A recent news story described how administrators at Yeshiva University, a private Orthodox Jewish institution in New York City, who despite a clearly held moral code, are being forced to retain a poetry professor who disclosed his intent to become transgendered only after being hired (New York Post, Sept. 8, 2008).This professor and supporters pursue a strategy aimed at forcing acceptance of unconventional behavior. Their tactic? Shout down, censor or label "intolerant" any whose convictions require opposition to their unconventional behavior. The result? The tyranny of tolerance.Note the online comments that followed the article. One wrote, "This is AMERICA. We have tolerence (sic). If you do not like it, move to another country. Sorry Rabbi's (sic), fortunately in this country we don't allow your prejudices to be covered under the ideaology (sic) of your religion. You have to join the rest of us. Ha ha! I love it."I might have overlooked this ditty as the rant of a loon. But then I scrolled down to another defaming the Yeshiva administrators as "people who have no room in their hearts for change." Others lambasted the leadership as being out of touch, domineering religionists and not progressive. Some proffered that truth and sin are only relative.
These aren't just untethered opinions or tactics to be conveniently ignored. No, there is purpose behind them. By craftily attacking standard-bearing institutions with cries of "intolerance," proponents of indulgence seek to brand faith-based principles as "discriminatory," and thereby degrade constitutional due process and the freedom of religion.New players, same argumentsLet us be clear, arguments for permissiveness aren't new, neither are they progressive. Book of Mormon religious and civic leader Alma once encountered a man named Korihor professing that neither God nor sin exist, and that "whatsoever a man did was no crime."This ancient relativist went further, contending that the morals of the day were baseless and the result of a "frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers ... "He, like his modern counterparts, spoke in "great swelling words" claiming that faith enslaves people and that all behaviors should be acceptable (Alma 30:12-30). Such philosophies swayed (and continue to sway) many into embracing confused lifestyles, purportedly without consequence.Today, strident advocates of this relativist dogma similarly mock believers in natural and scriptural law. These same "tolerance" dogmatists hypocritically use authoritarian lawsuits and manipulative media to try and force all institutions to retreat from any teaching or attitude advocates proclaim "intolerant."Reframing toleranceProperly framed civic tolerance stems from ideas core to our national identity: that all must respect the exercise of inalienable rights and ensure their fundamental protection in the constitution. But respect does not imply relativism -- indifference to or acceptance of all behavior -- nor does it negate the right of society to determine standards. Quite the opposite is true.Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that "unbounded relativism as a civic philosophy soon becomes passivity and indifference: No judgments can be made, for it is impossible to place one set of values over another.
This is a far cry from toleration derived from a belief in universal rights. If, in the civic sphere, relativism swallows tolerance whole, belief in universal rights turns into no belief at all" (American Bar Association, August 2003, italics added).LDS Church leader Elder Russell M. Nelson adds, "Gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed" (Ensign, May 1994). We make no pretention of perfection, nor do we withhold compassion and understanding, but we do maintain our privilege to act on principle.In our constitutional democracy, we are duty-bound to respect the rights of others. But one's personal lifestyle choice or belief cannot obligate another to accept it morally or justify it legally.
Domineering dogma
Advocates use this corrupted concept of tolerance to forcefully erode standards and constitutional rights. For instance, a same-sex couple in New Jersey used this notion in a suit against the Methodist Church for refusing them access to its place of worship for their civil-union ceremony. Due to a recently enacted, sweeping anti-discrimination law, the judge ruled against the church and removed the tax-exempt status of its property, costing the church a reported $20,000 per year. The state's penalization of this church signals a simultaneous dismantling of societal boundaries and religious protection.These dogmatists must not be allowed to constrain the free exercise of religion, nor overrule the will of the majority by simply invoking "intolerance!" They have gone too far. It is not tolerance, it is tyranny.
by Matthew Sanders
For the Deseret News
Friday, October 31, 2008
California's Fight for Gay Marriage Hints at Change in Culture War
A COLOURFUL crowd gathered in the car park of a Catholic church in south Los Angeles on October 24th. There were suburban white evangelicals, blacks, Asians and Hispanics. Many pushed prams. People ate tacos and listened to Marvin Perkins, a black Mormon, invoke the memory of Martin Luther King. The aim of this rainbow coalition? To remove a basic right from another minority group.
The hardest-fought political race in California is not the presidential one, which will surely be a big win for Barack Obama. It is over a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would rewrite California’s constitution so as to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Supporters and opponents see California, where gay marriage has been legal since a court ruling came into effect in June, rather as the second world war allies saw Berlin. Money is pouring into the race. At least $70m has been raised so far—more than for all other campaigns to ban same-sex marriage put together.
The hardest-fought political race in California is not the presidential one, which will surely be a big win for Barack Obama. It is over a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would rewrite California’s constitution so as to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Supporters and opponents see California, where gay marriage has been legal since a court ruling came into effect in June, rather as the second world war allies saw Berlin. Money is pouring into the race. At least $70m has been raised so far—more than for all other campaigns to ban same-sex marriage put together.
The race is expected to be extremely close. Although the most recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California puts opponents of the ban eight points ahead, this appears to be an issue on which people routinely lie to pollsters. Supporters of the initiative are much more fired up than opponents. And Mr Obama’s candidacy is likely to generate a huge turnout among blacks, who oppose same-sex marriage more firmly than any other ethnic group.
Proposition 8’s supporters have assembled an extraordinarily broad coalition. Although much of the campaign’s ideological heat comes from evangelicals, much of its money comes from Mormons. More donations to Protectmarriage.com, the initiative’s chief proponent, have come from Utah than from any other state except California. Orthodox Jewish synagogues have weighed in, too. It is an unusual movement indeed that unifies blacks, Mormons and orthodox Jews. It hints at how cultural conservatives might evolve to meet the challenge of an unfavourable Washington political climate in the next few years.
Another striking feature of the campaign is its pitch for victim status. It is a measure of how freely gays and lesbians have moved into mainstream society, at least in California, that those who seek to remove their right to marry are complaining about persecution. Their television advertisements focus on the threat to children—who, they claim, will be forced to learn about gay relationships if Proposition 8 fails. They claim that supporters have been subjected to violence. The issue, they say, is not one of civil rights but of religious freedom.
At least, that is the message in their TV adverts. At the rally in Los Angeles, the message was blunter. Mr Perkins informed the crowd that gay marriage and tolerant school lessons are little more than “a recruiting process for homosexual behaviour”. Anybody who doubted the connection should take a look at Europe, where homosexuality is apparently rampant. by The Economist (UK).
Proposition 8’s supporters have assembled an extraordinarily broad coalition. Although much of the campaign’s ideological heat comes from evangelicals, much of its money comes from Mormons. More donations to Protectmarriage.com, the initiative’s chief proponent, have come from Utah than from any other state except California. Orthodox Jewish synagogues have weighed in, too. It is an unusual movement indeed that unifies blacks, Mormons and orthodox Jews. It hints at how cultural conservatives might evolve to meet the challenge of an unfavourable Washington political climate in the next few years.
Another striking feature of the campaign is its pitch for victim status. It is a measure of how freely gays and lesbians have moved into mainstream society, at least in California, that those who seek to remove their right to marry are complaining about persecution. Their television advertisements focus on the threat to children—who, they claim, will be forced to learn about gay relationships if Proposition 8 fails. They claim that supporters have been subjected to violence. The issue, they say, is not one of civil rights but of religious freedom.
At least, that is the message in their TV adverts. At the rally in Los Angeles, the message was blunter. Mr Perkins informed the crowd that gay marriage and tolerant school lessons are little more than “a recruiting process for homosexual behaviour”. Anybody who doubted the connection should take a look at Europe, where homosexuality is apparently rampant. by The Economist (UK).
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
California's Mormons Split Over Gay Vote
By now, members of Robert Bennion’s Mormon congregation know exactly what’s on the agenda when the stocky, 57-year-old bishop asks someone to leave the church grounds and walk across the street with him for a quick tête-à-tête. More likely than not, he’s got gays on his mind and a proposition to make. Don’t worry; it’s not what it sounds. More likely than not, Bennion is about to run both hands through his unruly mop of blond hair, straighten his Dwight Schrute glasses and ask a member (or members) of his congregation to do something that makes him truly uncomfortable: assist with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ campaign to publicise Proposition 8, a measure that would effectively ban gay marriage in California.
The Mormon Church’s foray into politics has put Bennion in one helluva difficult situation. As the head of a Mormon congregation, he is duty-bound to stand against what his faith sees as a threat to traditional family values. But as the older brother of an openly gay man, he has an appreciation for gay rights that most Mormons do not. For Bennion, taking any discussion of Proposition 8 off church property is his way of separating—literally and figuratively—his politics from his faith. From across the street, he hopes his charges can see the difference between Bob the Bishop and Bob the ordinary guy.“So far I’ve worked very hard to keep this whole thing at arm’s length,” Bennion said. “I see this as purely a political endeavor, which is why I don’t allow any campaigning during church time or on church property. In my mind, it’s possible to be in favor of Proposition 8 without being anti-homosexual.”While Bennion’s Switzerland impression may seem like on good idea on paper, in reality he’s taken the one position that would make him a target for both sides. His superiors within the church, for example, have repeatedly requested that he get more involved in the issue, but their phone calls are easily ignored and Bennion himself can’t help but smile when the click of a button sends their emails from his inbox to the trash can.
“A lot of the time they don’t come right out and say it, but it’s pretty obvious that they’re talking about me,” said Bennion with a laugh. “I see this as a conflict of interest for me, which is why I refuse to get more involved than I already am.”Considering how gung-ho some Mormon leaders have been in the fight against gay marriage, it’s easy to see why some of Bennion’s higher-ups accuse him of not pulling his own weight. From Sacramento to San Diego, there have been reports of Bishops publicly and privately questioning the faith of members who are not willing to donate their time or money to Proposition 8. Some moderate Mormons have even found themselves reaching out to the gay community after receiving the metaphorical cold shoulder from their brethren.
“I feel exiled from the church over this issue,” wrote one Mormon blogger. “I want to connect with other church members. If there aren’t any anti-Prop 8 rallies in my area, I think I am going to organise one.” In spite of his relatively open mind, Bennion’s willingness to take part in the Mormons’ efforts, even as little more than a spectator, has upset his otherwise quiet Santa Monica home. His daughter, a longtime supporter of gay rights, showed her disapproval of his hair-splitting logic by standing up and walking out during a balanced sermon that he felt was designed to do little more than explain the church’s position on same-sex marriage. “Seeing her walk out was disappointing, mainly because I prepared those remarks specifically with her in mind,” said Bennion, a hint of melancholy showing through his businesslike appearance. “The idea was to be as rational as possible in explaining the church’s position as being sort of middle-of-the-road, but she wouldn’t even hear me out.”Ironically, one person who hasn’t tried to goad
Bennion into taking a stronger stand on either one side of the issue or the other is his openly gay younger brother, Mike, who seems to have no problem with the way Robert is refereeing his ecclesiastical responsibilities and his personal convictions.Watching the two men interact, most people probably wouldn’t assume they fell from the same family tree. Mike’s dark, meticulously sculpted hair and beard serve as a perfect foil to Robert’s clean-shaven face and barley-colored mane, while the conspicuous gold stud in his left ear looks almost hedonistic in comparison to Robert’s ultra-conservative white shirt and tie ensemble. Upon conversing with them, however, one quickly notes that they share the same quirky sense of humor, the same tendency to laugh just a bit too hard at their own jokes, and the same affinity for the same brand of $50 dollar words often found in books like 30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary.“Mike grew up in the Mormon culture, so I think he has a real appreciation for the pickle that I’m in right now,” said Bennion. “Of the four brothers in our family, he and I have always been the closest. He knows that he’ll always be welcome in my house.” In talking with Bennion, one gets the impression he sees himself as a referee trying to make sense of a particularly chaotic boxing match.
Mormons, who make up just two per cent of California’s population, have raised nearly half of the $22.8 million collected in support of Proposition 8. Conversely thousands of their fellow church members have asked that their names be removed from church records so as not to be involved with an organisation that is perceived as being anti-gay. “It’s been a very divisive issue,” admitted Bennion. “It raises a lot of questions to which there aren’t a lot of crystal clear answers, and almost everybody feels like you have to be on one side or the other.” In the red corner, weighing in at about a half million strong, we have California’s conservative Mormons, who have been carrying the Proposition 8 banner with pride from the get-go, completely certain that they are not only protecting the family but also doing the Lord’s holy work.
In their collective mind, the issue is as cut and dry as David vs. Goliath: it’s God’s will that marriage exist only between a man and woman, and any other possible familial configuration might as well be a nine-foot-tall Philistine in desperate need of a rock between the eyes. And in the blue corner, wearing the rainbow-colored trunks, we have a group composed of current and former Mormons, all of whom feel that the need for equality among California citizens trumps the Bible-based belief that homosexuality is evil. Rather than claiming that God is on their side, these freedom fighters deftly ride into battle the high horses of equal rights and personal freedom, determined to make the world safe for those who supposedly want nothing more than to sit around a campfire, hold hands, and sing about peace and harmony.
