Republicans See Cash Opportunity in Gay Marriage Shift

GOP Senator Rob Portman

The caption of this post which comes from a Politico article will have Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Phyllis Schlafly, Linda Harvey and similar anti-gay hate merchants in full blown apoplexy along with convulsions on the floor and pools of spittle.   Yes, you read the title correctly.  A growing number of Republicans see a shift towards accepting gay marriage as a way to bring more cash into their coffers.  Apparently, Perkins' threat that the Christofascists will walk away if Republicans accept gay marriage hasn't struck fear in as many GOP hearts as Perkins had hoped.  Let's hope the trend trickles down to the level of the Virginia GOP which acts like a bunch of trained circus dogs that jump through the hoops held up by The Family Foundation.   Here are some highlights from the Politico piece:

Republican fundraisers say the changing views of gay marriage in their party could unlock big money from GOP donors in places like New York, California and Florida — where some Republicans have kept their checkbooks closed over what they saw as misplaced priorities, at best, or intolerance, at worst, at the highest ranks of the party.

Several Republicans pointed to Sen. Rob Portman’s switch in support of gay marriage as a watershed moment for the party. And more than two dozen high-profile GOP-ers asked the Supreme Court to back gay rights.

“Republicans’ intolerance to marriage equality has been detrimental to winning,” said Aaron McLear, a California Republican strategist. “Big donors understand that they don’t want to invest in campaigns focused on a losing issue, and I think certainly the fiscal issues for Republicans are much more marketable.”

It’s not clear how much money could come from donors supportive of the party’s move toward new thoughts on gay marriage. Pro gay-rights donors have long been an important source of campaign cash for Democrats, including after President Barack Obama pushed through a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which barred openly gay people from serving in the military.  And operatives believe the money is there for Republicans, too.

Several lawmakers told POLITICO the issue has come up in meetings with potential big donors, who take a different view than the party base.  Portman himself has taken heat from New York donors who believe the party’s emphasis on social issues is one of the major reasons for losses this fall. Their views were taken so seriously that Portman, vice chairman of finance for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, held a dozen meetings with big New York donors recently in an attempt to assuage their fears about the direction of the party.

American Unity PAC, a super PAC started by Elliott Associates hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer to push Republican candidates to support gay marriage, plans to announce big changes related to its fundraising in the coming weeks as it ramps up for the midterm elections.  .  .  .  .  “I expect we’re going to play a major, major role in 2014. As more and more true conservatives come out in support of the freedom to marry, it gives us a lot more opportunity to play a role and make a difference in races,” said Jeff Cook-McCormac, a senior adviser to American Unity PAC.

David Herro, a major GOP donor who gave $50,000 to American Unity during the 2012 cycle, said Portman reconsidering his stance on gay marriage was “a huge positive” for the party.  .   .   .   Herro said he will continue to give to American Unity and that he welcomes Portman’s leadership on this issue.   "I think the Republican Party needs to be more libertarian on our views on these social issues,” he said.

One can just imagine the shrieks and wailing at the offices of FRC and AFA and Focus on the Family.  Let's hope the trend continues and that as a result more in the GOP make the shift to supporting marriage equality and in the process begin to marginalize the Christofascists. For its long term survival, the GOP needs to kick the Christianists to the curb at a minimum in terms of allowing them to control the party's position on social issues.

 

U. S. Supreme Court Fails to Identify Gay Marriage Case to Be Considered

There had been an expectation that the U.S. Supreme Court would identify today which, if any, of the gay marriage/DOMA appeals that have landed on its doorstep.  The expectation turned into additional waiting as the Court remained silent on these cases and those following the case will be waiting with baited breath to see if the Court will show its hand on Monday.   In some ways I can understand the Court's hesitation: no matter what it does, factions within America will be unhappy.  The Christofascists will rant against judicial tyranny if the Court upholds gay marriage and/or strikes down DOMA.  On a longer term, however, if the Court does not uphold a constitutional right to same sex marriage, they risk being viewed by history as being akin to the Justices who ruled against blacks in the infamous ruling in  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision.   For those who do not recall their American history, in the Dred Scott Decision, the Court held that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories, and that people of African descent (both slave and free) were not protected by the United States Constitution and were not U.S. citizens.   In short, with the younger generations being supportive of gay marriage  by significant majorities, it is virtually guaranteed that over time any Justice ruling against marriage equality will be viewed by history as a bigoted monster.  One has to wonder whether this is the type of legacy far right blow hards like Antonin Scalia to be how they are remembered by posterity.  A piece in SCOTUS Blog looks at this dilemma facing the justices.  Here are highlights:

