The million-dollar donor against same-sex marriage: Updated
SUNDAY UPDATE: Half-truths and mistruths about adoption, field trips and church weddings: See today's editorial on Proposition 8.
The No on Proposition 8 campaign reports that it has obtained from campaign finance statements the name of a "secret million-dollar donor" to the Yes on 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage -- John Ashton of Utah, grandson of David O. McKay, who was president of the Mormon Church for nearly 20 years.
A week ago, the Yes on 8 campaign sent letters to businesses that had donated to the other side, to keep same-sex marriage legal in California, demanding that they donate an equal amount against gay marriage or the Yes campaign would "out" them. There are no reports that any businesses caved to this demand. The No campaign seems to have been wise enough not to seek a million bucks from Ashton.
* Photo by Ken Hively/LA Times
Rev Mel White speaks from a perspective more inline with the timing of the biblical references used by various religious groups.
Please see his link:
http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf
IMHO, The California Supreme court decision to give gays the right to marry does no harm to anyone or any religious group's beliefs.
I wish AG Jerry Brown a sucessful fight in his battle to overturn Prop 8.
There are major differences of RIGHTs for Married vs. Dosmetic Partnerships; see: http://tiny.cc/yhi7F
The first two lessons in the Bible are to #1 - obey God and #2 - to love thy neighbor as thyself.
How are the pro prop 8 religious groups abiding by the first two lessons if the details in the above link cannot be met?
socalrws
Posted by: socalrws | January 12, 2009 at 12:26 AM
The term "Homophobe" denotes :Fear Of" there is no "fear" of Homosexuals--there is a concern over a society that wants EVERYTHING---we have a society that has developed through what the writer calls "natural Progession" that is: over thousands of years of Human existence, man has become moreso heterosexual---with the only viable argument for human sex is the need for procreation--to say that, or even HINT that modern man cannot hope to progess without gays every where, is a reversal of this established norm.
Posted by: Richard | December 18, 2008 at 06:24 PM
What i feel is that they should given freedom to marry same sex
Posted by: minnesota drug rehab | November 22, 2008 at 06:22 AM
For those that wish to “outlaw” same sex marriage on Biblical grounds I have a few questions. Why is it that you do not support legislation that prohibits adultery? The Bible makes it clear that it is wrong and punishable by death. And why not push for laws that ban remarriage for those that have engaged in affairs and divorce? Talk about damage to American families. What has done more damage, gay marriages or marital unfaithfulness? The reason is simple. The laws would condemn half the congregation members that gather each Sunday. So instead, you select a group that by and large is not highly represented in your congregation and attack it. That is called discrimination and it is wrong...maybe even unbiblical.
Posted by: Steven Gray | November 20, 2008 at 12:55 PM
From Devin, if the law does not take into account people's religious values, it discriminates against them. So people must be able to force their religion on others through law, or religious people are victims of discrimination. I am curious how that works out when two different religions demand mutually exclusive laws. Also, I am curious how you are discriminated against, just because you cannot tell everyone else what to do.
From jon, same-sex marriage is responsible for global warming. Really? I am sure that every scientist who ever existed would have some comments for you.
From John, a country with an establishment clause and no religious test for office, founded by skeptics and atheists who at best humored the religious rabble, has Christian roots. Gays are responsible for "all these trageties [sic]," whatever that is supposed to mean. Also, John should learn how to spell and use correct grammar. Perhaps people who do not know how to spell, use grammar, or defend an argument, should not be allowed to get married. That would actually make more sense than prohibiting gay marriage: We don't want unintelligent people responsible for raising children, because the education of our precious children is so important.
Why can't you all have your religion in private and leave other people out of it? Are you that sick and insecure about your beliefs?
After all, the right to practice religion logically carries with it a prohibition on imposing religion on others. To see how that works, Prop. 8 proponents, pretend for a moment that you are not completely selfish: All people must be considered equally, such that every right you claim for yourself also must be claimed for every other person. Therefore, it is not possible to claim both a right to practice your religion (ergo claiming everyone's right to practice his or her religion) and claim a right to impose your religion on anyone else. Do you see how that works? It does involve a little bit of empathy for others, so I know it is hard.
