 1800s).

These factoids and more brought to you by living in Utah.
Ravenaki_hoshi on November 7th, 2008 06:50 pm (UTC)
The Mormon Church renounced polygamy in the late 1800's...it's just still practiced in some factions (albeit illegally). Many of the active and larger congregations are against polygamy, so, not to defend the actions of the Mormon Church regarding this issue, but I'm sure they were doing it purely for the basic beliefs of most Christian churches.
lee_rowanlee_rowan on November 8th, 2008 02:44 am (UTC)
The thing is, though, the one-man-one-woman isn't dictated by Jesus, and it isn't dictated by the Old Testament, either.

The sensible thing to do would be to rescind the legal, civil definition of "marriage," replace it with "civil union" for ALL couples, and make marriage a private, religious matter. The government should not have gotten itself into the "marriage" business in the first place.
OdoGoddess: damesodogoddess on November 7th, 2008 10:33 am (UTC)
http://invalidateprop8.org/

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

So if you run another auction, I'd highly suggest adding these to the donation list.
Ara ara arakaranguni on November 7th, 2008 11:40 am (UTC)
I'm more miles away from California and America than I care to count, but I'll be here for you guys again and again when the next fundraiser starts, or when the next person needs a shoulder, or when the next wall needs writing on. I love you guys, and want you to know that there's going to be change in the future, and hope that everybody holds on, and holds tight - with dignity. ♥
Sister Nailgun of Enlightened Compassioncaitirin on November 7th, 2008 02:59 pm (UTC)
I would LOVE to create some awesome things to raise money for another auction. I hope we can do it again!
Karrin Jacksonkarjack on November 7th, 2008 09:19 pm (UTC)
I will gladly support another auction. Prop Hate isn't the end of this struggle. It's just the beginning.
heeroluvaheeroluva on November 8th, 2008 01:45 am (UTC)
I stayed up the night of election watching the votes come in. I finally had to go to sleep and when I woke up the next morning there was still a good amount of votes not in so I still felt hope but as the day went on the yes was still winning. Any happiness that I felt for Ombama winning went out the window when Prop 8 passed. It's like one step forward and two steps back. But I hope that we can someday rectify the mistake.
the girl's got moxietricksterquinn on November 8th, 2008 02:29 am (UTC)
Oh man. My liberal Mormon friends, who opposed Prop 8 in spite of what the church told its members to do, have been getting SO MUCH HEAT for their stance. The last thing they need is to be lumped in with this!

This is something the church leaders did, and it is EXTREMELY wrong, but I agree fully that we shouldn't hate everyone who is LDS because of this any more than I would want to be hated by the world because of the war in Iraq!

I can't wait to see the announcement and definitely plan to stay involved here.
lee_rowanlee_rowan on November 8th, 2008 03:10 am (UTC)
I don't hate anyone who is LDS - I hate the church's political meddling and I think the people who believe they have the right to dictate to people who do not subscribe to their faith are pompous, arrogant jerks.

But if the church decides to act as a PAC - a political action committee - it should be taxed as one.

If it's any consolation to your friends, there is a Knights for Obama organization that was extremely angry with the leadership of teh Knights of Columbus for contributing their collective funds to McPalin. There are very few churches whose leaders speak for all their members. I wish more people would just leave churches who use Jesus as a weapon.
the girl's got moxietricksterquinn on November 8th, 2008 03:14 am (UTC)
I agree very much. My only concern about the tax status is what I was talking about earlier. And they could certainly also become a 501(c)4!

I don't think that would make them feel better. I think they'd relate, though!

And for the record, I meant my friends were taking heat from people who thought they should be backing the church's message, not because they were LDS.
lee_rowanlee_rowan on November 8th, 2008 03:19 am (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what damage it would do your friends to have the organization's tax-exempt status affected.

And I did understand what you meant about taking pressure from the hierarchy. The LDS is a big gang of bullies--if it weren't so rich it would be called a cult. I''d have found another church. I was raised Catholic, but it's not tattooed on my soul.
the girl's got moxietricksterquinn on November 8th, 2008 03:57 am (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. By 'earlier' I meant up here. My concerns are entirely about the feasibility.

Personally, I can't imagine wanting to be part of anything that dictated that I was to obey regardless of whether I agreed or not, but that might be general contrariness on my part... ;)
( 30 comments — Leave a comment )