These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now. Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks. The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound. So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment. The plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law. On the other hand, that describes some moral judgments. The Constitution does not forbid every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some grave ones) themselves, legislatively.

The striking feature of these cases – not present in any others I have ever seen – is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way.

The painful but sometimes unspoken truth is that seminal Supreme Court rulings sometimes reflect the era in which they were decided. In 2012, it is ridiculous to believe that the government could ban inter-racial marriage. But that was the law in much of the country for most of its history. In fact, it was a serious argument, and there were a number of similar laws on the books, when the Court declared them unconstitutional in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Society moved over the course of our history, and so did the Court’s understanding of the Constitution.

[T]he arc of history tilts towards equality and justice, and our society is rapidly but unevenly coming to the judgment that same-sex marriage is just and right. The claims presented by this case would just as inevitably prevail (probably by a wide margin) in the Supreme Court twenty years from now. By then, it will be broadly (if not uniformly) accepted that discrimination against homosexuals related to marriage is invidious and irrational. Our attitudes are shifting that fast.

Given the inevitability of same-sex marriage, if the Court rules against those claiming a right to have such unions recognized, it will later be judged to be “on the wrong side of history.”.

But the verdict of history cannot decide the legal questions presented by these cases. The cases arrive today, in this moment, before our cultural transition has completed. In a sense, it is a shame that there is such pressure to hear the cases now; the judgment for the rest of the nation’s history would certainly favor these claims. But if they do decide to grant review, the Justices cannot merely choose to embrace the past or the future. They will have to make a judgment now.

One option that the Court could decide to pursue is to hear none of the cases.  This would by default restore same sex marriage to California via the 9th Circuit's ruling and and leave the 1st and 2nd Circuit rulings against DOMA standing, although this latter option would leave potential chaos on a number of issues impacted by DOMA.   I'm sure that perhaps four of the Justices may not care if they are viewed as horrible individuals by history.  The question becomes whether five Justices do want to be viewed as having been on the right side of history.   

9th Circuit to Rule Tomorrow on Proposition 8

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will release its ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and other related legal issues tomorrow at 10:30AM PST. In addition to the larger constitutionality issue, the Court will likely first address the issue of whether Protect Marriage having standing to defend Proposition 8 at all. Several U. S. Supreme Court rulings suggest that it does not under applicable federal law. However, when the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to address the issue, that court decided that Protect Marriage does have standing as a matter of state law.

If the 9th Circuit decides that Protect Marriage has standing, the next issue is whether or not Judge Walker's decision declaring that Prop 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution should be affirmed. To reverse Judge Walker's ruling, the 9th Circuit must find either (1) that Walker misapplied the law, or (2) that his decision was not supported by the facts presented at trial. On this latter issue, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) and its legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies offered a great deal of expert and testimony and historical and sociological evidence against Prop 8 at trial. This evidence was left more or less unanswered by Protect Marriage which basically introduced religious belief and religious based bigotry as the main reason to support Prop 8.

Be assured that as soon as the opinion is released and I have time to review it, I will be giving my thoughts on the matter.