In spite of their high-minded intentions, those who claim to stand for tolerance sometimes find themselves exhibiting the same narrow-mindedness as their opposition. A man who left the Mormon Church after coming out of the closet posted the following on a “No on 8” website:
“I was going through the list of contributors and…I noticed that two people have died since making their donations, so I suppose that puts us up by two. Every little bit helps!”Pass or fail, Bennion sees Proposition 8 and the brouhaha surrounding it as merely the first in a series of conflicts between gay rights and religious freedom. The next hot-button issue? Teaching gay sex and/or gay marriage in schools, an issue that has already come to a head in other states where same-sex marriage is legal. “If that happens, a lot of the religious kids in the state will end up being home schooled, and that’s much worse than gay marriage in my opinion,” said Bennion. “There’s a tribe in my congregation that home schooled all of their kids, and boy did they turn out strange.” by New Statesmen (UK).
The Mormon Church’s foray into politics has put Bennion in one helluva difficult situation. As the head of a Mormon congregation, he is duty-bound to stand against what his faith sees as a threat to traditional family values. But as the older brother of an openly gay man, he has an appreciation for gay rights that most Mormons do not. For Bennion, taking any discussion of Proposition 8 off church property is his way of separating—literally and figuratively—his politics from his faith. From across the street, he hopes his charges can see the difference between Bob the Bishop and Bob the ordinary guy.“So far I’ve worked very hard to keep this whole thing at arm’s length,” Bennion said. “I see this as purely a political endeavor, which is why I don’t allow any campaigning during church time or on church property. In my mind, it’s possible to be in favor of Proposition 8 without being anti-homosexual.”While Bennion’s Switzerland impression may seem like on good idea on paper, in reality he’s taken the one position that would make him a target for both sides. His superiors within the church, for example, have repeatedly requested that he get more involved in the issue, but their phone calls are easily ignored and Bennion himself can’t help but smile when the click of a button sends their emails from his inbox to the trash can.
“A lot of the time they don’t come right out and say it, but it’s pretty obvious that they’re talking about me,” said Bennion with a laugh. “I see this as a conflict of interest for me, which is why I refuse to get more involved than I already am.”Considering how gung-ho some Mormon leaders have been in the fight against gay marriage, it’s easy to see why some of Bennion’s higher-ups accuse him of not pulling his own weight. From Sacramento to San Diego, there have been reports of Bishops publicly and privately questioning the faith of members who are not willing to donate their time or money to Proposition 8. Some moderate Mormons have even found themselves reaching out to the gay community after receiving the metaphorical cold shoulder from their brethren.
“I feel exiled from the church over this issue,” wrote one Mormon blogger. “I want to connect with other church members. If there aren’t any anti-Prop 8 rallies in my area, I think I am going to organise one.” In spite of his relatively open mind, Bennion’s willingness to take part in the Mormons’ efforts, even as little more than a spectator, has upset his otherwise quiet Santa Monica home. His daughter, a longtime supporter of gay rights, showed her disapproval of his hair-splitting logic by standing up and walking out during a balanced sermon that he felt was designed to do little more than explain the church’s position on same-sex marriage. “Seeing her walk out was disappointing, mainly because I prepared those remarks specifically with her in mind,” said Bennion, a hint of melancholy showing through his businesslike appearance. “The idea was to be as rational as possible in explaining the church’s position as being sort of middle-of-the-road, but she wouldn’t even hear me out.”Ironically, one person who hasn’t tried to goad
Bennion into taking a stronger stand on either one side of the issue or the other is his openly gay younger brother, Mike, who seems to have no problem with the way Robert is refereeing his ecclesiastical responsibilities and his personal convictions.Watching the two men interact, most people probably wouldn’t assume they fell from the same family tree. Mike’s dark, meticulously sculpted hair and beard serve as a perfect foil to Robert’s clean-shaven face and barley-colored mane, while the conspicuous gold stud in his left ear looks almost hedonistic in comparison to Robert’s ultra-conservative white shirt and tie ensemble. Upon conversing with them, however, one quickly notes that they share the same quirky sense of humor, the same tendency to laugh just a bit too hard at their own jokes, and the same affinity for the same brand of $50 dollar words often found in books like 30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary.“Mike grew up in the Mormon culture, so I think he has a real appreciation for the pickle that I’m in right now,” said Bennion. “Of the four brothers in our family, he and I have always been the closest. He knows that he’ll always be welcome in my house.” In talking with Bennion, one gets the impression he sees himself as a referee trying to make sense of a particularly chaotic boxing match.
Mormons, who make up just two per cent of California’s population, have raised nearly half of the $22.8 million collected in support of Proposition 8. Conversely thousands of their fellow church members have asked that their names be removed from church records so as not to be involved with an organisation that is perceived as being anti-gay. “It’s been a very divisive issue,” admitted Bennion. “It raises a lot of questions to which there aren’t a lot of crystal clear answers, and almost everybody feels like you have to be on one side or the other.” In the red corner, weighing in at about a half million strong, we have California’s conservative Mormons, who have been carrying the Proposition 8 banner with pride from the get-go, completely certain that they are not only protecting the family but also doing the Lord’s holy work.
In their collective mind, the issue is as cut and dry as David vs. Goliath: it’s God’s will that marriage exist only between a man and woman, and any other possible familial configuration might as well be a nine-foot-tall Philistine in desperate need of a rock between the eyes. And in the blue corner, wearing the rainbow-colored trunks, we have a group composed of current and former Mormons, all of whom feel that the need for equality among California citizens trumps the Bible-based belief that homosexuality is evil. Rather than claiming that God is on their side, these freedom fighters deftly ride into battle the high horses of equal rights and personal freedom, determined to make the world safe for those who supposedly want nothing more than to sit around a campfire, hold hands, and sing about peace and harmony.
In spite of their high-minded intentions, those who claim to stand for tolerance sometimes find themselves exhibiting the same narrow-mindedness as their opposition. A man who left the Mormon Church after coming out of the closet posted the following on a “No on 8” website:
“I was going through the list of contributors and…I noticed that two people have died since making their donations, so I suppose that puts us up by two. Every little bit helps!”Pass or fail, Bennion sees Proposition 8 and the brouhaha surrounding it as merely the first in a series of conflicts between gay rights and religious freedom. The next hot-button issue? Teaching gay sex and/or gay marriage in schools, an issue that has already come to a head in other states where same-sex marriage is legal. “If that happens, a lot of the religious kids in the state will end up being home schooled, and that’s much worse than gay marriage in my opinion,” said Bennion. “There’s a tribe in my congregation that home schooled all of their kids, and boy did they turn out strange.” by New Statesmen (UK).
Mormon Church Makes It's First Actual Donation to Prop. 8
Campaign finance records show the Mormon Church has made its first financial contribution in support of a Nov. 4 ballot proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The in-kind donation of $2,078.97 from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups supporting Proposition 8. Jeff Flint, a co-manager of the ProtectMarriage campaign, says the LDS Church made the in-kind donation to cover the travel expenses of several Utah-based church leaders who went to California for a meeting last week.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Arizona Attorney Acknowledges to Smuggling Contraband into Maricopa County Jail.
An Arizona defense attorney is accused of providing more than just legal advice to his clients.
In police interview transcripts obtained by 12 News through a public records request, 34-year-old Jason Keller of Tempe admits that he served as a middle man for incarcerated members of the Mexican Mafia.
Keller says during meetings with clients and potential clients, he smuggled CDs, heroin, a cell phone and a charger to inmates of the Maricopa County Jail. Keller also admits that he delivered written notes between jailed gang members who otherwise were not allowed to communicate with each other, according to the transcript.
According to Maricopa County Superior Court records, the Attorney General's office filed a direct complaint against Keller for seven felony counts involving the promotion of prison contraband and aid to a criminal street gang.
Kamille Dean, attorney for Keller issued a statement to 12 News regarding the case. Dean writes that the grand jury indictment is only an accusation and carries no weight.
"The true facts will become known in its proper course. Mr. Keller maintains his innocence and there should not be a rush to judgment," Dean said.
According to the interview transcripts, a Phoenix Police Detective asked Keller why he took “wicked chances down at the jail" by smuggling contraband.
Keller responded by saying, “It was just the thrill from it for me. It was the rush.” Keller was successful smuggling drugs to county inmates on every attempt, which he said amounted to "about 6 or 7 times," according to the transcript.
The manner in which Keller was able to pass the contraband involved documents he brought to the jail. Keller said drugs were stashed between pages of documents. He was also directed by an inmate to place a cell phone in a Doritos bag, and then throw the bag away in a specific trash can at the jail facility, according to the interview transcript.
Keller also says that he met on several occasions with an operative outside of the jail who paid him for the errands. Keller claimed one payment was about $300 dollars.
The transcript also details an exchange between Keller and the Phoenix detective about the amount of sales of drugs in Maricopa County jails. The detective asked Keller how much drugs one particular inmate sold to other inmates.
"Lots. I imagine. I mean, I don't know exactly the number but I know there was at least two or three other guys that he was breaking them off," said Keller, according to the transcript.
Keller tells police he graduated from Texas Southern Law School and received his bachelor's degree from Arizona State University.
In police interview transcripts obtained by 12 News through a public records request, 34-year-old Jason Keller of Tempe admits that he served as a middle man for incarcerated members of the Mexican Mafia.
Keller says during meetings with clients and potential clients, he smuggled CDs, heroin, a cell phone and a charger to inmates of the Maricopa County Jail. Keller also admits that he delivered written notes between jailed gang members who otherwise were not allowed to communicate with each other, according to the transcript.
According to Maricopa County Superior Court records, the Attorney General's office filed a direct complaint against Keller for seven felony counts involving the promotion of prison contraband and aid to a criminal street gang.
Kamille Dean, attorney for Keller issued a statement to 12 News regarding the case. Dean writes that the grand jury indictment is only an accusation and carries no weight.
"The true facts will become known in its proper course. Mr. Keller maintains his innocence and there should not be a rush to judgment," Dean said.
According to the interview transcripts, a Phoenix Police Detective asked Keller why he took “wicked chances down at the jail" by smuggling contraband.
Keller responded by saying, “It was just the thrill from it for me. It was the rush.” Keller was successful smuggling drugs to county inmates on every attempt, which he said amounted to "about 6 or 7 times," according to the transcript.
The manner in which Keller was able to pass the contraband involved documents he brought to the jail. Keller said drugs were stashed between pages of documents. He was also directed by an inmate to place a cell phone in a Doritos bag, and then throw the bag away in a specific trash can at the jail facility, according to the interview transcript.
Keller also says that he met on several occasions with an operative outside of the jail who paid him for the errands. Keller claimed one payment was about $300 dollars.
The transcript also details an exchange between Keller and the Phoenix detective about the amount of sales of drugs in Maricopa County jails. The detective asked Keller how much drugs one particular inmate sold to other inmates.
"Lots. I imagine. I mean, I don't know exactly the number but I know there was at least two or three other guys that he was breaking them off," said Keller, according to the transcript.
Keller tells police he graduated from Texas Southern Law School and received his bachelor's degree from Arizona State University.
US Attorney Tom Moss on Prosecuting Joseph Duncan
After a judge sentenced him to death more than 20 years ago, convicted murderer Randy McKinney shouted a message to the man who prosecuted his case. "Moss, I got your number," McKinney told Bingham County Prosecutor Tom Moss. "You remember that." Later that night, Moss found his teenage son in bed with a shotgun. He wanted to be ready in case something happened.
Moss has spent his career dealing with the worst people society has to offer. But nothing compares to his most recent experience. The U.S. attorney for Idaho, the state's lead federal prosecutor, Moss led the prosecution of Joseph Duncan, the Minnesota man who earned national infamy after he bludgeoned three people to death in their northern Idaho home and took two small children, Dylan and Shasta Groene. Duncan videotaped himself sexually molesting both children, and eventually murdered Dylan at a remote Montana campsite.
Moss, appointed by President Bush to his position seven years ago, sat down with the Post Register this week to talk about the Duncan prosecution, which ended in a death sentence.
Post Register: The state had already settled its case against Joseph Duncan. At a minimum, he would have spent his life behind bars. Why did the federal government get involved?
Moss: What Duncan did was so horrific, it's just something you can't ignore. People who commit certain crimes, and under certain conditions, dictates that you should get a death sentence. And, if you ignore that, then you in effect ignore the law. And if you look at what Joseph Duncan did,
there was no question of what my responsibility was, and that was to seek a death sentence. So, we did.
there was no question of what my responsibility was, and that was to seek a death sentence. So, we did.
Post Register: You've prosecuted some of Idaho's most high-profile murderers, including three men on death row. How did the Duncan prosecution compare with these?
Moss: The thing about the Duncan case that made it worse ... it involved children. It involved multiple murders. It involved extensive planning and premeditation. It involved a person who was out to kidnap, abuse and kill children. And he is a person who is fairly intelligent. And something about all that just makes it very vile and very violent.
Post Register: Your job was to travel into a place few would want to go, into Joseph Duncan's mind. What can you tell us about that journey?
Moss: He was a very evil person, a very wicked person. It reminded me that there are people who are just evil. And he fit that category, in my opinion. He preyed on children. He preyed on defenseless people. His excuse in some of his writings was that society made him what he was, what he is, by sending him to prison. ... But he went to prison for raping a little boy at gunpoint. It was not a small item and he says we turned him into what he is. Well, he was doing that before the government really affected him.
Post Register: You talked earlier about how Duncan was a pretty intelligent guy. Were you surprised that a guy capable of these atrocities was also fairly intelligent?
