Some Sanity on the LDS Prop 8 Effort

From a surprising source, Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic Online. After noting that roughly 40% of the Yes on 8 financing has come from LDS contributors, he notes, "It's all legal, and totally within their democratic rights." Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. He doesn't decry LDS participation in the campaign; he doesn't call for any efforts to harrass Mormons like the nutjobs over at Daily Kos; he doesn't try to identify and target individual LDS contributors like the people running and supporting the deceptively named Mormons for Proposition 8 site. He ends the short article with a simple suggestion that those who disagree with the LDS position donate to the No on 8 campaign. Bravo for a little online civility in this noisy election season.

Comments

[Jim Cobabe]

Dave,

People who can speak with civility deserve some credit, I suppose. Although good manners -- and common sense -- dictate that it ought to be the minimum standard for common discourse. If you have to resort to incivility, you have probably already lost that argument.

[Dan]

Jim,

If you have to resort to incivility, you have probably already lost that argument.

Good point. Like calling those at Daily Kos "nutjobs?" ;)

[Dave]

You're welcome to suggest another descriptive term, Dan.

[Scott]

Nutjob may not be the nicest term around, but it is far from the lower bounds that I've witnessed of late. But...two wrongs rarely ...you know...

[Dan]

Dave,

I think ignorant is a better term. The folks at Daily Kos are not nuts. They are quite cogent. I wrote a diary post trying to state my conflicted feelings about Prop 8, for example, and I got like 445 comments before I deleted the post. I was disappointed with most of the responses, many of whom called me a bigot for my views. It's not that they are nutjobs. It's that based on their accepted views the position of the church is intolerable.

[Dave]

Dan, were you the author of the Daily Kos post on Prop 8 that was pulled? See the reference to the post at ASA.

[Dan]

Dave,

Why yes, that was my post. :)

[Dan]

You should clarify over on A Soft Answer. Daily Kos did not remove that post. I did. I felt the comments got too far off track, and it wasn't a sensible debate. The feelings were just too raw.

[Dave]

Dan, your stock is rising.

[David H. Sundwall]

Dan,

I would appreciate it if you could clarify it at my blog, ASA.

I'm glad that they didn't censor you but it's too bad they couldn't debate the issue sensibly.

[Dan]

Dave,

I went over there and made the same comment I just made here.

[Chino Blanco]

Dan,

If that was your post, you should consider reposting it at one of the many other progressive blogs out there.

Daily Kos is not the place for reasoned discourse. It serves a valuable purpose, but for your purposes, I'd suggest you regroup and repost elsewhere.

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest either MyDD or Calitics. The siteowners at both those sites are deep into Prop 8 and the Mormon connection and would (mostly) welcome your input.

That said, do you really think gays aren't normal?

If not, says who? You?

[Justin]

Sullivan now cites a claim that 77% of the money is coming from Mormons.

And more from Sullivan.

[Chino Blanco]

Oh, and I'm sorry if that sounded belligerent.

But speaking of siteowners, the owner here is apparently too thick to realize that those of us pushing the "Mormons for Marriage Equality" meme are actually trying to do his church a favor.

[Dan]

Chino,

I've had reasonable debates on Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/5/94241/63519/708/215915

Take that one for instance. That was from 2006 when the debate was over the Constitutional amendment. Everybody's blood wasn't boiling quite like it is today.

The only reason I posted that anti-bigotry post at Daily Kos was because I was really bothered by some of the comments on this post

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/13/15450/000/1000/624465

which was written that day. Clearly emotions ran too high. That's why I deleted my post.

As to the normality or not of homosexuality, well, I don't think this is the best post to talk about that.

[Dave]

Chino, how stupid of me to not realize you are trying to do the Church a favor.

[Chino Blanco]

For what it's worth, Dave, it's not everyone who can step up and let loose with such an incriminating comment. It's OK, stupid or not, we still love you.

[Seth R.]

Chino, I have to admit that the suggestion that people go and harass Mormon donors in the campaign was really quite unhinged. I am opposed to Prop 8 and was actually fairly sympathetic to some of the discussion at Daily Kos on the issue. But you guys really jumped shark with that little piece of Chairman Mao-esque idiocy.

[Chino Blanco]

Seth, I agree with you about that dKos post. Then again, it was one post. And it's dKos. And it's the final weeks of the campaign.

Nobody checks in with me or the campaign before they hit the "publish" button over at dKos, so I'm not sure why you're lumping me in with a diarist who's a stranger to me and calling us "you guys" ...

By the way, I assume the Prop 8 blackmail letter story will be old news by the time this comment gets read. I'm just astonished.

[Martin Willey]

The SL Trib reports today that the Church has "immediately released" all Utah County members of the church "called" to work against Prop 8. Is the Church worried about tax exempt status? Worried that a bunch of calls from people from outside CA hurt the cause? Whatever the reason, it also qualifies as "Some Sanity on the LDS Prop 8 Effort."

[Seth R.]

Well, good to know you don't endorse it.

But I wouldn't count on the blackmail thing being old news just yet.

[Robert]

The Mormon church should be able to espouse their viewpoint, just like any other person or organization. They simply shouldn't have tax exempt status.

I personally can only hope that the church's position will cost it in terms of influence and membership going forward.

[Kate]

There are many churches involved in the coalition to restore the traditional definition of marriage -- not just Mormons.

The institution of marriage is not merely a political or social issue; rather, it has serious concequences for religious freedom and every individual's freedom of expression as it pertains to marriage and homosexual behaviors.

I think it behooves every church in this state to weigh in on this particular matter; if churches sit back and stand for nothing, they'll allow their memebers to be stripped of the freedom to believe and worship as they so choose, and in so doing fail to serve the people in their congregations.