Anti-Gay U. S. Olympic Official Quits

While those behind his appointment are claiming ignorance of his anti-gay views, Peter Vidmar who had been appointed as chief of the U. S. Olympic mission for 2012, has resigned. Johnny Weir (at right) among others caused a brief firestorm that led to Vidmar's resignation which I believe was totally appropriate. With a growing number of nations granting full marriage rights to same sex couples and a growing number of out athletes, a homophobe has no place on the Olympic commission which should represent all citizen athletes. The tide of history is turning slowly but steadily against anti-gay bigotry and the Olympic commission needs to embrace the future rather than have its face represented by bigotry. I am beyond over those who seek to inflict their personal religious beliefs on all of society. If they want to do so, then I suggest they move to Afghanistan Uganda or some similar place. Here are highlights from the New York Times:
*
Peter Vidmar, a two-time Olympic gold medalist in gymnastics, stepped down Friday as the chief of mission for the 2012 United States Olympic team after a controversy about his public opposition to same-sex marriage.
*
He said he resigned because he did not want his personal views to overshadow the athletes. “The sooner we can get back to helping focus on London and our athletes, the better,” Vidmar said in an e-mail.
*
Vidmar, a Mormon, was a supporter of Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. He said he was against same-sex marriage for religious reasons, and that his views would not affect his interactions with the United States Olympic team.
*
Still, the controversy about his views grew after his appointment. Last Thursday, the openly gay figure skater Johnny Weir called Vidmar’s appointment “disgraceful” in an article on the Web site of The Chicago Tribune.

Former Executive Director of Catholic Charities Slams Church on Opposition to Gay Marriage

As I noted in the last post, while perhaps not as bad as the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church certainly doesn't have clean hands when it comes to religious extremism and bigotry against LGBT citizens in the form of Proposition 8. The difference in comparison the the Mormon Church it would seem is that the power of the bishops and enablers of sexual predators in the Vatican are increasingly powerless to dictate how Catholics act and make their own moral judgments. Or at least such is the case outside of circles of Kool-Aid drinkers such as William Donohue and Maggie Gallagher (each of who are making nice six figure incomes off of peddling hatred).

*

An example of this growing independence of thought and of what I wish more Catholics would do - namely publicly challenge the Church fathers - is Brian Cahill, a former executive director of Catholic Charities in San Francisco, who has an op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that takes on the Church's efforts to dehumanize LGBT individuals. Because that's what we are really talking about. Regardless of what they may - disingenuously, in my view - claim to the contrary, the Church leadership and others who by their acts and deeds fan homophobia in essence strive to keep LGBT individuals as viewed as somehow less than human. Here are some column highlights:
*
I am a Catholic who voted against Proposition 8 in 2008 and contributed $1,000 to the No on 8 Campaign . . . . . I am also the father of a gay son, from whom I was slow to learn how painful, debilitating and denigrating are the constant legal and social reminders that he and those like him are not fully accepted members of the human community.
*
In their statement supporting Prop. 8, the California Catholic Bishops declared that marriage is "intrinsic to stable, flourishing and hospitable societies." Ironically, this is one of the compelling reasons gay and lesbian couples wish to be joined in civil marriages. They are seeking a structure and context for their love, commitment, fidelity and mutual support.
*
[W]hen gays and lesbians are referred to in a 2003 Vatican teaching as "objectively disordered," it is difficult for them to feel respected. When gay and lesbian couples are willing to assume full, loving parental responsibility for abused and neglected children who would otherwise languish in the foster care system, and church teaching characterizes them as "doing great violence to children" by raising them in same-sex households, it is difficult for those parents to feel respected.
*
I know that my son and his partner are made in the image and likeness of God. They are not perfect, but they are brilliant, creative, personable and moral. They are certainly not objectively disordered. I know, as do many fathers, mothers, grandparents, sisters, brothers, friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow parishioners of gay and lesbian individuals and couples, that the relationship, the love, the friendship, the personal association, the proximity, put a human face on this issue and let us see that in the context of the human spirit, none of us are different and none of us should be anything less than fully accepted members of our human community.

Prop 8 Ruling

UPDATED: Wahoooo!!! I have a copy of the 138 page opinion and will review it once my non-profit board meeting ends. Needless to say I am HAPPY! Walker reached the only logical and honest conclusion of law and fact in my view.

*

I have signed up to receive an e-mail update as soon as the results of Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are known. The opinion when released will be available on the Court's website and I will give my reactions and legal analysis as soon as practicable.Since the opinion is to be released between 4:00 and 7:00 PM Eastern Time, how soon I get get a post up will depend on scheduled client meetings and then a non-profit board meeting this evening.

*

I am trying to remain hopefully optimistic. From following the case, knowing the talents of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, not to mention all of my research in the Michael Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History case, I know that the law IS ON THE SIDE OF THE PLAINTIFFS. The issue is whether or not Judge Walker has the balls to follow the law and not given in to more special rights for who engage in religious based anti-gay discrimination. In the Moore case, the Virginia Supreme Court lacked the courage to do the right thing and let the lower court ruling stand without explanation - truly the cowardly way out.

Perry v. Swhwarzenegger - Day 4: Choice Myth Rears Its Ugly Head

I write often about the myth perpetuated by Christianists that sexual orientation is a "choice" or "lifestyle choice." Never mind that legitimate medical and mental health experts disagree with the false characterization. For Christianist the choice myth is utterly essential because they know full well that once sexual orientation is recognized as an immutable trait, then discriminatory laws begun to run into a constitutional brick wall. Hence why so many of the most extreme Christianist organizations either operate their own or help fund "ex-gay" ministries. This one of the biggest frauds being on the general public, but the Christianists continue the choice drumbeat regardless of its falsity. They are lying, know that they are lying, and simply do not care that they are lying. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger we are seeing a clear example of how the Prop 8 supporters term being gay as a "choice" while the plaintiffs' experts say that it is not a choice. The Edge has an article that looks at this deliberate lying that's now occurring in federal court - something that ought to be grounds for a contempt finding in my opinion. Here are some highlights:

*
The language used by Proposition 8 proponents ahead of the Nov. 2008 vote and by their attorneys in the early days of the federal trial provided an indication of the parameters they are expected to use when they begin their defense late next week.
*
In terminology repeated in almost every phase of the trial so far, Prop 8 supporters have referred to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" rather than a core identity, that gays are sexual predators whose reputation legitimizes fears and past increases of gay rights outweigh any need for full marital integration.
*
Expert witnesses for the legal team seeking to overturn the referendum talked about "identity" or "orientation." Attorneys who questioned them on cross examination have changed that to "choice" or "lifestyle."
*
"It’s interesting that the proponents consistently refer to an individual’s ’lifestyle,’" Shannon Minter, an attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights who is attending the trial, told EDGE. "They seem to consistently be suggesting that being gay is a choice, that it’s not a legitimate identity and it’s okay for the government to be prejudiced against being gay."
*
Griffin compared Yes on 8’s messaging to Anita Bryant’s "Save the Children" campaign from the 1970s. "They’re no different," he said of Tam and his ProtectMarriage.com colleagues. "Perhaps they attempted to be more diplomatic, but it’s no different."
*

In my view, ex-gays for pay are the lowest of the low since they are literally selling their souls and other gays out for money and acceptance by those who hate them. Hence why I assist Wayne Besen whenever possible in "outing" bogus ex-gays for pay.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Day 3

Click image for larger view.

Unfortunately, by a 5-4 decision the U.S. Supreme Court - which doesn't allow its own sessions to be broadcast - barred the televising of the Prop 8 trial. Obviously, the defenders of Prop 8 do not want their true motivations and behind the scenes conspiracies to be shown to the wider public. Thus, it will be even more important that the media, including the blogosphere, get that information out across the Internet. Hatred of gays, not the "protection of marriage" is what it's really all about.

*

One of the issues that will play out during this trial along with constitutional arguments is that of the motivation behind Proposition 8. I suspect most readers already know full well that anti-gay animus IS the basis behind Prop 8 no matter what its supporters try to say otherwise. The material distributed by William Tam - one of the original Proposition 8 sponsors and one of the intervenors in defending the law in the federal court case - in the screen shot above makes his hatred of homosexuals pretty apparent. Why this fear of by the Prop 8 supporters of the plaintiffs demonstrating animus as the motivation behind the amendment? Because in 1996, the U. S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action from recognizing homosexual citizens as a Protected class. Part of the Court's reasoning was that the Colorado amendment seemed "inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects [homosexuals]; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."

*

Today, the defenders of Prop 8 aimed at fighting plaintiffs’ contention that Prop. 8 was motivated by animus for gays and lesbians. They also seek to claim that gays are not harmed by homophobia and the denial of equal marriage rights. One of the plaintiffs expert witnesses today was Letitia Ann Peplau (Bachelor in Psych from Brown, PhD social Psych from Harvard). Peplau discussed research on heterosexual and same sex couples which not surprisingly found adverse impact on gays because they cannot marry.

