Friday, November 7, 2008


Well, it looks like the protests have been peaceful thus-far... I am very much relieved.

Some of the Church's statements regarding them, though... well... have been bothering me -- big surprise, eh?

I think the sentiment that bothers me the most is that protesting on/near their sacred places of worship is wrong and that they have done nothing wrong, themselves, in exercising their right to vote in protest of the definition of marriage. (I'm paraphrasing.)

Again, what hypocrisy! Their protest came right into the most sacred parts of the lives of so many people -- their families -- and took away rights, liberties, and privileges thereof.

And they're the poor victims? Give me a break.

Now, I don't like how a temple had to close; I don't think we should hinder anyone's security in their sacred places... and that's exactly my point.

Frankly put and again, the LDS Church has hindered the security of the most sacred part of many people's lives: their families.

As for the LDS Church's woes of being singled out... I can't speak for everyone, but the reason why I, personally, am singling out the LDS Church right now is because they were the root of the massively erroneous information concerning the freedoms of religions being threatened -- and that no rights are being taken away from any gay couples and families raised by such (all complete B.S.).

Of course, the LDS Church is very much singled out naturally on this issue as it has the most to lose... their doctrine is dependent on the happiest, healthiest, and most secure family being the man, woman, and their bio children.

The LDS Church has already lost the happiest and healthiest family part. All they have is the security part to hold onto and defend.

If they can make the law detriment [sic] married gay couples, then they can still claim superiority of their definition of family based on legal protection and security.

This is where the threat gay marriage posses to these religious institutions: it weakens their claims and beliefs concerning the family. But it's not a threat to their rights, freedoms, and liberties. They can still believe what they will and how they will, however weak (I think that's rather apparent with a lot of beliefs), but they have no right to make sure their beliefs have a legal leg-up and extra protection.

THAT is wrong.

I must honestly wonder if they truly think they are protecting "traditional families" ... that is, legislation like Proposition 8 isn't going to prevent or discourage gay people from marrying and raising families - I know I am going to marry (pending I can find someone) a guy and raise children with him, no matter what arbitrary definition of marriage is forced into the constitution by the majority.

And it's not like gay marriage and families therefrom don't already exists and haven't existed for who knows how long.

Legislation such as Proposition 8 does not make the "traditional family" more secure, happy, or healthy.

All such legislation does is discriminate against marriages and families [so that religions such as the LDS Church can continue to falsely project their believed moral supremacy] which marriages and families are already formed and will continue to form ... that's all it does, plain and simple.

Frankly, bluntly, (those are my two favorite words, if you haven't noticed... I love frankness and bluntness) and in sum, gays have been marrying and raising families for who knows how long. They are at least as happy and at least as healthy as the heterosexual counterpart. And it's time that they are at least as secure.


  1. I agree with Cadence.

    My opinion is that the church worries that if "family" is redefined legally, they will have a tougher time selling the "we're all about family" image to prospective members. Frankly, they're going to have a harder time with that now, anyway.

  2. At this point both sides have ther extremes. The real issue here is that these protests are going to polarize the middle. The people who may feel that "okay its wrong but they have their rights" when these people begin to feel attacked, when they see their sacred symbles attacked or they see their LDS neighbors who they know aren't bigots maligned, they are going... to act. This bothers me personally because it will only lead to further stereotyping on both sides. This will lead to further conflict. And those of us in the middle will end up losing on both ends.

  3. At my Target store a week before Election Day I noticed a couple of guys there. I recognized the outfit but did not realize where it was from. Then I realized that they were from the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." I gave them my usual warm welcome of thanking them for coming to Target and if I could help them find something (I assist in supervising from time to time). One of them looked at me and gave me what I thought was a contemptuous look. Wonder if he realized I was gay? Pretty sad.

    Yeah, it's pathetically ironic how the Mormons (NOTHING personal to you WHATSOEVER just FYI..I have been fascinated by your blogs the last hour or so..amazing what one comes up with to do when he is sick, read about someone else's life!) invade my state, rally up the bigots, take away a fundamental right from committed same-sex couples, and then whine like babies when people protest in front of their churches.

    It is a continual theme in human history, but nevertheless continually pathetic, when a group of people such as the Mormons were so brutally persecuted in New York and Ohio and then forced to move to Utah, and then have their founder murdered in a jail, to become persecutors themselves.

    But as St. Paul said, "Whatever you shall sow, you shall also reap."