Posted by: Luke | November 14, 2008 at 04:51 AM
This country is totally becpming sodom and gomora and I can't believed I served her for the immorallity that goes on around here, I can't even watch t.v. or listen to the radio because of all this crap, then you people want to know why all these trageties happen... Maybe if this county would go back to its Christian roots and obey God maybe this country will go forward in success instead of backward.
Posted by: John | November 13, 2008 at 09:01 PM
So what most of you are saying is, if a person subsribes to religious values, those values are meaningless before the law? How is this not counter-discriminatory? I would really like to know!
Posted by: Devin | November 05, 2008 at 01:35 PM
Having been raised Mormon, I'm well-versed in the teachings of the church. Yes, it is incorrect to say that the Mormons still practice polygamy-- they don't.
But it's also incorrect to say that Mormons aren't allowed to divorce and remarry -- they certainly do. In fact, the divorce rate in many parts of Utah EXCEEDS the national average.
It's a bit shocking to me that members of a church that was FOUNDED UPON NON-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE have now donated millions of dollars to ensure that marriage is defined as "one man, one woman."
And it's also a bit disgusting for me to get "yes on 8" emails from members of my own Mormon family who have been married and divorced MULTIPLE times. If THAT doesn't make a mockery of marriage, I don't know what does.
PROP 8 IS WRONG and is dangerous to our children and our community because it teaches us that it's okay to hate others and that there are different "categories" of people who should be treated according to their social inferiority.
Supporters of 8 are kidding themselves if they think gay marriage threatens the "moral" values of our society. It's kind of like saying that black people will contaminate the water of your swimming pool. If you really want to "protect" marriage, then OUTLAW DIVORCE.
May good vs. evil FINALLY win and may the voters of California defeat this hateful, divisive proposition.
God bless everyone -- especially the LGBT community and the Mormons who so "righteously" discriminate against them.
Posted by: Derrick | November 04, 2008 at 02:27 AM
See my post "A Shameful Waste of $25 Million that discusses this very issue. www.freedomminute.com
Posted by: Jay | November 03, 2008 at 07:01 AM
setting religions or sexes aside, same sex marriages should and must be banned..why?...because why should we contradict the law of nature...just look at what is happening now in this world...why are there climate change gearing at a fast rate...the flash floods...the glooming economic crisis - food shortages...it is all because of human neglect towards nature...man has the tendency to challenge nature but in reality we are at the losing end because we cannot win against nature...nature knows how to balance life and man most likely does not...the world is getting sicker by the day and if this world would be destroyed and if the human beings would be vanished, there's no other way to blame but humans themselves...we have to realize what's good for this world before its too late...lets not just give in what our sick mind dictates...
Posted by: jon | November 02, 2008 at 05:50 PM
Okay so the Christians and the Mormons have spent millions on Yes on 8. What about those who don't claim those religions, Hindus, Buddhist, Sikh, Zoroasters==where is their claim in all of this? I am tired of "Christians" making decisions for me. When did we become zombies being lead by big deep pockets? I am voting no on 8 because the constitution is fine as it is written.
Posted by: edns | November 02, 2008 at 05:33 PM
I lived in Colorado when religious political extremists, like former Californian James Dobson, tried to impose their will and force their narrow, divisive, and discriminatory beliefs into state (and national) politics. These folks are not in the mainstream of political thought or in the mainstream of the larger universe of people of faith. My own Christian faith gives me a profound commitment to fighting against discrimination, not legislating discrimination against unpopular minority communities.
The pro-Prop. 8 folks are a small, wealthy, and politically strategic group seeking to legislate discrimination and divisiveness for their own political gain. Colorado voters did not always see through this to reject these cynical efforts. I hope that Californians will see through it on Tuesday and Vote NO on Prop. 8.
Posted by: Will | November 02, 2008 at 12:47 PM
The Yes on 8 campaign is constantly trying to pull emotional strings by bringing up "the children." What children want is love and security. Same sex marriages can provide just as much love and security as opposite sex marriages. In fact, same sex marriage shows that they really want to have children because of the sexual dynamics. They have to plan in some way to have a family. As a teacher for 12 years I've seen hundreds of children from predominantly Christian homes that aren't always the best of environments. Even then you can't generalize because it's on a family by family basis. Martin Luther King, Jr wanted to be judged not by the color of his skin but on the content of his character. Change that to being gay (which is NOT a choice) and think about it again. Are we still going to be so backwards as to treat some Americans as second class citizens?