*

Interestingly enough, as noted on NGBlog, last week, Mr. Tam - author of the message on the screen shot above - asked to be let out of the case as a defendant because of concerns he faces threats and harassment from same-sex marriage advocates. One has to wonder why he didn't think of that issue back before he signed on to Prop 8 last year and intervened in the Perry case. Could it be that he's finally figured out that his hatred of gays will be on full display and that he himself will help demonstrate that anti-gay animus is the sole real motivation supporting Prop 8? Queerty has a review of his supposed reasons for wanting to withdraw here and you can read the motion here. I suspect that Tam doesn't want his ass put on the witness stand and having to explain the poison he has disseminated. Judge Vaughn Walker has not yet decided on whether to accept his withdrawal request. Tam's videotaped deposition has been played and reportedly those who saw the video say it was quite homophobic. Since his statements are on videotape, Tam cannot now easily disavow his prior statements without looking like a gay hating liar. As the saying goes, pay back can be hell.
*

Readers wanting regular updates can go to the American Foundation for Equal Rights web page located here. The website also has links to media stories on the trial. Check out the website. Better yet, make a donation.

My Readers - Reader Profile of Carole

Every now and then I have done profiles on some of my readers with whom I feel a connect and who, of course, are willing to have themselves discussed on this blog. In the past, profiled individuals have often been other bloggers who are likewise readers. Today, I want to spotlight a very special woman who is a fierce straight ally in the struggle for full civil equality for all LGBT Americans. I first heard from Carole (pictured above left) back in the run up to the vote on Proposition 8 when she contacted me to remind me that not all Christians and Christian denominations are the enemies of gay Americans. In fact, she proudly advised me that her church and some 20+ other churches had taken out a full page ad in a California newspaper urging Californians to vote "No" on Proposition 8. Since then I have heard from her from time to time, particularly during the week of September 28th when I went into total melt down and found my self subject to a TDO. Carole spoke with both the boyfriend and me and her support and words of encouragement have meant a great deal. Here are a few highlights from how Carole describes herself:

*

If you ever write a profile of your readers, it would be okay to refer to me as "carole, a retired United Methodist pastor in California, working for equality and hoping to bring change in the church." I have gifted, gay clergy friends who are afraid to come out, and it makes me sick that the church has been the culprit. I'm 68, straight, have been married to the same man for 45 years, have 2 adult kids and 3 young grandchildren. The picture I'm including is from our church web site, taken at my retirement celebration June 28, 2009.

*

So this is a "coming out" for me... I realize that we need to be out and connected for support and for bringing fairness and justice to our communities... and in our churches. It's cool if I can be in touch with you. Admire you very much. I hope we'll stay in contact, and I hope you'll call me anytime.

*

While Carole will not be in Washington, D.C., this coming Sunday for the NEM, she will be with all of us who are there in spirit. I thank her for all her words of support and her willingness to try to make a difference in a denomination that has not yet taken the gay affirming steps of the the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and ELCA. Carole is an example of the wonderful people that I have come to know through this blog. Carole, thank you for all you have done and continue to do. Oh, and Carole first came to my blog via a parishioner who mentioned it to her.

Judge: Prop 8 Campaign Must Release Campaign Data

In a ruling that will cause the freepers and Christo-fascists and Mormons to go berserk, a federal judge has ruled that the sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban must hand over some internal campaign records to lawyers seeking to overturn the voter-enacted initiative. I suspect that such records will (1) possibly reveal improprieties and campaign law violations, (2) violations of IRS laws by the Mormon and Catholic Churches, and (3) expose the names of bigots who prefer to hide their bigotry since they lack the courage to publicly stand behind measures that strip other citizens of legal rights - much like the anonymous commenters I encounter on this blog (and whom I do not publish because of their cowardice). I fully believe in full disclosure of campaign contributors and believe that groups should not be able to bundle donations so as to hide the identity of contributors from the public. Here are some highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

*

Denying a request to shield the information, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said the Protect Marriage campaign had failed to show that providing private e-mails, memos and reports would inhibit the political activities of gay marriage opponents or subject them to unbridled harassment.