Moss: Well that's what makes him especially evil. It isn't like someone who is acting on a whim or out of a sudden heat of passion. ... This man is selecting his victims very arbitrarily. And he is planning very carefully how he's going to do it. And his victims are children. He says he's getting even with society. ... He explained it in one place in his writings. One of his statements was something to the effect that the best way to hurt society is to get to their children. That scares them more than anything. And that causes more pain than anything you can do to society and that's what he wanted to do.
Post Register: One reporter covering the case wrote about having difficulty sleeping. Jurors were offered counseling because of the graphic nature of the evidence. You obviously heard more and saw more than any reporter or juror. How do you personally walk into that fire and keep yourself from getting scorched?
Moss: You have a job to do and that's it. And let me say this. I don't want to sound overly heroic because there are people out there whose exposure is much worse than mine. That's like police officers who come upon the scene and they're the first ones to see what is there. ... And I think of pathologists that have to take the dead body of a child, for example, and examine it and go through and be very intimately involved with what's happened. I think their job's tougher than mine.
Post Register: Duncan was a repeat sex offender who committed rape at gunpoint as a teenager. You did a stretch in the state Legislature. Does society need to be tougher on sex offenders?
Moss: We are pretty tough on sex offenders. But I would never say we're too tough. Sex offenders have a tendency to repeat. It's just the way it is. That's what history tells us. We all want to be able to believe that people can change. But it seems like when it comes to pedophilia and people who abuse children, they have a hard time getting over it. The big consideration has got to be the protection of society. Joseph Duncan had probably a better chance of rehabilitating than anybody else. He had good friends that supported him. They gave him money. Some would pay his tuition in college. They bought him cars. ... He had friends that liked him. His mother was devoted to him. ... He had that support available to him and he still goes and does what he did.
Post Register: Duncan skipped out on his probation in Minnesota. Officials there knew of his violent past and his tendency to travel. Is there anything in our system right now to let people know he's out there and on the move?
Moss: There's certainly the ability to put the word out, but it doesn't happen very often. In some stuff we recovered from his computer, he expressed surprise that his bond ($15,000) was so low in that (Minnesota case). ... And also, they didn't arrest him. They gave him a summons to appear in court. My goodness, that's what you give people for traffic violations. They didn't arrest him. He appeared in court and posted bond, didn't spend a day in jail. And that was for sexually molesting a little 6-year-old boy.
Post Register: What was the single most memorable moment from the trial?
Moss: The portion of the trial that will be probably longest remembered is the displaying of that video to the jury. That was a sad time and it was a very hard time for the jurors. You could see they were going through some real difficulty dealing with that.
Post Register: Duncan represented himself at trial. What impact do you think this had on the trial and what potential impact do you think this could have on appeal?
Moss: I don't think his representing himself changed the outcome. He couldn't change the facts. That video, he couldn't change it. ... I think the result would have been the same. We may have been required to use Shasta as a witness because his lawyers before they left, they hadn't agreed that she could not testify and he did. ... On appeal, it will be an issue I'm sure. But I think the record is pretty good. His lawyers, they were claiming he was delusional and had these fantasies ... that made him incompetent. ... But his conduct (at trial) kind of runs in the face of those allegations.
Post Register: Potential jurors knew what they were getting into. But still, what impact did you see this have on them throughout the trial?
Moss: Well, it was hard for them. You saw about every emotion you can dream of during the course of this trial from those jurors. ... We presented that video. We didn't try to explain it. We said, "here it is." ... In this case, the jurors did not see a lot of graphic evidence that we had. They didn't see the photographs of the bodies at the home at Wolf Lodge. They were very graphic. These people had been bludgeoned to death with a hammer.
Post Register: The guys you put on death row (Randy McKinney, Paul Ezra Rhoades and Richard Leavitt) are still there. Do you think you'll see Joseph Duncan get executed?
Moss: Oh, I don't know; probably not. You know, I might, Joseph Duncan is a special case.
Post Register: With what you read on serial killers ... you hear the same thing, this guy assimilated into society, you never would have guessed it. Does Duncan fit that profile?
Moss: I'm sure the people who met him never thought for a minute they were somehow in danger in his presence. He would never give that appearance. by COREY TAULE, Post Register
Protesting Intolerance at Mormon Temple
This past Sunday a SF East Bay Athiest group scheduled an anti-intolerance rally at the Mormon Temple in Oakland, California. I find it very ironic that Christians are to be tolerant of the views of everyone and accept all people the way they are BUT the same treatment is not giving back to Christians. Why do gays not need to accept our beliefs? I find their views intolerant and one sided so why must I treat their beliefs with a higher level of respect than they treat mine? Or is that just the beauty of liberalism?
Mormons Face Hate for Supporting Proposition 8
Christine Alonso's body trembled and her lips quivered as she walked up and spoke to a few of the 50 protesters in front of the Mormon Temple in Oakland on Sunday. "Don't think they're all against you," said Alonso, 27, explaining that she was Mormon and that despite her religious leaders' support of a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, she was actively opposed.As she walked away, she said, "I'm afraid that a gay or lesbian friend might hear that I'm Mormon and think that I want to tear their marriage apart."
Alonso's solitary act came as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are increasingly under fire for their support of Proposition 8, which would take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry. In addition to increased protests, online campaigns seek to identify and embarrass Mormons who support the ballot measure.
The church largely stays out of politics. But in this case, the Salt Lake City-based church has sent letters, held video conferences and in church meetings asked for volunteers to support the campaign. In response, some church members have poured in their savings and undertaken what may be an unprecedented grassroots mobilization for the effort.
Prop. 8 is on pace to be the costliest race in the nation, except for the billion-dollar presidential election. The Yes on 8 campaign estimates that up to 40 percent of its donations come from Mormons. Some others estimate that Mormons account for over 70 percent of donations from individuals. All of California's Catholic bishops have all come out in favor of the measure. So have many evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. Yet it is Mormons, who account for 2 percent of the state population, who are catching the most heat. "We seem to be the symbol of the Yes on 8 campaign," said Rand King, 60, a Walnut Creek resident who is Mormon and who was watching Sunday's protest from inside the temple's gates.
Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially support Prop. 8. It has led some Mormons to question why other religious groups in the coalition aren't being targeted.
"I don't think it's politically expedient to point the finger at the Catholic Church," said Dave Christensen, 52, a Mormon and an Alamo resident who donated $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. "You don't get the mileage criticizing a church that has more clout." Nadine Hansen, who runs Mormonsfor8.com, said the church decided to enter politics and can't excuse itself for the ramifications.
"Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee," said Hansen, 61, a Mormon who lives in Cedar City, Utah, and has stopped going to church. "You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.' "Hansen said she focused on Mormons because she is one. She said Mormons have contacted her to shut the site, saying it was being used by the Daily Kos campaign in a "witch hunt." "I didn't think there were any witches on the list, so I wasn't worried," said Hansen, whose site is "neutral" on its views, though she is opposed because she views it as "divisive."
The person who initiated the Daily Kos campaign to look into the lives of Mormon donors is Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention who said he's the vice president of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats. Atkins said his goal was to "embarrass the opposition by pointing out and publicizing any contributors they may have." He said focusing on Mormons made sense. "If one religious group is putting close to the majority of the money and the effort into passing this proposition, it is fair to single them out."
The Mormon church hasn't taken the same level of interest in Arizona or Florida, which also have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But California is a bellwether, said LDS spokesman Mike Otterson. "If same-gender marriage is approved in California... other states will follow suit." Several Bay Area Mormons said they would support the right of gay and lesbian unions to have all the rights of married couples. But the word marriage was sacred, pivotal to their concept of families, who can be "eternally united" in the afterlife. A key church document - "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" - says that "marriage between man and a woman is essential to His eternal plan." They also believe that children are entitled to be raised by a father and a mother.
Those words speak for Michele Sundstrom, 47, of San Jose, who has been married for 18 years and has five children. She and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words "Bigots live here" painted on the windshield. Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain - and that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or lesbians is wrong, she said. "There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live." by SF Chronicle.
Those words speak for Michele Sundstrom, 47, of San Jose, who has been married for 18 years and has five children. She and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words "Bigots live here" painted on the windshield. Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain - and that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or lesbians is wrong, she said. "There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live." by SF Chronicle.
Monday, October 27, 2008
A Reply to Morris Thurston
Six Consequences: A Reply to Morris Thurston by Philip & Allison Nelson.
(Sorry it's such a long post...but it's a great read)
A document titled “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails” has been attacked in writing by Mr. Morris A. Thurston. Mr. Thurston prefaces his rhetorical assault with the following: “My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.” However, Mr. Thurston’s arguments are themselves highly misleading.
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (#51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
Response: This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example, drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
Mr. Thurston’s argument that “the focus is on health” is a straw man. No one is disputing the “focus” of this statute or its merits. It is completely irrelevant that the statute “provides for community participation,” etc. By the clear language of the statute itself: “Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: … (D) Family health … including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Indeed, Mr. Thurston does not dispute this statutory language. Thus, the “Six Consequences” document is accurate on this point, not "untrue,” as asserted by Mr. Thurston.
Mr. Thurston’s arguments are misleading because he implies that because this language is within a section dealing with “health” that it will not be used as a loophole to push the homosexual agenda. This view is naïve at best, given the position taken by the California Teachers Association, its 1.25 million dollar donation to “No on 8,”events in Massachusetts, the surprise first-grade “field trip” to a Lesbian wedding in San Francisco, an elementary school’s surprise “gay day,” etc. The document Mr. Thurston attacks is merely connecting the dots, just as intelligent voters must do.
Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality.
This portion of Mr. Thurston’s argument does not support his own assertion. Indeed, section 51933 of the California Education Code provides a second justification for teaching school children that “same sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.” These two loopholes are all that is needed for those pushing the gay rights agenda. The Massachusetts legislature did not pass a law explicitly calling for homosexual education of school children; it is always through "health" statutes that such an agenda is advanced.
By emphasizing “age appropriate,” Mr. Thurston appears to imply that parents shouldn’t have objections to teaching about gay marriage because teachers can be trusted to bring it down to the right level. But that is the whole problem! If Prop. 8 fails, teachers providing comprehensive sexual health education will be required to provide effective, age-appropriate teaching (read indoctrination) on this topic. This is insidious, not comforting. A teacher reading a story from a picture book to her Kindergarten class may be “age appropriate,” but the problem is when California requires the teacher to read a story book entitled “King and King,” for example.
Mr. Thurston’s argument is misleading because it omits highly relevant passages of 51933:
(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities. * * *(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following: (1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine. (2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.
Section 220
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same-sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.
The statutes included above demonstrate that contrary to Mr. Thurston’s assertion, California teachers are required* to teach about marriage, and these requirements are found under the rubric of “health” education.
Moreover, this fact, combined with the law’s own non-discrimination requirements (51933(d)(2), 202) and built-in bias against religious doctrine (51933(d)(1)) will lead to “serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.”
If the definition of “marriage” in California is not restored by passage of Proposition 8 to “between one man and one woman,” the current, judicially mandated re-definition will stand and children will be taught that “marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender.”
*See this link and this document for further discussion of how 96% of California schools opt-in to “comprehensive” health education, subjecting them to the requirements discussed here.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Response: This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.
What was the New Jersey case about? The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use.
The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. “Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It’s even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments.”3 It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claim a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, they could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained only to the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax assessed was $200. The OGCMA continues to receive a property tax exemption for the remaining 99% of its property.
This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church’s chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church’s income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New Jersey exemption and likely never would.
Mr. Thurston’s argument here is strained because it is impossible to dispute that churches may be sued over their tax exempt status in the described circumstance. This becomes more and more probable with each judicial activist decision, because gay activists will continue to prod at the edges of the law when they sense a sympathetic judge or appeals panel is willing to change the law for their cause. The New Jersey case is only one example. Another example is the 1983 Bob Jones case that dealt with federal tax exemptions. Other examples are provided in these marriage law digests, and articles discussing the trends can be found here and in this summary.
Mr. Thurston asserts that this potential consequence is “false” because he can point out differences in the facts of the New Jersey case and a posited hypothetical case. But Mr. Thurston’s argument gets lost in the weeds of his own creation.
Mr. Thurston’s argument is misleading because it focuses so vigorously on the facts of the New Jersey case, even though that case is not even explicitly cited in the argument he is attempting to discredit! Thus, the New Jersey case is used as a straw man--a surrogate rhetorical punching bag.
The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Mr. Thurston apparently has great faith in the California Supreme Court’s assurances that its decision won’t have federal tax consequences and that its ruling could not require religious leaders to perform gay marriages. Is it implausible to predict that there will be future rulings that further erode religious freedoms, just as this ruling does?
As stated in the dissent dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, “.....a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”
Mr. Thurston shows great faith in the “First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.” But don’t the cases summarized at the links above provide room for doubt that the courts will defend this “guarantee” with the same vigor that they have attacked the institution of marriage? The question is legitimate, based on what has already happened.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Response: Another misrepresentation. To begin with, it should be noted that Catholic Charities in Boston was not forced to close its doors—indeed it is still very active. (See its website at www.ccab.org.) Rather, Catholic Charities voluntarily ceased providing adoption service in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, Catholic Charities elected to close its doors in protest over the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and because it was reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost.
LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.
If this situation ever faces a legal challenge in California, it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes because California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
Therefore, the passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California.
