Mormon Inquiry

Mormon Inquiry

Are Mormons the victims?

At the LA Times, of all places: “Are Mormons the victims in the Prop 8 fight?” I’m not sure I agree with the framing of the story — it seems to imply that every story, even a political story, must have a victim, with the media’s job being to correctly identify the victim for us, the readers. But it’s nice they care.

In reply to Trailer Trash’s comment from the previous Prop 8 post: I’m sorry you don’t appreciate my selection of blogging topics. But if I’m going to run a blog that talks about Mormon issues, including current news, I really can’t avoid this issue. It’s all over the papers and has generated a huge amount of discussion on LDS blogs as well as in the mainstream media. And if I’m going to comment on a story, I pretty much have to call it like I see it. If you think my view of Prop 8 is some sort of unsupported fringe view, I think you need to do a reality check. The definition of marriage now written into the California constitution has now garnered a majority vote in two California general elections, an outcome that reflects outcomes in thirty other states where similar measures have been on the ballot.

Comments read comments(9)
post a comment

posted December 6, 2008 at 1:00 am

No. As not a single marriage of theirs was invalidated. This has been a simple answer to a simple question. Oh, and a spraypainting job that costs a hundred dollars to clean up doesn’t count, either.

report abuse

Nate W.

posted December 6, 2008 at 2:34 am

The victim? Only to the extent that the Church’s property rights were violated by vandalism and individual members were threatened with what appeared to be anthrax.
It seems much more appropriate to say that the Church was a victim in a much more tragic, Shakespearean way.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2008 at 9:49 am

>>> The definition of marriage now written into the California constitution has now garnered a majority vote in two California general elections, an outcome that reflects outcomes in thirty other states where similar measures have been on the ballot.
Voter driven initiatives are nothing more than legalized lynch mobs.
The voters are not bound to act in accordance with any legal framework; they often cast votes for reasons that would disqualify them from serving on a jury – personal bias, bigotry, misguided attempts to enforce the tenants of their faith on the public, etc.
Yet you say that it is okay; if enough people get together and pass a law, or nullify one, than it is perfectly acceptable.
Let’s strike at the heart of the matter:
In court houses around the world — from the Supreme Court of Canada to various High Courts in Europe, from the Supreme Court of India to the Supreme Court of Israel — Judges are rendering verdicts based solely on Civil Secular Law that overwhelmingly declaring what you are defending Discrimination and Injustice.
That’s the uncomfortable fact you just can’t escape. You may point fingers and cry “activist judge” all you want, but at the end of the day, your own logic defeats you; if “majority rules” is correct, than the overwhelming amount of judge’s ruling in favour of GLBT rights blows you out of the water, legally speaking.
Perhaps I should not be surprised that America is willing to suspend the very Rule of the Law in favour of an American Idol-style popularity contest. I don’t know.
Maybe the Mormons will be next.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2008 at 9:56 am

Yeah lets have a vote to ban mormonism. Then we can see how he likes his logic.

report abuse


posted December 6, 2008 at 4:23 pm

“Yeah lets have a vote to ban mormonism. Then we can see how he likes his logic.”
I’m not a Mormon, but I have no doubt modern Mormonism was shaped precisely by the bans against it in the nineteenth century. My question is, does banning gay marriage shape its eventual form? And isn’t a homosexual couple a better outcome for society than a gay bathhouse?

report abuse

Jessica Sideways

posted December 6, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Personally, I do not see why it is that the Mormon church wants to ban equal marriage and condemn homosexuals to a life of sleeping with people other than their spouses. Of course, how could they avoid it, given the fact that equal marriage is not yet a reality. They are promoting promiscuity instead of monogamy and marriage through these actions. And in the end, when they lose, they will pretend that nothing happened.

report abuse

Your Name

posted December 8, 2008 at 3:53 am

Robert would have us think the outcome is a choice between the bathhouse and married life. Jessica Sideways thinks that banning gay marriage mandates promiscuity.
As someone who has lived in a community where gay marriage has been legalized for some time (and still is) and with more than average level of contact with the gay community I can categorically state that attendance at bathhouses is unaffected by the status of gay marriage and neither is promiscuity within the gay community. Those that wish to dedicate themselves to a single partner will do so regardless of the law. A large part of the gay community, including those in stable relationships, do not wish to be married as is increasingly the case with heteros.
To assert that married gays suddenly run amok once the legal status of their relationship changes is as insulting as it is patronising to imagine that legal marriage is any curb on promiscuity among gays.

report abuse


posted December 8, 2008 at 1:18 pm

NightLad misses the point (intentionally, perhaps) and attacks a straw man. All Dave said was that, if the majority of those Americans voting in referenda agree with him, his isn’t an “unsupported fringe view.” Talking about the tyranny of the majority or the conclusions of judges working from different constitutions is entirely irrelevant. But again, I suspect NightLad knew that.

report abuse

Your Name

posted December 14, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Then both dave and you, Nathan, miss the point. The Prop 8 referendum was (and remains) clearly UN-Constitutional, since it denies a group in society access to the equal protections clause. It doesn’t matter if a “majority” agree or not, equal means equal and all means all.
Not to mention that the CA Constitution cannot be changed (not ‘amended’ – that implies making it ‘better’ which Prop 8 most assuredly did not) by a mere majority of voters, but rather by way of a 2/3 majority of the Legislature. An fyi, the CA Legislature voted – TWICE! in favor of equal marriage.
And the Courts are there precisely to prevent the tyranny of the majority from taking away rights from minorities. (Ask the Lovings.) I suspect you knew that, too.

report abuse

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mormon Inquiry. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Most Recent Mormon Story on Beliefnet Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent ...

posted 2:21:45pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The meanings of Zion
This is the third post on Richard L. Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2008). [See Part 1 and Part 2.] In Chapter Three, Bushman reviews the several meanings of the term "Zion" in LDS doctrine and thinking. The Mormon ...

posted 11:00:37pm Jul. 29, 2009 | read full post »

A statistical portrait of Mormons
The Pew Forum recently issued a detailed summary of survey information about Mormons gathered as part of a much larger survey of religious life in the United States. It is a very readable summary, noting that Mormons comprise 1.7% of adults in ...

posted 12:33:08pm Jul. 29, 2009 | read full post »

July 24th: Pioneer Day in Utah
July 24th is a state holiday in Utah, designated Pioneer Day. It commemorates the entry of the first wagon train of Mormons into the Salt Lake Valley in the summer of 1847. They came down Emigration Canyon, somewhat north of the present I-80 ...

posted 5:38:50pm Jul. 23, 2009 | read full post »

Finding heretics in strange places
A very interesting post at Mormon Matters, reviewing a 1989 book titled "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?" The book was written by an attorney who grew up a Jehovah's Witness, then became an Evangelical Christian. That lasted until he ...

posted 6:27:09pm Jul. 22, 2009 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.