*

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case. The lawsuit argues that the measure was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality.

*

"What was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast light on what was actually said," Walker said. At the same time, the judge said the couples' lawyers must limit their fact-finding request to cover only central issues and individuals, including Mormon and Catholic church representatives who served on the executive committee that oversaw the campaign. He also left open the possibility that he would restrict public access to the documents.

*

An example of the kind of information the plaintiffs are seeking is discussions showing that the campaign decided against running ads stating that marriage must be reserved to a man and a woman to foster responsible parenting since that is an argument Protect Marriage's lawyers are making now to uphold Proposition 8, Dusseault said.

*
Depending on how and when the internal information is disseminated, its contents could revive the hostility some gay marriage supporters directed at Proposition 8's financial donors after the ballot initiative passed in November.

*

I suspect we already know the reasons behind the Prop. 8 campaign: animus towards gays and unconstitutional religious based discrimination. And again, if one doesn't have the guts to publicly support a measure such as Prop. 8, then maybe they need to rethink their support for the measure. The law should not shield bigots from public view.

Proposition 8 Really a Loss for Mormons?

Author Frank Schaeffer at the Huffington Post has a piece that raises the argument that by undertaking a high profile role in the Proposition 8 battle, the Mormon Church has in reality suffered what will be a long term loss. Why, because with all the increased scrutiny the Mormon faith is receiving the plentiful "weirdness" of the Mormon religion will come out - as is already happening - and overall negative views of the denomination will increase. As I have said before, I am originally from a part of New York State close to where Joseph Smith allegedly had his revelation and to this day, Smith is regarded by most locals as a serious whack job - hence why he left the area. Familiarity often breeds contempt and hopefully the Mormon Church reaps some scrutiny that will convince the broader public that Mormons are NOT mainstream whatsoever. Such a result would in my view be Divine justice indeed. Here are some column highlights:

*

The recent confrontation between the Mormon Church and the gay community bodes ill for Mormonism. It seems that the Mormons have begun to believe their own propaganda when it comes to seeing themselves adds "just another" evangelical group. They aren't. The evangelicals may be plenty crazy, as they have manifested themselves to be through the late great Religious Right (that is now crashing in flames following the Obama victory), but the Mormons are exponentially crazier when it comes to marriage, and gender roles.

*

[T]o paraphrase the famous line from Animal Farm; some religions are weirder than others, especially when it comes to beliefs about marriage, sex and gender. One of the strangest is the Mormons.

*

Here is just two of many quaint bits of Mormon "teaching" ( this first on race is no longer the official position of the church, but still...): "And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane [i.e black people] the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward & have his head cut off & spill his blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children."(Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 1852, Brigham Young's address before the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah upon slavery)

*
"Nearly all the great discoveries of man in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet... I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to be a greater age than we do, that they lived generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants of the sea -- to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes."(Oliver B. Huntington, Young Woman's Journal, Vol. 3, p. 263-264)

*

So, okay, enough already of the "seed of Cain," moon men, on to marriage, California's Proposition 8 and the Mormons... Why pick on gay people? Here's my theory: The Mormons have assiduously pursued a policy of trying to be accepted as just one more of the thousands of Protestant splinter groups that, taken together, are often generically called "Christians" as a catchall for the born-again amongst us. That is why the Mormons jumped into this debate: make friends with the evangelical Religious Right and the more right wing Roman Catholics by joining the neighborhood Church Lady gang to beat up the gay guy.

*

What is the sexual/marriage/gender teaching of the Mormons who are raising money to stop two men or women from marrying. Here's a taste: A Mormon belief is that men resurrect their wives. The Mormon man becomes a god on some uninhabited planet. As the god of his own world he will resurrect those wives who were obedient to him. They then become the goddesses of his planet.

*

With their support for Proposition 8 the Mormons have more or less done what someone might do who -- in an incredibly dumb moment -- decides to call up the local IRS office and start asking the kind of questions that inevitably leads to getting audited. There is an old phrase that the Mormon leaders who launched their anti-gay crusade might have paid attention to: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."