Here Mr. Thurston pounces on a short summary of the facts because the summary, by its very nature, economizes words. Clearly the context is religious adoption agencies, so Mr. Thurston’s point that Catholic Charities still has non-adoption activities in Boston is irrelevant. Granted, if Mr. Thurston was responding to a carefully-crafted, 30-page litigation brief, such nit-picking might be appropriate.
Nevertheless, it is misleading for Mr. Thurston to characterize Catholic Charities’ cessation of adoption service in Massachusetts as “voluntary.” A change in Massachusetts' discrimination laws, coupled with the legalization of homosexual marriage, was the direct cause of this “voluntary” cessation; after the change in the law, the only legal alternative was for Catholic Charities to violate its strongly held religious beliefs. The more appropriate word here is coerced, not voluntary.
Mr. Thurston’s discussion of the differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities may be true, but it is irrelevant to the actual statement: “religious adoption agencies will be challenged.” Just because LDSFS may be able to structure its operations differently, refuse state funding, etc., does not undermine the larger point. Indeed, no savvy church member would be naïve enough to ignore the trend.
Mr. Thurston again sets up a straw man, claiming that “many people seem not to understand” that gay couples can already adopt. But just because the law already allows this in California does not mean that “it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes.” If the California Constitution itself recognizes a specific definition of “marriage” that is different from a “domestic partnership,” it is much more difficult to sue churches for opting to only provide adoption services to married couples. Failure of Proposition 8 provides one more argument to those who would sue churches for “discriminating.”
Even Mr. Thurston’s conclusion, that “passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California,” is misleading because it does not address the original point Thurston sets out to rebut. Moreover, if the government considers it “discriminatory” to only assist man-woman couples with adoption, it is naïve, at best, to believe that religious adoption agencies in California will not one day be challenged to stop the alleged discrimination. The question is not if this will happen, but when; the day will likely come much sooner if Proposition 8 fails.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Response: This claim relates to an experience at Yeshiva University in New York. Gay students were eligible for University housing, but their partners were not able to join them because they did not have marriage certificates. It should be noted that Yeshiva University (despite its name) is chartered as a nonsectarian institution, enabling it to receive state and federal funding. The New York court found that Yeshiva was discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation—not their marital status. The ruling was based on New York City non-discrimination laws.
California’s existing non-discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right of equal access to family housing. To date, however, no California private religious school has been forced to comply with this law. Neither the passage nor the failure of Proposition 8 will have any bearing on the law relating to family student housing in California.
The gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU and other Church universities because engaging in homosexual activity is a violation of the honor code and is a basis for expulsion from the University. These rules will not be overturned merely because
California recognizes gay marriages, any more than they have been because Massachusetts, Canada and many European nations recognize them.
Once again, Mr. Thurston appears to set up a straw man by implying that the only support for this statement comes from the Yeshiva University case. As with point 2 above, Mr. Thurston’s argument here is strained because it is impossible to dispute that religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples. This becomes more and more probable with each judicial activist decision, because gay activists will continue to prod at the edges of the law when they sense a sympathetic judge or appeals panel is willing to change the law for their cause. For numerous examples of this phenomenon, see these marriage law digests.
Mr. Thurston concedes that “California’s existing non-discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right to equal access to family housing.” Thus, the legal framework for a suit is already in place. Notwithstanding Mr. Thurston’s comment that “no California private religious school has [yet] been forced to comply with this law,” this could change in a single day--at the whim of a well-funded gay activist group.
Moreover, just because the discrimination laws in California already threaten private school married housing does not mean that it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes. If the California Constitution itself recognizes a specific definition of “marriage” that is different from a “domestic partnership,” it is much more difficult to sue. Indeed, it is likely the passage of Prop. 22 that has insulated private schools from this consequence so far. Failure of Proposition 8 removes this barrier to those who would sue for “discrimination.”
Mr. Thurston glibly assures that “the gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU,” but if BYU were in California, where the government considers it “discriminatory” to deny homosexual couples the “right of equal access to family housing,” it is naïve, at best, to believe that it would not one day be targeted to stop the alleged discrimination.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
Response: Of course, anyone can be “sued” for anything, but no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the speech “is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.” Thus, even ministers who preach against same‐sex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines. This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada. There have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four years.
Mr. Thurston offers the assurance that “no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriage.” This is hardly reassuring, given that so far, Massachusetts and now California are the only two states to mandate acceptance of gay marriage. This is a brand new phenomenon and the combination of well-funded gay advocacy groups, sympathetic, activist courts, and ready-made anti-discrimination laws and hate-speech codes does not bode well.
If the Owens case was brought before Canada legalized same-sex marriage, how much more likely would it be to happen now that the Canadian government has thrown its weight behind genderless marriage? Canadian speech codes are definitely less liberal than those of the U.S. (so far, at least), as the case of Mark Steyn underscores. The parallel legal system of the “human rights commissions” in Canada belie Mr. Thurston’s assertion that “ministers who preach against same-ex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines.”
Mr. Thurston’s glib assurance that “this would never be an issue in the United States” because we have more liberal laws and there have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts in four years is not comforting. In any case, it is indisputable that while anti-discrimination and “hate-speech” laws are on the books, failure of Proposition 8 puts those who preach traditional marriage in the cross-hairs of anyone wishing to push the gay cause. At the very least, the statement that ministers “may be sued” is unassailable.
The description of the recent California case is another fabrication. This case is Good News Employee Association v. Hicks, which was decided before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriages and so it, too, has nothing to do with Proposition 8. The plaintiffs in that case were evangelical Christians (not homosexuals) who posted flyers around the offices of the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency promoting their “Good News Association” and calling on those who read the flyer to “preserve our workplace with integrity with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.” In other words, this group was promoting the idea of ridding their workplace of gay people—a blatantly homophobic message and highly offensive not only to several gay people who worked there but to heterosexual co-workers as well. The supervisors removed the flyers. The Good News people sued, claiming their rights of free speech were violated. The court found that the agency was entitled to eliminate the workplace disruption the flyers were causing and noted that there were many other ways for this group to promote their message without resorting to such offensive tactics.
This case does not hold that municipal employees are prohibited from saying “traditional marriage” or “family values” and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, or ministers preaching, or Proposition 8. Indeed, the court specifically found that there were many other ways for these people to get their message out without disrupting the workplace by creating an atmosphere of persecution.
Mr. Thurston is wrong to assert that the description of the California case is a “fabrication.” Once again, the creators of the document attacked by Mr. Thurston did not attempt to provide all the facts; as with all judge-made law, the holding is rarely limited to only the facts of the case at hand as later cases attempt to distill its meaning. Mr. Thurston’s lawyering technique of distinguishing on the facts distorts the original point rather than meeting it head-on.
The fact that this case preceded the judicial redefinition of marriage underscores the point that failure of Proposition 8 will likely lead to more cases like it. Mr. Thurston’s arguments seem conveniently blind to the clear judicial trend.
If Mr. Thurston really believes that posting flyers with statements encouraging preservation of a workplace “with integrity with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values” amounts to “promoting the idea of ridding their workplace of gay people,” I cannot understand why he would consider The Family: A Proclamation To the World to be acceptable. Yet Mr. Thurston refers to himself as an active LDS church member. Speaking up for the natural family, marriage, and family values is emphatically not homophobic, as church leaders constantly emphasize.
I concede that Mr. Thurston has found some imprecise language. It is probably not precise to say that the Court held the employees may not say “traditional marriage” or “family values.” It is also imprecise to link the holding of this case directly to the same-sex marriage case. The recently-retired litigator from a “global law firm” scores a point.
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
Response: The argument concerning cost is fallacious and calculated to engender fear. In actuality, the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 will be an influx of revenue to California because of the anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy. The change in the definition of marriage will not bring a “cascade of lawsuits” because heterosexual and homosexual registered domestic partners already have all the rights of married couples in California. None of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage. The wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, a state that has no gay marriage law. The medical doctor case was in California, but was based on our existing non-discrimination laws and would not be affected one way or the other by the passage of Proposition 8.
Mr. Thurston charges that this argument is “calculated to engender fear.” Such a charge is improper logically because it presumes to know the mind of the arguer. Even if it were true, there are some things that should be feared and avoided—and the consequences of societal rejection of traditional marriage are among them. Mr. Thurston improperly implies that so-called “fear mongering” is always and inherently wrong.
Mr. Thurston’s analysis of the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 is by his own admission speculative because it is based on “anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy.” Moreover, Mr. Thurston’s assertions regarding fiscal affect mimic those of the “No on Prop 8” campaign. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Thurston’s own motives are not actually “to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory,” but instead to defeat Proposition 8.
It is blatantly false to state that “none of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage.” The New Mexico case related to a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” If New Mexico were to follow California’s lead and change the definition of marriage, would the lesbian couple’s case be stronger or weaker?
In the California case, a medical clinic that provided intrauterine insemination (IUI) to its patients, refused to treat one of them because she was a lesbian. California’s broad anti-discrimination laws expressly ban discrimination by any business establishment that offers to the public “accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services.” This statute bans discrimination against individual heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, as well as married people and domestic partners. Therefore, the clinic had the option of either having a doctor on staff who would perform IUI services on a non-discriminatory basis, or cease performing the services at all. Whether we agree with this decision or not, the fact is that the law upon which this ruling was based will not be affected by the passage of Proposition 8, so there is no “consequence” if the proposition fails.
Mr. Thurston misstates the facts of the case. Dr. Brody actually claims that her “religious beliefs preclude her from active participation in medically causing the pregnancy of any unmarried woman, and therefore her refusal to perform IUI for Benitez was based on
Benitez’s marital status, not her sexual orientation.” (See footnote 1). Thus, Mr. Thurston has chosen to take the plaintiff’s version of a disputed fact, namely that a doctor refused to treat the lesbian “because she was a lesbian.” This is a misleading lawyer tactic. Moreover, Mr. Thurston omits the fact that the lesbian patient was “referred to a physician outside North Coast’s medical practice, Dr. Michael Kettle.” (Id.) Dr. Kettle provided the artificial insemination services sought.
Mr. Thurston’s arguments once again appear to compartmentalize the law in a misleading way. Just because this case was based on the California Unruh Act does not mean that future cases will not also use the precedent set by the marriage case to bolster a similar result. No competent lawyer would fail to cite both legal precedents, if possible. Moreover, just because that specific law is not technically “affected” by Proposition 8 does not mean the ultimate legal outcome is not affected by further entrenching the concept that where religious beliefs conflict with California’s definitions of marriage, State power trumps freedom of conscience.
The gratuitous comment concerning “activist judges” seems to be framed as an appeal to fear and paranoia. In fact, however, today’s justices on both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can hardly be called “activist.” Six of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors; seven of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Most legal scholars would agree that they are moderate to conservative in their leanings and have a healthy respect for constitutional principles. The California Supreme Court has a high reputation throughout the land. A recent study indicates that its decisions are approved of and followed by out-of-state courts far more than are the decisions of any other supreme court in the United States.
Ronald M. George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who wrote the opinion for the majority in the marriage cases, is a judicial moderate who was never considered to be an activist judge. He has an outstanding scholarly background (Princeton and Stanford) and worked as a prosecutor immediately after graduating from law school. He was appointed a Superior Court judge at the early age of 32 by Republican Governor Ronald Reagan. Though young, he quickly gained a reputation as fair-minded, insightful, hard working and tough on crime. He was widely praised for his handling of the difficult trial of the Hillside Strangler, Angelo Buono. He rose in the ranks of judges until he was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Republican Governor Pete Wilson.
Mr. Thurston’s recitation of legal pedigrees and consensus of legal scholars that supreme court justices are not “activist” is an improper “appeal to authority,” a logical fallacy. Mr. Thurston’s own words reveal these logical flaws:
“Most legal scholars would agree…”“… high reputation throughout the land.”“Though young, he quickly gained a reputation as…”“He was widely praised for …”
These are improper modes of rhetoric and indicate highly illogical argumentation.**
The hard evidence lies in the opinion itself. If the honorable Justice Ronald George had only drafted this single opinion in his whole judicial career, or if it is only the latest in a long line of opinions, that does not change the nature of this decision.
As stated in the dissent dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, “.....a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.” For a more thorough analysis, see this memo by the Heritage Foundation.
**Mr. Thurston's arguments should be commended, however, for avoiding the common logical fallacy of attacking the character of the one making the arguments. I have likewise attempted to avoid ad hominem attacks on Mr. Thurston, who I had heretofor admired.
As Justice George considered the marriage cases, the decision “weighed heavily” on his mind. He remembered a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled. As a judicial conservative, it would have been safest for him to vote against the petitioners and avoid the backlash that he knew would come. But, as he put it in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
Mr. Thurston’s arguments descend into pure blather when they start describing Justice George’s state of mind, memories of his parents, an interview with the L.A. times, etc.
This is irrelevant obfuscation—a pure emotional appeal. It is disingenuous to argue that it would have somehow been safer or more courageous for Justice Ronald George to vote for upholding Proposition 22. As an effectively "tenured" judge who lives and works in San Fransisco, one of the most far-left places on earth, his vote was not an act of courage but of capitulation to the elites among whom he lives and works. Fawning interviews such as the one with the L.A. Times support this point.
