Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Nov. 5, 2008

Overview

The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. ^[1] This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. ^[2] See Heritage.org and TraditionalValues.org for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

The text of Proposition 8

The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. ^[3]

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"^[4].

It reads in part:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

It also declares:

All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort

How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?

The California Supreme Court, in the case of In Re Marriage Cases, on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.^[5]

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.^[6]

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. ^[7] The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

For more information:

• Church involvement in politics

How were members informed?

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage. ^[8]

Were Church members told how to vote on Proposition 8?

Church members were not told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8.

For more information:

• Authoritarianism and Church leaders

Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Those who chose not to participate were not pressured to do so. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded.

For more information:

• Authoritarianism and Church leaders

How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were supposed to fulfill the request to lend support. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause." The main ways that this support unfolded and that members ended up supporting the proposition were the following:

• Monetary donations
• Going door-to-door to poll voters
• Phoning voters to remind them to vote
• Sign-waving on street corners
• Hanging voting reminders on doors

Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize individuals.

The "No on 8" response

The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election

• Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is not recorded by the state. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" ^[9]

• Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the Daily Kos linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers 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." ^[10]

The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial

On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8 (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies

The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. ^[11] This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. ^[12] Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release)

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened
• Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods

During the course of the campaign, a group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. ^[13] The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers.

Where did the money come from?

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

	In-State Donations	Out-of-State Donations	Total Donations
For Proposition 8	$25,388,955	$10,733,582	$36,122,538
Against Proposition 8	$26,464,589	$11,968,285	$38,432,873
Totals	$51,853,544	$22,701,867	$74,555,411
Source: Tracking the money, Los Angeles Times

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side.

The vote

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

Voter demographics

• Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
• Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Mormons likely voted with the same affrimative ratio (84-16) as their peer group that attends church at least weekly. ^[14] Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
• LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. ^[15] In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
• The large African-American turnout(10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.^[16] Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
• The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
• The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportional amount of credit or blame in passing Proposition 8.

Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8

A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?

The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. The votes cast by Church members remain private, unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. Since the election, the Church has not asked, and will not ask, members how they chose to vote. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record.

The Church, however, may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." ^[17]

Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?

The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?

From the Internal Revenue Service:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. ^[18]

But what about the companies that the Church owns?

Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?

California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?

Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?

One might also make the same argument for the amount of money spent by the "No on 8" supporters, which was actually higher than the amount spent by the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.” The Church does, however, fund a significant humanitarian effort through member donations. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?

Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

• Bishop H. David Burton, And Who Is My Neighbor?, April 2008 General Conference.

How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?

Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: /usr/bin/convert: No such file or directory Error code: 127

6 wives vs. 1 husband?

The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

Post-election events

Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: /usr/bin/convert: No such file or directory Error code: 127

Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: /usr/bin/convert: No such file or directory Error code: 127

Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.

Threats from "No on 8" supporters

• "Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
• "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
• "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
• ""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" ^[19]

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists. ^[20]

Church response

The Church issued the following statement:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information. ^[21]

Negative effects

There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various LGBT groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples). The first call that we know of by an LGBT group to not target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the JoinTheImpact mission statement.)

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the LGBT community and the other LGBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

Accusations of hatred and bigotry

The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends. ^[22]

The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".

Protests at LDS places of worship

A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:

• Los Angeles Temple (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
• Newport Beach Temple (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.^[23]
• Oakland Temple (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008^[24] and November 9, 2008^[25].
• Salt Lake Temple (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.^[26]
• San Diego Temple (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008^[27], XXX, and XXX.
• Seattle Temple (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).^[28]
• Spokane Temple (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.^[29]
• Manhattan Temple (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.^[30]
• Washington Temple (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.^[31]

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." ^[32]

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:

• Vallejo, California. Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.^[33]

Protests at other Christian places of worship

Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:

• The Saddleback Church (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. ^[34]

Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters

• Orangeville, California. Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.^[35][36]
• Arapahoe County, Colorado. A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.^[37]
• Utah. As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.^[38]
• Sacramento, California. Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.^[39]

Harrassment

• Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.

Terrorist tactics

On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

• Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples. An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. ^[40]
• Windsor Locks, Connecticut. An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. ^[41]

No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.

Hacking of Church related web site

• The web site which hosts Meridian Magazine was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. ^[42]

Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status

The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign. ^[43] First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:

"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."

"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."

"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."

Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.

Blacklists

Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

• AntiGayBlacklist.com
• "Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).

• Alison Stateman, What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List", Time (Nov. 15, 2008)

Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS

• Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). Boycott of restaurant called for when it is discovered that the owner donated $100 to "Yes on 8." Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.^[44]

• Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."^[45]

• Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.^[46][47][48] (Background info: Scott Eckern, “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”, Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

• Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). ^[49]

• "Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.^[50]

Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8

The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:

• A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. ^[51]

Expressions of support from our Christian brethren

• Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur (YouTube Video)
• Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons, LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
• Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote, KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

Expressions of support from political leaders

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." ^[52]

Myths

Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.

MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8

No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the move West, over polygamy, over the repeal of polygamy, over the priesthood ban, over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian

Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to classify them as non-Christian, however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ.

MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers

NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign

Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.^[53] There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

Endnotes

Warning: Due to the nature of the subject, some external links may lead to sites which contain explicit language

1. [note] States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 , The Pew Forum (Nov. 13, 2008)
2. [note] First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse (Nov. 14, 2008)
3. [note] California Voter Guide
4. [note] The Family: A Proclamation to the World
5. [note] Bill Ainsworth, "Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California," San Diego Union Tribune (Nov. 12, 2007).
6. [note] Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election (PDF). California Secretary of State.
7. [note] Matthai Kuruvila, "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8", San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 10, 2008)
8. [note] California and Same-Sex Marriage, LDS Newsroom
9. [note] Matthai Kuruvila, Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8, San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 27, 2008)
10. [note] For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal, beliefnet (Oct. 4, 2008)
11. [note] Morris Thurston, A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”
12. [note] Blake Ostler, Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post) (Oct. 20, 2008)
13. [note] Jill Tucker, Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day, San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 11, 2008)
14. [note] CNN exit poll, California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
15. [note] CNN Election Center 2008, California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
16. [note] Tony Castro, Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass, LA Daily News (Nov. 5, 2008)
17. [note] Carrie A. Moore, LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8, Deseret News (Nov. 16, 2008)
18. [note] Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, Internal Revenue Service
19. [note] 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban, WorldNet Daily (Nov. 5, 2008)
20. [note] When The Bullied Become The Bullies, The Malcontent
21. [note] Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest
22. [note] Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media
23. [note] Mark Eades, "Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church," OC Register (Nov. 16, 2008).
24. [note] Matthai Kuruvila, "Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8," The San Francisco Chronicle (Oct. 27, 2008).
25. [note] John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento," The San Francisco Chronicle (Nov. 10, 2008).
26. [note] Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage," Salt Lake Tribune (Nov. 9, 2008).
27. [note] Brooke Williams, "Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ," San Diego Union Tribune (Nov. 10, 2008).
28. [note] Janet Tu, "Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support," The Seattle Times (Nov. 10, 2008).
29. [note] "Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
30. [note] Colin Moynihan, "At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8," New York Times (Nov. 13, 2008).
31. [note] Jen Beasley, "Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church," Gazette.Net, Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
32. [note] Jennifer Garza, "Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism," Sacramento Bee (Nov. 17, 2008)
33. [note] Lanz Christian Banes, "Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church," Times Herald (Nov. 17, 2008).
34. [note] Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up
35. [note] Derek Fleming, "'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church," The State Hornet, (Nov. 12, 2008).
36. [note] Chelsea Phue, "Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote," The Sacramento Bee (Nov. 13, 2008).
37. [note] Kieran Nicholson, "Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church," Denver Post (Nov. 12, 2008).
38. [note] Jennifer Garza, "Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites," Sacramento Bee (Nov. 14, 2008).
39. [note] Jennifer Garza, Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?, Sacramento Bee (Nov. 15, 2008).
40. [note] White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA, Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
41. [note] White Powder Found In Printing Plant, WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)
42. [note] Carrie A. Moore, Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site, Deseret News (Nov. 13, 2008)
43. [note] Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General (Nov. 13, 2008)
44. [note] Lisa Derrick, "El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers," The Huffington Post (Nov. 13, 2008).
45. [note] Charles Granda, "Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
46. [note] Jesse McKinley, "Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire," New York Times (Nov. 12, 2008).
47. [note] Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
48. [note] Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre, November 12, 2008.
49. [note] Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
50. [note] Alison Stateman, "What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"," Time (Nov. 15, 2008).
51. [note] Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8, San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 13, 2008)
52. [note] Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 10, 2008)
53. [note] Protectmarriage.com.

Further reading

Videos

Yes on 8 ads

• Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth
• Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools
• Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened

No on 8 ads

• "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8

Press conferences

• Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

External links

Proposition 8 related

• Paul Bishop, In the Face of Hatred, Meridian Magazine, November 12, 2008.

Church involvement in politics

• Gordon B. Hinckley, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign (November 1999): 52.off-site
• Hugh Nibley, "Beyond Politics," Brigham Young University Studies 15 no. 1 (1974), 1–21.

Copyright © 2005–2024 FAIR. This is not an official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The content of this page may not be copied, published, or redistributed without the prior written consent of FAIR.

We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.

Sites we recommend: Mormon Scholars Testify: Messages of faith from scholars who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints