Prop 8 passed. Hooray! But we haven't heard the last of it. In fact, it appears the persecution of Mormons for their support of Prop 8 is just beginning. There was a riot at the LA temple, and there will be another one tomorrow (Sunday) at the Oakland temple. The day before the election, an ad was released depicting two missionaries ransacking the home of a lesbian couple and stealing their marriage certificate.
I want to ask: who is the intolerant one? Consider:
Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of CA. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church donated whatever they felt like donating, in the interest of their doctrine regarding traditional marriage and family.
The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country. Should I remind you of the substantial donations of PG&E and the California Teachers Association to No on 8? (If Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools, as the No campaign claimed, then what business did the CTA have in donating a million dollars to oppose Prop 8?) The No campaign had the support of hot shot celebrities, government leaders, and politicians. They even got the attorney general to word the prop on the ballot in their favor, stating that Prop 8 would "eliminate the right" of same-sex couples to marry. And yet, they didn't win.
Aside: When was marriage declared a civil right anyway? The law is already discriminating when it comes to marriage. Minors can't marry. Siblings can't marry. Cousins can't marry. Pets and their owners can't marry. Those who are married can't marry additional spouses. These are limits society has agreed on. How is Prop 8 different?
Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported. In contrast, consider the aforementioned ad from the No campaign. This ad is completely dishonest and discriminatory. Had it attacked Jews or Muslims, it never would have aired.
The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious and non-religious organizations and individuals, including Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims...
Not all Mormons voted in favor of Prop 8. Our faith maintains that each person be allowed to choose for him or herself. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with civility, respect, and love, despite their differing views.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution itself. Even so, U.S. election law is clear that while churches may not endorse candidates, they may support issues. In the case of same-sex marriage, the real threat to individual rights (that are actually given by law in our Constitution) is the threat to those who preach traditional marriage in a religious setting. Those who supported Prop 8 only did what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they brought the issue to the ballot for the public to decide on, exercised their freedom of speech to defend their position on the issue, and then vote in the electoral process. To my knowledge, there was only honesty, respect, and forthrightness on the Yes side. In contrast, No supporters stole election signs out of yards (which are private property), vandalized church buildings, and personally labeled and attacked Yes supporters as being bigots, homophobes, and more.
The ironic thing is this: the hidden agenda of those who support same-sex marriage is not to support marriage at all. They want to water down the meaning, removing the desire for anyone to marry and make a family. This will break down the institution of the family and pave the way for the state to take its place as the basic unit of society. Contrary to contemporary views, the primary purpose of the divine institution of marriage is not to express adult desires, but to provide a home to which children will be born to and reared by parents who will care for, nurture, and love them. I don't care if you believe the human race was created by God or evolution--either way, this definition of marriage is what ensures not only the continuation of but also the flourishing of the human race. For now, at least, the majority of citizens consider the definition of marriage to be the same as it was since the beginning: one man and one woman.