Posted by: Michael | November 02, 2008 at 10:59 AM
The Yes on 8 campaign is basically based on religious thought. I'm sorry but your religion has no place in our government. A majority doesn't make it right. A majority kept women from voting, kept black people from voting, and kept slavery. Live your religion in your home and your church and let it guide you in how you act in your daily life. Don't force your religious ideals on everybody else. They may not believe the same way you do. Gay marriage isn't forcing their ideals on you. They want to celebrate life and love together without bothering you. You have no right to say no to that, and especially based on religion. This country wasn't even founded as a Christian nation. Our Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians and had the wisdom to keep religion from meshing with government because they knew the dangers it poses. Let's keep things that way or we start going down the road of the countries who put women in jail as adulterers because they got raped. A vote for No on 8 is a vote for human rights.
Posted by: Michael | November 02, 2008 at 09:34 AM
To Presbyterians against Prop 8: You state that Mormons will not marry divorced people (my Mormon mother has been married 3 times in a Mormon church). That is false. It is also false that Mormons will not marry people of different faiths. In the public church buildings, any man and woman can be married by a Mormon bishop (and Mormons do not charge for the service). Prop 8 takes away the rights of our children to a father and mother. Is it legal to discriminate against them?
Posted by: Steve | November 02, 2008 at 08:02 AM
What did gay marriage change? Allowing gay marriage
discriminates against children because it takes away the right of children to have a father and mother. Are our children not important? This is a right that every gay person in this state had. It is impossible cannot be fair to everyone. In this case, the rights of all children should trump the rights of the few who want to marry. That is why I am voting Yes on 8. And, no one asks this question, but if we cannot discriminate against 2 people of any gender who want to marry, why can we discriminate against 3 or 4 consenting adults?
Posted by: SS | November 02, 2008 at 07:52 AM
Protect Domestic Partnerships! Yes on 8!!!
Marriage is a religious term. Take it out of politics, and send it back to its originators. I want my government to recognize my wife and I as domestic partners; my church as a married couple.
Protect Domestic Partnerships! Yes on 8!!!
Posted by: John | November 02, 2008 at 06:52 AM
I hope Mormons never have to try to persuade California voters to vote against a proposition that would prohibit them from getting married.
...but if they do, I'll vote against it.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | November 02, 2008 at 05:38 AM
Sarah Beth, what happened to separation of church and state? Or is that one of those constitutional nuisances your church ignores? The only "law" the California Supreme Court overturned was unconstitutional to begin with: An absence of equal rights under the law.
Why is it okay for your church to interfere in or try to unduly influence state matters but cry havoc when anyone attempts to delve into *your* affairs (like where all those tithings are going)...?
Posted by: Mike | November 02, 2008 at 02:35 AM
I find the argument of marriage as "biology" confusing. Marriage is a "social institution." It is not the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It was created by humans and therefore can be changed by humans.
Posted by: Christopher | November 02, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Making a strict Biblical argument in favor of Prop 8 is disingenuous, because the same standard is not applied to opposite-sex couples. Jesus says in Matthew that any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery thereby. And yet re-marriage is neither forbidden by the state, nor by most churches. Pretty unbiblical, that.
Further, people who argue that marriage reflects some "biological" imperative and is inextricably tied to the "furtherance of the species" (as though we're somehow in danger of not propagating enough) don't seem at all bothered by new marriages between elderly people, or between barren couples or those who have no intention of having children. Also, many same-sex couples are raising children right now. I know a couple well that is raising a special needs child who had no other prospects for adoption. Obviously, these "family-loving" pro-8 people figure that child doesn't deserve the stability that marriage can bring a home.
Lastly, I wonder what would have happened to the Mormons (or African Americans) if their access to equal rights were left up to popular vote. I daresay the Mormons would not have made it out of the midwest, and Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws would still be alive and well in the South.