The function of judges is to evaluate cases before them and apply constitutional principles to assure that minorities, as well as majorities, receive justice. In controversial cases they are bound to anger some portion of the electorate regardless of how they vote. Their unenviable job is to ignore public opinion and apply the law as they see it. Some decisions are so difficult that reasonable minds can differ. The Supreme Court decision in the marriage cases was that sort of decision. Nevertheless, four of the seven justices on what is considered a moderate to conservative court agreed on the verdict that was rendered. This decision cannot be written off as merely the whim of “activist judges.”
The function of judges is not only to “assure that minorities, as well as majorities, receive justice,” as Mr. Thurston asserts. Indeed, activist judges always use this reasoning to justify their activism. Faithful application of the law is at least as important as a judge’s subjective idea of “justice.”
Mr. Thurston never addresses the fundamental point that in 2000, 61% of the electorate passed Proposition 22, and in 2008, four judges found that law to be “unconstitutional.” This is perhaps the most blatant kind of judicial activism, where judges find a new “right” in the constitution and change the law in the name of “justice,” while ignoring the will of the people. In fact, the judges are substituting their policy preferences for those of the people of California.
Conclusion
I agree with Morris Thurston that "relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.” However, Mr. Thurston's arguments do not meet the standard he sets. As demonstrated above, he makes liberal use of straw men, obfuscation, emotional appeals, and improper appeals to authority. Each of these is a pure logical flaw. But Thurston's arguments also appear to reveal, at best, a fundamental naïveté about the legal trends. Or perhaps Mr. Thurston is aware of, and pleased with, the liberal, activist trend in the courts. If so, his arguments attempt to hide this fact by denying that the trend exists. Finally, Mr. Thurston's arguments demonstrate hostility to the position of the church that he professes a desire to serve. Rather than helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods, Thurston levels the charges himself. Happily, those charges are themselves false and misleading, as demonstrated above.
(Sorry it's such a long post...but it's a great read)
A document titled “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails” has been attacked in writing by Mr. Morris A. Thurston. Mr. Thurston prefaces his rhetorical assault with the following: “My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.” However, Mr. Thurston’s arguments are themselves highly misleading.
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.
The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (#51890)
Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
Response: This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example, drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
Mr. Thurston’s argument that “the focus is on health” is a straw man. No one is disputing the “focus” of this statute or its merits. It is completely irrelevant that the statute “provides for community participation,” etc. By the clear language of the statute itself: “Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to include the following subjects: … (D) Family health … including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Indeed, Mr. Thurston does not dispute this statutory language. Thus, the “Six Consequences” document is accurate on this point, not "untrue,” as asserted by Mr. Thurston.
Mr. Thurston’s arguments are misleading because he implies that because this language is within a section dealing with “health” that it will not be used as a loophole to push the homosexual agenda. This view is naïve at best, given the position taken by the California Teachers Association, its 1.25 million dollar donation to “No on 8,”events in Massachusetts, the surprise first-grade “field trip” to a Lesbian wedding in San Francisco, an elementary school’s surprise “gay day,” etc. The document Mr. Thurston attacks is merely connecting the dots, just as intelligent voters must do.
Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality.
This portion of Mr. Thurston’s argument does not support his own assertion. Indeed, section 51933 of the California Education Code provides a second justification for teaching school children that “same sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.” These two loopholes are all that is needed for those pushing the gay rights agenda. The Massachusetts legislature did not pass a law explicitly calling for homosexual education of school children; it is always through "health" statutes that such an agenda is advanced.
By emphasizing “age appropriate,” Mr. Thurston appears to imply that parents shouldn’t have objections to teaching about gay marriage because teachers can be trusted to bring it down to the right level. But that is the whole problem! If Prop. 8 fails, teachers providing comprehensive sexual health education will be required to provide effective, age-appropriate teaching (read indoctrination) on this topic. This is insidious, not comforting. A teacher reading a story from a picture book to her Kindergarten class may be “age appropriate,” but the problem is when California requires the teacher to read a story book entitled “King and King,” for example.
Mr. Thurston’s argument is misleading because it omits highly relevant passages of 51933:
(4) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and pupils with disabilities. * * *(d) If a school district elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, the school district shall comply with the following: (1) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine. (2) Instruction and materials may not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.
Section 220
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same-sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.
The statutes included above demonstrate that contrary to Mr. Thurston’s assertion, California teachers are required* to teach about marriage, and these requirements are found under the rubric of “health” education.
Moreover, this fact, combined with the law’s own non-discrimination requirements (51933(d)(2), 202) and built-in bias against religious doctrine (51933(d)(1)) will lead to “serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.”
If the definition of “marriage” in California is not restored by passage of Proposition 8 to “between one man and one woman,” the current, judicially mandated re-definition will stand and children will be taught that “marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender.”
*See this link and this document for further discussion of how 96% of California schools opt-in to “comprehensive” health education, subjecting them to the requirements discussed here.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
Response: This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8.
What was the New Jersey case about? The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use.
The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. “Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It’s even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments.”3 It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claim a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, they could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained only to the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax assessed was $200. The OGCMA continues to receive a property tax exemption for the remaining 99% of its property.
This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church’s chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church’s income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New Jersey exemption and likely never would.
Mr. Thurston’s argument here is strained because it is impossible to dispute that churches may be sued over their tax exempt status in the described circumstance. This becomes more and more probable with each judicial activist decision, because gay activists will continue to prod at the edges of the law when they sense a sympathetic judge or appeals panel is willing to change the law for their cause. The New Jersey case is only one example. Another example is the 1983 Bob Jones case that dealt with federal tax exemptions. Other examples are provided in these marriage law digests, and articles discussing the trends can be found here and in this summary.
Mr. Thurston asserts that this potential consequence is “false” because he can point out differences in the facts of the New Jersey case and a posited hypothetical case. But Mr. Thurston’s argument gets lost in the weeds of his own creation.
Mr. Thurston’s argument is misleading because it focuses so vigorously on the facts of the New Jersey case, even though that case is not even explicitly cited in the argument he is attempting to discredit! Thus, the New Jersey case is used as a straw man--a surrogate rhetorical punching bag.
The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Mr. Thurston apparently has great faith in the California Supreme Court’s assurances that its decision won’t have federal tax consequences and that its ruling could not require religious leaders to perform gay marriages. Is it implausible to predict that there will be future rulings that further erode religious freedoms, just as this ruling does?
As stated in the dissent dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, “.....a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.”
Mr. Thurston shows great faith in the “First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.” But don’t the cases summarized at the links above provide room for doubt that the courts will defend this “guarantee” with the same vigor that they have attacked the institution of marriage? The question is legitimate, based on what has already happened.
3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.
Response: Another misrepresentation. To begin with, it should be noted that Catholic Charities in Boston was not forced to close its doors—indeed it is still very active. (See its website at www.ccab.org.) Rather, Catholic Charities voluntarily ceased providing adoption service in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, Catholic Charities elected to close its doors in protest over the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and because it was reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost.
LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.
If this situation ever faces a legal challenge in California, it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes because California already has on its books (and has for several years) laws granting domestic partners (homosexual and heterosexual) the same civil rights as married couples. This is a point that many people seem not to understand. Here is the language of just one California statute: “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
Therefore, the passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California.
Here Mr. Thurston pounces on a short summary of the facts because the summary, by its very nature, economizes words. Clearly the context is religious adoption agencies, so Mr. Thurston’s point that Catholic Charities still has non-adoption activities in Boston is irrelevant. Granted, if Mr. Thurston was responding to a carefully-crafted, 30-page litigation brief, such nit-picking might be appropriate.
Nevertheless, it is misleading for Mr. Thurston to characterize Catholic Charities’ cessation of adoption service in Massachusetts as “voluntary.” A change in Massachusetts' discrimination laws, coupled with the legalization of homosexual marriage, was the direct cause of this “voluntary” cessation; after the change in the law, the only legal alternative was for Catholic Charities to violate its strongly held religious beliefs. The more appropriate word here is coerced, not voluntary.
Mr. Thurston’s discussion of the differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities may be true, but it is irrelevant to the actual statement: “religious adoption agencies will be challenged.” Just because LDSFS may be able to structure its operations differently, refuse state funding, etc., does not undermine the larger point. Indeed, no savvy church member would be naïve enough to ignore the trend.
Mr. Thurston again sets up a straw man, claiming that “many people seem not to understand” that gay couples can already adopt. But just because the law already allows this in California does not mean that “it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes.” If the California Constitution itself recognizes a specific definition of “marriage” that is different from a “domestic partnership,” it is much more difficult to sue churches for opting to only provide adoption services to married couples. Failure of Proposition 8 provides one more argument to those who would sue churches for “discriminating.”
Even Mr. Thurston’s conclusion, that “passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California,” is misleading because it does not address the original point Thurston sets out to rebut. Moreover, if the government considers it “discriminatory” to only assist man-woman couples with adoption, it is naïve, at best, to believe that religious adoption agencies in California will not one day be challenged to stop the alleged discrimination. The question is not if this will happen, but when; the day will likely come much sooner if Proposition 8 fails.
4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.
Response: This claim relates to an experience at Yeshiva University in New York. Gay students were eligible for University housing, but their partners were not able to join them because they did not have marriage certificates. It should be noted that Yeshiva University (despite its name) is chartered as a nonsectarian institution, enabling it to receive state and federal funding. The New York court found that Yeshiva was discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation—not their marital status. The ruling was based on New York City non-discrimination laws.
California’s existing non-discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right of equal access to family housing. To date, however, no California private religious school has been forced to comply with this law. Neither the passage nor the failure of Proposition 8 will have any bearing on the law relating to family student housing in California.
The gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU and other Church universities because engaging in homosexual activity is a violation of the honor code and is a basis for expulsion from the University. These rules will not be overturned merely because
California recognizes gay marriages, any more than they have been because Massachusetts, Canada and many European nations recognize them.
Once again, Mr. Thurston appears to set up a straw man by implying that the only support for this statement comes from the Yeshiva University case. As with point 2 above, Mr. Thurston’s argument here is strained because it is impossible to dispute that religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples. This becomes more and more probable with each judicial activist decision, because gay activists will continue to prod at the edges of the law when they sense a sympathetic judge or appeals panel is willing to change the law for their cause. For numerous examples of this phenomenon, see these marriage law digests.
Mr. Thurston concedes that “California’s existing non-discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right to equal access to family housing.” Thus, the legal framework for a suit is already in place. Notwithstanding Mr. Thurston’s comment that “no California private religious school has [yet] been forced to comply with this law,” this could change in a single day--at the whim of a well-funded gay activist group.
Moreover, just because the discrimination laws in California already threaten private school married housing does not mean that it will not matter whether Proposition 8 passes. If the California Constitution itself recognizes a specific definition of “marriage” that is different from a “domestic partnership,” it is much more difficult to sue. Indeed, it is likely the passage of Prop. 22 that has insulated private schools from this consequence so far. Failure of Proposition 8 removes this barrier to those who would sue for “discrimination.”
Mr. Thurston glibly assures that “the gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU,” but if BYU were in California, where the government considers it “discriminatory” to deny homosexual couples the “right of equal access to family housing,” it is naïve, at best, to believe that it would not one day be targeted to stop the alleged discrimination.
5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
Response: Of course, anyone can be “sued” for anything, but no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the speech “is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.” Thus, even ministers who preach against same‐sex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines. This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada. There have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four years.
Mr. Thurston offers the assurance that “no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriage.” This is hardly reassuring, given that so far, Massachusetts and now California are the only two states to mandate acceptance of gay marriage. This is a brand new phenomenon and the combination of well-funded gay advocacy groups, sympathetic, activist courts, and ready-made anti-discrimination laws and hate-speech codes does not bode well.
If the Owens case was brought before Canada legalized same-sex marriage, how much more likely would it be to happen now that the Canadian government has thrown its weight behind genderless marriage? Canadian speech codes are definitely less liberal than those of the U.S. (so far, at least), as the case of Mark Steyn underscores. The parallel legal system of the “human rights commissions” in Canada belie Mr. Thurston’s assertion that “ministers who preach against same-ex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines.”
Mr. Thurston’s glib assurance that “this would never be an issue in the United States” because we have more liberal laws and there have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts in four years is not comforting. In any case, it is indisputable that while anti-discrimination and “hate-speech” laws are on the books, failure of Proposition 8 puts those who preach traditional marriage in the cross-hairs of anyone wishing to push the gay cause. At the very least, the statement that ministers “may be sued” is unassailable.
The description of the recent California case is another fabrication. This case is Good News Employee Association v. Hicks, which was decided before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriages and so it, too, has nothing to do with Proposition 8. The plaintiffs in that case were evangelical Christians (not homosexuals) who posted flyers around the offices of the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency promoting their “Good News Association” and calling on those who read the flyer to “preserve our workplace with integrity with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.” In other words, this group was promoting the idea of ridding their workplace of gay people—a blatantly homophobic message and highly offensive not only to several gay people who worked there but to heterosexual co-workers as well. The supervisors removed the flyers. The Good News people sued, claiming their rights of free speech were violated. The court found that the agency was entitled to eliminate the workplace disruption the flyers were causing and noted that there were many other ways for this group to promote their message without resorting to such offensive tactics.
This case does not hold that municipal employees are prohibited from saying “traditional marriage” or “family values” and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, or ministers preaching, or Proposition 8. Indeed, the court specifically found that there were many other ways for these people to get their message out without disrupting the workplace by creating an atmosphere of persecution.
Mr. Thurston is wrong to assert that the description of the California case is a “fabrication.” Once again, the creators of the document attacked by Mr. Thurston did not attempt to provide all the facts; as with all judge-made law, the holding is rarely limited to only the facts of the case at hand as later cases attempt to distill its meaning. Mr. Thurston’s lawyering technique of distinguishing on the facts distorts the original point rather than meeting it head-on.
The fact that this case preceded the judicial redefinition of marriage underscores the point that failure of Proposition 8 will likely lead to more cases like it. Mr. Thurston’s arguments seem conveniently blind to the clear judicial trend.
If Mr. Thurston really believes that posting flyers with statements encouraging preservation of a workplace “with integrity with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values” amounts to “promoting the idea of ridding their workplace of gay people,” I cannot understand why he would consider The Family: A Proclamation To the World to be acceptable. Yet Mr. Thurston refers to himself as an active LDS church member. Speaking up for the natural family, marriage, and family values is emphatically not homophobic, as church leaders constantly emphasize.
I concede that Mr. Thurston has found some imprecise language. It is probably not precise to say that the Court held the employees may not say “traditional marriage” or “family values.” It is also imprecise to link the holding of this case directly to the same-sex marriage case. The recently-retired litigator from a “global law firm” scores a point.
6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.
Response: The argument concerning cost is fallacious and calculated to engender fear. In actuality, the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 will be an influx of revenue to California because of the anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy. The change in the definition of marriage will not bring a “cascade of lawsuits” because heterosexual and homosexual registered domestic partners already have all the rights of married couples in California. None of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage. The wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, a state that has no gay marriage law. The medical doctor case was in California, but was based on our existing non-discrimination laws and would not be affected one way or the other by the passage of Proposition 8.
Mr. Thurston charges that this argument is “calculated to engender fear.” Such a charge is improper logically because it presumes to know the mind of the arguer. Even if it were true, there are some things that should be feared and avoided—and the consequences of societal rejection of traditional marriage are among them. Mr. Thurston improperly implies that so-called “fear mongering” is always and inherently wrong.
Mr. Thurston’s analysis of the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 is by his own admission speculative because it is based on “anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy.” Moreover, Mr. Thurston’s assertions regarding fiscal affect mimic those of the “No on Prop 8” campaign. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Thurston’s own motives are not actually “to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory,” but instead to defeat Proposition 8.
It is blatantly false to state that “none of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage.” The New Mexico case related to a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” If New Mexico were to follow California’s lead and change the definition of marriage, would the lesbian couple’s case be stronger or weaker?
In the California case, a medical clinic that provided intrauterine insemination (IUI) to its patients, refused to treat one of them because she was a lesbian. California’s broad anti-discrimination laws expressly ban discrimination by any business establishment that offers to the public “accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services.” This statute bans discrimination against individual heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, as well as married people and domestic partners. Therefore, the clinic had the option of either having a doctor on staff who would perform IUI services on a non-discriminatory basis, or cease performing the services at all. Whether we agree with this decision or not, the fact is that the law upon which this ruling was based will not be affected by the passage of Proposition 8, so there is no “consequence” if the proposition fails.
Mr. Thurston misstates the facts of the case. Dr. Brody actually claims that her “religious beliefs preclude her from active participation in medically causing the pregnancy of any unmarried woman, and therefore her refusal to perform IUI for Benitez was based on
Benitez’s marital status, not her sexual orientation.” (See footnote 1). Thus, Mr. Thurston has chosen to take the plaintiff’s version of a disputed fact, namely that a doctor refused to treat the lesbian “because she was a lesbian.” This is a misleading lawyer tactic. Moreover, Mr. Thurston omits the fact that the lesbian patient was “referred to a physician outside North Coast’s medical practice, Dr. Michael Kettle.” (Id.) Dr. Kettle provided the artificial insemination services sought.
Mr. Thurston’s arguments once again appear to compartmentalize the law in a misleading way. Just because this case was based on the California Unruh Act does not mean that future cases will not also use the precedent set by the marriage case to bolster a similar result. No competent lawyer would fail to cite both legal precedents, if possible. Moreover, just because that specific law is not technically “affected” by Proposition 8 does not mean the ultimate legal outcome is not affected by further entrenching the concept that where religious beliefs conflict with California’s definitions of marriage, State power trumps freedom of conscience.
The gratuitous comment concerning “activist judges” seems to be framed as an appeal to fear and paranoia. In fact, however, today’s justices on both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can hardly be called “activist.” Six of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors; seven of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Most legal scholars would agree that they are moderate to conservative in their leanings and have a healthy respect for constitutional principles. The California Supreme Court has a high reputation throughout the land. A recent study indicates that its decisions are approved of and followed by out-of-state courts far more than are the decisions of any other supreme court in the United States.
Ronald M. George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who wrote the opinion for the majority in the marriage cases, is a judicial moderate who was never considered to be an activist judge. He has an outstanding scholarly background (Princeton and Stanford) and worked as a prosecutor immediately after graduating from law school. He was appointed a Superior Court judge at the early age of 32 by Republican Governor Ronald Reagan. Though young, he quickly gained a reputation as fair-minded, insightful, hard working and tough on crime. He was widely praised for his handling of the difficult trial of the Hillside Strangler, Angelo Buono. He rose in the ranks of judges until he was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Republican Governor Pete Wilson.
Mr. Thurston’s recitation of legal pedigrees and consensus of legal scholars that supreme court justices are not “activist” is an improper “appeal to authority,” a logical fallacy. Mr. Thurston’s own words reveal these logical flaws:
“Most legal scholars would agree…”“… high reputation throughout the land.”“Though young, he quickly gained a reputation as…”“He was widely praised for …”
These are improper modes of rhetoric and indicate highly illogical argumentation.**
The hard evidence lies in the opinion itself. If the honorable Justice Ronald George had only drafted this single opinion in his whole judicial career, or if it is only the latest in a long line of opinions, that does not change the nature of this decision.
As stated in the dissent dissent by Justices Baxter and Chin, “.....a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.” For a more thorough analysis, see this memo by the Heritage Foundation.
**Mr. Thurston's arguments should be commended, however, for avoiding the common logical fallacy of attacking the character of the one making the arguments. I have likewise attempted to avoid ad hominem attacks on Mr. Thurston, who I had heretofor admired.
As Justice George considered the marriage cases, the decision “weighed heavily” on his mind. He remembered a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled. As a judicial conservative, it would have been safest for him to vote against the petitioners and avoid the backlash that he knew would come. But, as he put it in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
Mr. Thurston’s arguments descend into pure blather when they start describing Justice George’s state of mind, memories of his parents, an interview with the L.A. times, etc.
This is irrelevant obfuscation—a pure emotional appeal. It is disingenuous to argue that it would have somehow been safer or more courageous for Justice Ronald George to vote for upholding Proposition 22. As an effectively "tenured" judge who lives and works in San Fransisco, one of the most far-left places on earth, his vote was not an act of courage but of capitulation to the elites among whom he lives and works. Fawning interviews such as the one with the L.A. Times support this point.
The function of judges is to evaluate cases before them and apply constitutional principles to assure that minorities, as well as majorities, receive justice. In controversial cases they are bound to anger some portion of the electorate regardless of how they vote. Their unenviable job is to ignore public opinion and apply the law as they see it. Some decisions are so difficult that reasonable minds can differ. The Supreme Court decision in the marriage cases was that sort of decision. Nevertheless, four of the seven justices on what is considered a moderate to conservative court agreed on the verdict that was rendered. This decision cannot be written off as merely the whim of “activist judges.”
The function of judges is not only to “assure that minorities, as well as majorities, receive justice,” as Mr. Thurston asserts. Indeed, activist judges always use this reasoning to justify their activism. Faithful application of the law is at least as important as a judge’s subjective idea of “justice.”
Mr. Thurston never addresses the fundamental point that in 2000, 61% of the electorate passed Proposition 22, and in 2008, four judges found that law to be “unconstitutional.” This is perhaps the most blatant kind of judicial activism, where judges find a new “right” in the constitution and change the law in the name of “justice,” while ignoring the will of the people. In fact, the judges are substituting their policy preferences for those of the people of California.
Conclusion
I agree with Morris Thurston that "relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.” However, Mr. Thurston's arguments do not meet the standard he sets. As demonstrated above, he makes liberal use of straw men, obfuscation, emotional appeals, and improper appeals to authority. Each of these is a pure logical flaw. But Thurston's arguments also appear to reveal, at best, a fundamental naïveté about the legal trends. Or perhaps Mr. Thurston is aware of, and pleased with, the liberal, activist trend in the courts. If so, his arguments attempt to hide this fact by denying that the trend exists. Finally, Mr. Thurston's arguments demonstrate hostility to the position of the church that he professes a desire to serve. Rather than helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods, Thurston levels the charges himself. Happily, those charges are themselves false and misleading, as demonstrated above.
Are you Ready for a New Job? How about in House Counsel?
A certain company located in happy and fun Bristol, CT is hiring. Are you interested in working in-house? The Job of the Week is brought to you by Lateral Link. Lateral Link is giving away Vault Top 100 Law Firm Guides to all its Members in October.
Position:Senior Corporate Counsel
Description: This NYSE-listed company, an aerospace and industrial components manufacturer, consisting of approximately 6,500 employees in more than 65 locations worldwide, generates over $1.4 billion in revenues. The legal team is based in Bristol, Connecticut, and consists of four collegial, dynamic, and results-oriented attorneys. The company is seeking a dynamic corporate generalist with both law firm and in-house experience to work independently on interesting, varied matters including mergers, acquisitions and other complex transactions, contracts, employment law, regulatory compliance, financings and litigation management for the company's international manufacturing and distribution operations. The successful candidate will advise executives and managers in all operating and functional areas of the company's global businesses, and will report to the General Counsel. Candidates must have a J.D. from a top national school and 11 to 13 years of experience practicing in both a national law firm and an in-house environment.
For more information, please see Position 10008 on Lateral Link. Current members can also contact their personal search consultant directly to discuss this position. Membership in Lateral Link is free and you can apply HERE
Position:Senior Corporate Counsel
Description: This NYSE-listed company, an aerospace and industrial components manufacturer, consisting of approximately 6,500 employees in more than 65 locations worldwide, generates over $1.4 billion in revenues. The legal team is based in Bristol, Connecticut, and consists of four collegial, dynamic, and results-oriented attorneys. The company is seeking a dynamic corporate generalist with both law firm and in-house experience to work independently on interesting, varied matters including mergers, acquisitions and other complex transactions, contracts, employment law, regulatory compliance, financings and litigation management for the company's international manufacturing and distribution operations. The successful candidate will advise executives and managers in all operating and functional areas of the company's global businesses, and will report to the General Counsel. Candidates must have a J.D. from a top national school and 11 to 13 years of experience practicing in both a national law firm and an in-house environment.
For more information, please see Position 10008 on Lateral Link. Current members can also contact their personal search consultant directly to discuss this position. Membership in Lateral Link is free and you can apply HERE
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Mormon Work Ethic
From the Economist (UK).
NOBODY knows quite how the contagion that broke out in Wall Street will affect the rest of America, nor how deep or how long the likely recession will be. What is certain is that some places will suffer more than others. So far Utah, a state best-known for Mormonism and pretty rocks, is looking unusually healthy. “We’ve got a lot to be proud of,” says Jon Huntsman, the governor. “Certainly more than many of our neighbours.”
Indeed, Utah has more to be proud of than any other state in the West. In September its unemployment rate was just 3.5%—less than half of California’s and the second-lowest rate in the region after oil- and gas-rich Wyoming. Last month the Milken Institute declared Provo, a sprawling settlement south of Salt Lake City, America’s best-performing city for technology output and job and wage growth. Salt Lake City itself came third.
Hardly a month goes by without Utah announcing a corporate relocation or a new factory. The state has experienced a minor semiconductor boom in part because of its cheap, coal-fired power. Ogden, until recently a decaying railway town north of Salt Lake City, has quietly become the world centre of winter sports equipment. Mike Dowse, who oversees brands such as Atomic and Salomon for Amer Sports, gives three reasons: “the mountains, the mayor and the money”.
The mountains are the Rockies, which lure young workers who like to go skiing. The mayor is Matthew Godfrey, a business-minded man who has aggressively recruited several companies to Ogden (Mr Huntsman, a former chemicals executive, likes to work the phones, too). The money, which comes partly from the city and partly from the state, is a mixture of relocation grants and tax breaks tied to the creation of well-paying jobs.
Utah’s housing market is relatively healthy, largely because it did not heat up too much in the middle of this decade. In August its foreclosure rate was lower than the national average. Nevada, Utah’s neighbour to the west, had America’s highest rate of foreclosure filings, according to Realtytrac. California had the second-highest rate and Arizona the third. Colorado’s front range, which includes Denver, is also littered with abandoned houses. Such areas have suffered from sharply falling property prices, reduced consumer spending and job losses among construction workers.
Another, hidden, source of strength is Utah’s strange demography. Mormons tend to start families young: the average Utah woman marries at just 22. That means the “echo boom”—the peak of childbearing by baby boomers—took place not around 1990, as in the rest of America, but ten years earlier. One reason unemployment is rising across the West is that a wave of teenagers is crashing onto the job market. Utah, by contrast, has few teenagers and lots of productive people in their late twenties and early thirties. “The timing is pretty good for a recession,” says Pam Perlich of the University of Utah.
The “cultural thing”, as businessmen from out of state delicately refer to Mormonism, helps in other ways. Utah’s almost universal conservatism makes for stable, consensual politics. It took the state legislature just two days last month to plug a $272m hole in the budget. By contrast, California’s budget was 85 days late. Nevada’s politicians are preparing for a nasty fiscal fight next year.
Mormons do not come to work nursing hangovers, and they are inclined to stay put in the promised land rather than pursue better-paying jobs elsewhere. Matthew Donthnier, who is hiring for a new Procter & Gamble plant, has only one complaint about the local workforce: it can be a little difficult to persuade people to toil on Sundays.
NOBODY knows quite how the contagion that broke out in Wall Street will affect the rest of America, nor how deep or how long the likely recession will be. What is certain is that some places will suffer more than others. So far Utah, a state best-known for Mormonism and pretty rocks, is looking unusually healthy. “We’ve got a lot to be proud of,” says Jon Huntsman, the governor. “Certainly more than many of our neighbours.”
Indeed, Utah has more to be proud of than any other state in the West. In September its unemployment rate was just 3.5%—less than half of California’s and the second-lowest rate in the region after oil- and gas-rich Wyoming. Last month the Milken Institute declared Provo, a sprawling settlement south of Salt Lake City, America’s best-performing city for technology output and job and wage growth. Salt Lake City itself came third.
Hardly a month goes by without Utah announcing a corporate relocation or a new factory. The state has experienced a minor semiconductor boom in part because of its cheap, coal-fired power. Ogden, until recently a decaying railway town north of Salt Lake City, has quietly become the world centre of winter sports equipment. Mike Dowse, who oversees brands such as Atomic and Salomon for Amer Sports, gives three reasons: “the mountains, the mayor and the money”.
The mountains are the Rockies, which lure young workers who like to go skiing. The mayor is Matthew Godfrey, a business-minded man who has aggressively recruited several companies to Ogden (Mr Huntsman, a former chemicals executive, likes to work the phones, too). The money, which comes partly from the city and partly from the state, is a mixture of relocation grants and tax breaks tied to the creation of well-paying jobs.
Utah’s housing market is relatively healthy, largely because it did not heat up too much in the middle of this decade. In August its foreclosure rate was lower than the national average. Nevada, Utah’s neighbour to the west, had America’s highest rate of foreclosure filings, according to Realtytrac. California had the second-highest rate and Arizona the third. Colorado’s front range, which includes Denver, is also littered with abandoned houses. Such areas have suffered from sharply falling property prices, reduced consumer spending and job losses among construction workers.
Another, hidden, source of strength is Utah’s strange demography. Mormons tend to start families young: the average Utah woman marries at just 22. That means the “echo boom”—the peak of childbearing by baby boomers—took place not around 1990, as in the rest of America, but ten years earlier. One reason unemployment is rising across the West is that a wave of teenagers is crashing onto the job market. Utah, by contrast, has few teenagers and lots of productive people in their late twenties and early thirties. “The timing is pretty good for a recession,” says Pam Perlich of the University of Utah.
The “cultural thing”, as businessmen from out of state delicately refer to Mormonism, helps in other ways. Utah’s almost universal conservatism makes for stable, consensual politics. It took the state legislature just two days last month to plug a $272m hole in the budget. By contrast, California’s budget was 85 days late. Nevada’s politicians are preparing for a nasty fiscal fight next year.
Mormons do not come to work nursing hangovers, and they are inclined to stay put in the promised land rather than pursue better-paying jobs elsewhere. Matthew Donthnier, who is hiring for a new Procter & Gamble plant, has only one complaint about the local workforce: it can be a little difficult to persuade people to toil on Sundays.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Do Law Schools Only Care About the Numbers?
The Drift Toward Pure Numbers Admissions
Law schools are part of a production function for entry level lawyers. Therefore, if law schools alter their admissions practices, the character and complexion of the hiring pool can shift in significant ways.
On the input side, the data are crystal clear: over the last fifteen years, the rankings arms race has pushed U.S. law schools toward a pure numbers approach to admissions. The more interesting question, however, is whether prestige-conscious law firms are now, inadvertently, experiencing any fallout. First the data.
Law schools operate in an environment of supply and demand and are famously counter-cyclical. When Silicon Valley was booming in the late 90s, law school applicants plummeted. When the economy faltered in the early 90s or after 9/11, applicants spiked. Therefore, to examine how admissions practices have changed over time, it is important to pay attention to the underlying applicant pool. Below are trend lines for median LSAT scores by USNWR rank for 1994 and 2007, which reflect classes that entered in the fall of 1993 and 2006 respectively. During those two admissions cycles, the number of applicants was virtually identical: 89,600 (1994) and 88,700 (2007).
Obviously the blue line (2007) is higher than the orange line (1994). In fact, despite slightly fewer law school applicants, the average median LSAT increased by 2.18 points (std. dev. of 1.99). For the record, only three schools fell out of Tier 1 between 1994 and 2007. And it cannot be explained by the ABA policy shift that instructs law schools to no longer average LSATs for reporting 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile figures, thus slightly pumping up the volume of high LSAT scores. That change was not enacted until the summer of 2006.
Here is the same analysis for UGPA (1994 data came from the Princeton Review, 2007 from the ABA):
Although we might chock some of the higher UPGAs (avg. of +.17, std. dev. of +.12) on grade inflation between 1994 and 2007, it is likely that schools were also trying to maximize this number. When admissions officers are under constant pressure to beat last year's numbers, something has to give. I suspect it is students who took challenging majors but have LSAT scores slightly under the target. Or applicants with impressive work experience, evidence of leadership, or a history of overcoming major obstacles. Although LSAT and UGPA scores are strongly correlated within the applicant pool, they tend to be very weakly correlated (or sometimes negatively correlated) at individual law schools. Why? Because applicants who are above both medians tend to have admissions offers at higher ranked schools. After a school locks down its target LSAT and UGPA medians, the modest overlap between the two groups means there are precious few spots left. And often those spots are used to improve a school's diversity profile.
Over the years I have talked with many admissions officers. They corroborate the sea change. Further, many of the old hands argue that the current fixation on maximizing numbers is misguided--that, based on their experience, great candidates are being passed over for nondescript or unadventurous students with high numbers. In other words, a large portion of candidates with compelling resumes and personal statements are being systematically pushed down to lower ranked law schools.
At a law firm level, there is a certain irony at work. Many partners could not get admitted to their alma mater; yet, between 2005 and 2007, as NLJ 250 hiring increased rapidly, 53% of the new jobs went to students at USN Top 20 schools. Rigid adherence to the elite law school model drove the starting salary cost structure from $125,000 to $145,000 to $160,000--a legacy that is hard to swallow in a down market. But were these intangibles--now less prevalent at most law elite law schools--part of the firms' secret sauce? To my mind, this is an interesting question. Further, a recent Moneyball study by Kerma Partners suggests that the answer may be yes. Posted by Bill Henderson of Empirical Legal Studies.
Law schools are part of a production function for entry level lawyers. Therefore, if law schools alter their admissions practices, the character and complexion of the hiring pool can shift in significant ways.
On the input side, the data are crystal clear: over the last fifteen years, the rankings arms race has pushed U.S. law schools toward a pure numbers approach to admissions. The more interesting question, however, is whether prestige-conscious law firms are now, inadvertently, experiencing any fallout. First the data.
Law schools operate in an environment of supply and demand and are famously counter-cyclical. When Silicon Valley was booming in the late 90s, law school applicants plummeted. When the economy faltered in the early 90s or after 9/11, applicants spiked. Therefore, to examine how admissions practices have changed over time, it is important to pay attention to the underlying applicant pool. Below are trend lines for median LSAT scores by USNWR rank for 1994 and 2007, which reflect classes that entered in the fall of 1993 and 2006 respectively. During those two admissions cycles, the number of applicants was virtually identical: 89,600 (1994) and 88,700 (2007).
Obviously the blue line (2007) is higher than the orange line (1994). In fact, despite slightly fewer law school applicants, the average median LSAT increased by 2.18 points (std. dev. of 1.99). For the record, only three schools fell out of Tier 1 between 1994 and 2007. And it cannot be explained by the ABA policy shift that instructs law schools to no longer average LSATs for reporting 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile figures, thus slightly pumping up the volume of high LSAT scores. That change was not enacted until the summer of 2006.
Here is the same analysis for UGPA (1994 data came from the Princeton Review, 2007 from the ABA):
Although we might chock some of the higher UPGAs (avg. of +.17, std. dev. of +.12) on grade inflation between 1994 and 2007, it is likely that schools were also trying to maximize this number. When admissions officers are under constant pressure to beat last year's numbers, something has to give. I suspect it is students who took challenging majors but have LSAT scores slightly under the target. Or applicants with impressive work experience, evidence of leadership, or a history of overcoming major obstacles. Although LSAT and UGPA scores are strongly correlated within the applicant pool, they tend to be very weakly correlated (or sometimes negatively correlated) at individual law schools. Why? Because applicants who are above both medians tend to have admissions offers at higher ranked schools. After a school locks down its target LSAT and UGPA medians, the modest overlap between the two groups means there are precious few spots left. And often those spots are used to improve a school's diversity profile.Over the years I have talked with many admissions officers. They corroborate the sea change. Further, many of the old hands argue that the current fixation on maximizing numbers is misguided--that, based on their experience, great candidates are being passed over for nondescript or unadventurous students with high numbers. In other words, a large portion of candidates with compelling resumes and personal statements are being systematically pushed down to lower ranked law schools.
At a law firm level, there is a certain irony at work. Many partners could not get admitted to their alma mater; yet, between 2005 and 2007, as NLJ 250 hiring increased rapidly, 53% of the new jobs went to students at USN Top 20 schools. Rigid adherence to the elite law school model drove the starting salary cost structure from $125,000 to $145,000 to $160,000--a legacy that is hard to swallow in a down market. But were these intangibles--now less prevalent at most law elite law schools--part of the firms' secret sauce? To my mind, this is an interesting question. Further, a recent Moneyball study by Kerma Partners suggests that the answer may be yes. Posted by Bill Henderson of Empirical Legal Studies.
Worried About a Divorce? Don't Be You Just Need "Divorce Insurance"!
The exact details are still coming out but Safeguard is looking to sell divorce insurance. This will help you avoid a catastrophic financial metldown if (or when) you get a divorce. If Prop. 8 passes will they sell this insurance to gays as well?
What if every marriage could come with a "Guaranty"?
The idea of Marriage Insurance is not new. In fact, it's roots go back to the very beginnings of insurance in Elizabethan England. As early as 1664, insurance policies were being written on marriages, births and even christenings. Unfortunately, most of these policies were written as a form of wager and England banned the practice in 1712. No form of marriage insurance policy has been written since.
Marriage itself is a forward looking and optimistic event. It’s a time when outlooks all seem bright and dreams are in the making. And historically, marriage has been the cornerstone of civilized society.
The idea that the combined efforts of husband and wife result in an increase in wealth is not only valid, but data from the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which tracks individuals in their 20s, 30s and early 40s, shows that over time married respondents experience per person net worth increases of 93%, nearly double over single respondents. Additionally, their wealth increases on average 16% for each year of marriage.
Today, couples are often marrying later and in many cases, both husband and wife bring more assets and more debt, meaning more complexity into a relationship. Yet no investment vehicle exists today that provides individuals that tirelessly work to maintain a lasting marriage with any financial remuneration or monetary incentive from what anyone would agree sometimes involves unending compromise and hard sacrifices in the quest for marital harmony.
There are few guarantees in life and based on current divorce rates, marriage is certainly not one. Sadly this cornerstone has eroded over time to the point that nearly half of all marriages that take place in westernized societies fail.
Approximately 2.3 million weddings take place in the United States alone each year. Historical data indicates 50% of first marriages ultimately will be dissolved via divorce (according to divorcemagazine.com should your spouse get suspicious if you subscribe to this magazine?) and 60% of remarriages. Of the projected 23 million weddings that will be consummated in the United States between 2006 and 2015, over 11,000,000 of those marriages will likely be legally dissolved in their first 15 years. And because children of divorced parents are three times more likely to get divorced than their counterparts from successful marriages, the US census now estimates that only 33% of couples married today will celebrate their 25th anniversary.
In addition, personal savings is at it's lowest point since the Great Depression. In fact, today the US has the worst personal savings rate of any industrialized nation. Credit card debt has tripled since 1989 to nearly 800 billion in the US alone and Social Security may be at risk of insolvency. As a result, couples today are actively searching for investments that will guarantee a comfortable retirement with high returns and low risk.
There is no company in the world that currently provides insurance coverage against the often devastating financial impact caused by divorce, much less a guaranteed, high return payout for achieving such a milestone as a 25th (Silver) wedding anniversary... until now.
SafeGuard Guaranty Corporation will be the first company in the world to offer an insurance based "Guaranty" on marriages, by providing a highly lucrative investment vehicle to those couples with a loving relationship strong enough to last 25 years and at the same time, providing a financial safety net, in the form of insurance protection against divorce, to those who don't.
Help us change lives for the better.
What if every marriage could come with a "Guaranty"?
The idea of Marriage Insurance is not new. In fact, it's roots go back to the very beginnings of insurance in Elizabethan England. As early as 1664, insurance policies were being written on marriages, births and even christenings. Unfortunately, most of these policies were written as a form of wager and England banned the practice in 1712. No form of marriage insurance policy has been written since.