Posted by: rhetoricus | November 01, 2008 at 11:58 PM
How sick is it for the religious right to exploit kids in their ads making it seem like murder because two consenting taxpaying Californians join in relationship under the State's seal? When has religion and government come together as one except maybe Iran, Saudi Arabia, or maybe the Taliban. Geeze, did we forget that we are in America? Marriage in the eyes of the government is a contract between two people and officially made certain that the spouse of that person will act his/her behalf when the spouse cannot...and inheritance is automatically protected for the spouse. Even in some religious organizations, same-sex marriage is recognized as two spirits joining as one and making a commitment to each other. It seems like there is this faction of extremist that just don't want others to share this life commitment of happiness. How disqusting is it that these Yes on 8 ads even take random children without the parents permission to ad these on national TV. Go to the No on 8 website and you will see where the parents had to demand the yes on 8 to take her children off it. Yes on 8 is nothing more than allowing Hate in the State. Same-sex marriage has been happening for months and the world didn't end. As a matter of fact, if you have seen any, I have to say, it does get pretty emotional...I mean, there is so much joy going on, you really can feel it. It truly is beautiful and I cannot imagine taking away this right from them and voting to discriminate. Above all, that I get to decide on my neighbor's relationship?...that is a pure sign that democracy is dead and we are no different than that of terrorist who dictate law because of their own religious beliefs regardless of anyone else. I will say NO TO HATE AND VOTE NO ON PROP 8
Posted by: Kurt | November 01, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Ms. Klein--
Lumping these two items together is a bit incongruous:
1) John Ashton, a member of the Mormon church, donated a million bucks to Prop 8.
2) The "Yes" campaign sent letters to "No" businesses demanding donations.
The second one sounds below-the-belt. It made me feel the way I felt when I heard that "No on 8" operatives were shouting epithets at Mormons arriving for temple worship in Oakland -- people with no connection to the proposition. These tactics aren't illegal, but they're scummy and dispiriting.
But Ashton's donation? That's a guy who made wheelbarrows full of money in the tech industry, and decided to give some of it to an important vote in a bellwether state. So what?
Your post seems to say: Check out the "Yes" campaign’s two shady developments. Maybe that's not the intent, but that's the effect. And to me, Ashton's donation doesn't deserve the implicit scorn.
Much has been made of the out-of-state "special interest groups" funding the "Yes on 8" campaign. But hasn't "No on 8" taken MORE out-of-state donations?
That's how it appears on "Tracking the Money," elsewhere on the LA Times site:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-moneymap,0,5374284.htmlstory
Posted by: Nate Palmer | November 01, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Another highly qualified teacher has helped make the case for prop 8 by inviting kindergarten students to become allies against discrimination. The vocabulary on the card would have been a mystery to 5 year olds so I'm sure there was ample classroom instruction to help students understand the difference between being an ally and an oppressor. The individuals who insist on imposing their views on the majority forfeit the trust they may feel they deserve. Unfortunately, this may have implications for others who have tried to be fair and have not denied parents the right to teach their children traditional values.
Posted by: Randy | November 01, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I keep hearing about good, moral principles. Why should religion get the final say on who can and can't get married? It's not for any of us to say what goes on for two people in love and committed to get married. Gay people don't want to redefine marriage. They just want to get married. To say they have all the rights and protections of a traditionally married couple is wrong. They don't have the recognition of marriage nor do they get the federal benefits of being married. Most cars say "Just married" for the couple that were wed that day. Under Prop 8 gay couples would only be able to say "Just civil unioned." It doesn't have the same ring or acceptance. Gay couples don't want to push it in your face. They want to get married. As for teaching in school, I've been teaching 12 years and marriage doesn't come up in our curriculum. Even then, our students should be taught about character and that all people should be treated equally. Otherwise we'll just keep up with the bully mentality that permeates our society. Our Supreme Court and those of Massachusetts and Connecticut were wise. Don't forget that the majority decision was not written by a liberal activist judge but was appointed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson. Two others in the majority were Republican appointees as well. We can't go on discriminating when people aren't hurting others. No on 8.
Posted by: Michael | November 01, 2008 at 10:17 PM