Marriage itself is a forward looking and optimistic event. It’s a time when outlooks all seem bright and dreams are in the making. And historically, marriage has been the cornerstone of civilized society.
The idea that the combined efforts of husband and wife result in an increase in wealth is not only valid, but data from the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which tracks individuals in their 20s, 30s and early 40s, shows that over time married respondents experience per person net worth increases of 93%, nearly double over single respondents. Additionally, their wealth increases on average 16% for each year of marriage.
Today, couples are often marrying later and in many cases, both husband and wife bring more assets and more debt, meaning more complexity into a relationship. Yet no investment vehicle exists today that provides individuals that tirelessly work to maintain a lasting marriage with any financial remuneration or monetary incentive from what anyone would agree sometimes involves unending compromise and hard sacrifices in the quest for marital harmony.
There are few guarantees in life and based on current divorce rates, marriage is certainly not one. Sadly this cornerstone has eroded over time to the point that nearly half of all marriages that take place in westernized societies fail.
Approximately 2.3 million weddings take place in the United States alone each year. Historical data indicates 50% of first marriages ultimately will be dissolved via divorce (according to divorcemagazine.com should your spouse get suspicious if you subscribe to this magazine?) and 60% of remarriages. Of the projected 23 million weddings that will be consummated in the United States between 2006 and 2015, over 11,000,000 of those marriages will likely be legally dissolved in their first 15 years. And because children of divorced parents are three times more likely to get divorced than their counterparts from successful marriages, the US census now estimates that only 33% of couples married today will celebrate their 25th anniversary.
In addition, personal savings is at it's lowest point since the Great Depression. In fact, today the US has the worst personal savings rate of any industrialized nation. Credit card debt has tripled since 1989 to nearly 800 billion in the US alone and Social Security may be at risk of insolvency. As a result, couples today are actively searching for investments that will guarantee a comfortable retirement with high returns and low risk.
There is no company in the world that currently provides insurance coverage against the often devastating financial impact caused by divorce, much less a guaranteed, high return payout for achieving such a milestone as a 25th (Silver) wedding anniversary... until now.
SafeGuard Guaranty Corporation will be the first company in the world to offer an insurance based "Guaranty" on marriages, by providing a highly lucrative investment vehicle to those couples with a loving relationship strong enough to last 25 years and at the same time, providing a financial safety net, in the form of insurance protection against divorce, to those who don't.
Help us change lives for the better.
Prop 8 Divides Mormon Faithful
The thought of going to church in her southern California LDS ward makes Carol Oldham cry. She can't face one more sermon against same-sex marriage. She can't tolerate the glares at the rainbow pin on her lapel. Oldham, a lifelong Mormon, is troubled by her church's zeal in supporting a California ballot initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. She feels the church is bringing politics into her sanctuary. "It has tainted everything for me," Oldham said, choking up during a telephone interview. "I am afraid to go there and hear people say mean things about gay people. I am in mourning. I don't know how long I can last."
The LDS Church's campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It even departs from earlier efforts on behalf of traditional marriage, in which members felt more free to decide their level of involvement. This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church's built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members' willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty. Those who disagree with the campaign say they feel unwelcome in wards that have divided along political lines. Some are avoiding services until after the election; others have reluctantly resigned. Even some who favor the ballot measure are troubled by their church's zeal in the matter.
"I do expect the church to face a high cost - both externally and internally - for its prominent part in the campaign," said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a "prophetic imperative" to speak out against gay marriage. "The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity," Mauss said. "In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders." Robert Rees, a former LDS bishop in California, says he has not witnessed this much divisiveness in the church over a political issue in the last 50 years. Whatever the vote's outcome, Rees says, "it will take considerable humility, charity and forgiveness to heal the wounds caused by this initiative."
Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will." Still, he emphasized that most Mormons in California support the church's efforts on behalf of the initiative. "Our doctrine affirms that marriage is important to Heavenly Father's plan of action on Earth," he said. "It is the center of religion. We also believe [traditional] marriage is good for society." In 1999, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined other churches in California to promote Proposition 22, which also prohibited gay marriage. Mormons canvassed their neighborhoods and completed other assignments in support of the initiative, which passed. The California Supreme Court overturned it in May, however, and the move to up the ante with a constitutional amendment took hold.
Many opponents choose to keep quiet at church, while seeking kindred spirits online. "We wanted to provide information and fact check the claims, and we wanted it to be provided by people who are still active and involved," said Laura Compton, one of the site's managers. "We get between 400 and 800 hits per day." Compton's views are well known in her LDS ward, but she and her husband, LDS writer Todd Compton, have not been pressured at all. Their leaders have done a good job, she said, of keeping politics out of church. She knows, though, that the conflict has taken its toll on California Latter-day Saints. "Our wards are falling apart," Compton said. "But we still have to sit next to each other after the election." It's especially painful for Mormon gays. "How is the church going to minister to them when such operations are guaranteed to alienate them and their families?" Thurston asked. "Most of the gay members were orthodox Latter-day Saints in their teens and many went on missions. But eventually they found there was no place in the church for them and they went elsewhere." by Salt Lake Trib.
The LDS Church's campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It even departs from earlier efforts on behalf of traditional marriage, in which members felt more free to decide their level of involvement. This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church's built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members' willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty. Those who disagree with the campaign say they feel unwelcome in wards that have divided along political lines. Some are avoiding services until after the election; others have reluctantly resigned. Even some who favor the ballot measure are troubled by their church's zeal in the matter.
"I do expect the church to face a high cost - both externally and internally - for its prominent part in the campaign," said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a "prophetic imperative" to speak out against gay marriage. "The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity," Mauss said. "In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders." Robert Rees, a former LDS bishop in California, says he has not witnessed this much divisiveness in the church over a political issue in the last 50 years. Whatever the vote's outcome, Rees says, "it will take considerable humility, charity and forgiveness to heal the wounds caused by this initiative."
Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. "We love them and bear them no ill will." Still, he emphasized that most Mormons in California support the church's efforts on behalf of the initiative. "Our doctrine affirms that marriage is important to Heavenly Father's plan of action on Earth," he said. "It is the center of religion. We also believe [traditional] marriage is good for society." In 1999, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints joined other churches in California to promote Proposition 22, which also prohibited gay marriage. Mormons canvassed their neighborhoods and completed other assignments in support of the initiative, which passed. The California Supreme Court overturned it in May, however, and the move to up the ante with a constitutional amendment took hold.
Many opponents choose to keep quiet at church, while seeking kindred spirits online. "We wanted to provide information and fact check the claims, and we wanted it to be provided by people who are still active and involved," said Laura Compton, one of the site's managers. "We get between 400 and 800 hits per day." Compton's views are well known in her LDS ward, but she and her husband, LDS writer Todd Compton, have not been pressured at all. Their leaders have done a good job, she said, of keeping politics out of church. She knows, though, that the conflict has taken its toll on California Latter-day Saints. "Our wards are falling apart," Compton said. "But we still have to sit next to each other after the election." It's especially painful for Mormon gays. "How is the church going to minister to them when such operations are guaranteed to alienate them and their families?" Thurston asked. "Most of the gay members were orthodox Latter-day Saints in their teens and many went on missions. But eventually they found there was no place in the church for them and they went elsewhere." by Salt Lake Trib.
For Mormons, California's Prop 8 battle turns personal
California's battle to define marriage as between a man and a woman is getting personal and nasty - especially for Mormons on both sides of the political debate. Opponents of Proposition 8, a ballot measure to thwart gay marriage, have picketed LDS services in Northern California and threatened to protest outside the Oakland LDS Temple. Others are keeping track of every dollar donated by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and argue that Mormons are carrying the effort's financial load. Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate claims that 59,000 Mormons have contributed more than $19.15 million, which is 77 percent of the $24.89 million raised by the entire Yes on 8 campaign. "It is a staggering amount of money and an even more staggering percentage of the overall campaign receipts," Karger said, adding it dwarfs the efforts of the other partners in the Coalition to Protect Marriage.
Pam and Rick Patterson, a middle class Mormon couple in Folsom, Calif., with five sons between 3 and 12, recently raided their savings account to donate $50,000 to the cause, The Sacramento Bee reported. This week Daily Kos, a politically liberal Web site, published a link to a list of Mormon donors and encouraged people to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to . . . shall we say . . . less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." To LDS blogger Lowell Brown, that is tantamount to religious intimidation. "If you are a Mormon and you donate to Prop 8, thousands of strangers will try to smear you, in the hope of intimidating you and others into not exercising your right to freedom of speech," Brown, whose wife is the deputy communications director for the Yes On 8 Campaign, wrote in a recent post at article6blog.com.
Yet, Prop. 8 leaders are trying the same tactic. They threatened to "out" businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay-rights group, saying in essence, "Give us money or we'll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions," according to an Associated Press story on Thursday. John Schroeder, a Presbyterian elder and Brown's co-blogger, argues that Proposition 8 opponents are trying to divide the Coalition to Protect Marriage, a broad-based group of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life. It has brought together more than 100 churches, including dozens of Baptist, Catholic, Assemblies of God, Evangelical and Lutheran groups as well as fundamentalist para-church organizations such as Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Creation Research, and Traditional Values Coalition. "Because [Mormon candidate] Mitt Romney's religion was used effectively against him, if I were opposing Prop 8, one of the tactics I would use would be to divide those united for it along religious lines," Schroeder wrote. "By singling out Mormons for these attacks, I would emphasize their distinctiveness from orthodox forms of Christianity, and drive the wedge a little deeper."
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who many Mormons blame for Romney's defeat in the Republican primaries, taped some robocalls for the initiative. "Creedal Christians cannot readily rise to defense of Mormons in these attacks, lest they be accused 'defending the heretics,' " Schroeder wrote. For Mormon opponents, that's precisely the point - this Proposition 8 coalition includes people and organizations that deny Mormonism is a Christian faith or call the 13-million member church a "cult." For example, among the Proposition 8 videos being circulated is "Homosexuals Brainwashing Our Children in Elementary Schools." It was produced by Mass Resistance, which features on its Web site an article titled, "The Mitt Romney Deception." "I am so grieved to see whom my church has chosen as friends in this campaign to pass Proposition 8," said Carol Lynn Pearson, a longtime advocate for gay Mormons. "We have gotten into bed with some of the most extreme of the 'Religious Right,' some of whom are well known as hate mongers." This was not a "mutually affectionate liaison," Pearson said, sharing quotes from her own diary. "We have been raped by organizations that hate the Mormons but love our money and our energy. Now we find ourselves pregnant with fear and even hate. The rhetoric we use, they have put in our mouths, words based more in fear than in fact." by Non Other than the Salt Lake Trib.
Pam and Rick Patterson, a middle class Mormon couple in Folsom, Calif., with five sons between 3 and 12, recently raided their savings account to donate $50,000 to the cause, The Sacramento Bee reported. This week Daily Kos, a politically liberal Web site, published a link to a list of Mormon donors and encouraged people to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to . . . shall we say . . . less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." To LDS blogger Lowell Brown, that is tantamount to religious intimidation. "If you are a Mormon and you donate to Prop 8, thousands of strangers will try to smear you, in the hope of intimidating you and others into not exercising your right to freedom of speech," Brown, whose wife is the deputy communications director for the Yes On 8 Campaign, wrote in a recent post at article6blog.com.
Yet, Prop. 8 leaders are trying the same tactic. They threatened to "out" businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay-rights group, saying in essence, "Give us money or we'll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions," according to an Associated Press story on Thursday. John Schroeder, a Presbyterian elder and Brown's co-blogger, argues that Proposition 8 opponents are trying to divide the Coalition to Protect Marriage, a broad-based group of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life. It has brought together more than 100 churches, including dozens of Baptist, Catholic, Assemblies of God, Evangelical and Lutheran groups as well as fundamentalist para-church organizations such as Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Creation Research, and Traditional Values Coalition. "Because [Mormon candidate] Mitt Romney's religion was used effectively against him, if I were opposing Prop 8, one of the tactics I would use would be to divide those united for it along religious lines," Schroeder wrote. "By singling out Mormons for these attacks, I would emphasize their distinctiveness from orthodox forms of Christianity, and drive the wedge a little deeper."
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who many Mormons blame for Romney's defeat in the Republican primaries, taped some robocalls for the initiative. "Creedal Christians cannot readily rise to defense of Mormons in these attacks, lest they be accused 'defending the heretics,' " Schroeder wrote. For Mormon opponents, that's precisely the point - this Proposition 8 coalition includes people and organizations that deny Mormonism is a Christian faith or call the 13-million member church a "cult." For example, among the Proposition 8 videos being circulated is "Homosexuals Brainwashing Our Children in Elementary Schools." It was produced by Mass Resistance, which features on its Web site an article titled, "The Mitt Romney Deception." "I am so grieved to see whom my church has chosen as friends in this campaign to pass Proposition 8," said Carol Lynn Pearson, a longtime advocate for gay Mormons. "We have gotten into bed with some of the most extreme of the 'Religious Right,' some of whom are well known as hate mongers." This was not a "mutually affectionate liaison," Pearson said, sharing quotes from her own diary. "We have been raped by organizations that hate the Mormons but love our money and our energy. Now we find ourselves pregnant with fear and even hate. The rhetoric we use, they have put in our mouths, words based more in fear than in fact." by Non Other than the Salt Lake Trib.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
