Thursday, March 12, 2009

Why Mormons Build Temples

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Outcome of Prop 8

It has been a week and a half since Proposition 8 passed and we won a resounding victory for marriage. Since then, the voters, volunteers and donors in support of Prop 8 have come under an unprecedented, vicious and outrageous assault.

The voters, who have twice passed propositions in favor of the definition of traditional marriage, have had their will disrespected by unruly protests and a series of lawsuits designed to overturn their vote.

But as bad as this has been, the most outrageous attacks have come against volunteers and donors who worked so hard to help us pass Proposition 8. Because we are required by law to report our donors’ names, occupations and employers with the Secretary of State, the opponents of marriage have been threatening boycotts and blacklisting of our donors. As noted below, some of our supporters have been forced to resign.

They have also defaced churches and in at least one case, attacked a woman who counter-protested a No on 8 rally.

We teach our children that getting involved in the political process, as a voter, volunteer, or donor, is a good thing. Civic involvement and participation in democracy is at the core of our nation’s most cherished freedoms. The unruly mob that has emerged out of the failed No on 8 campaign is attacking all of these freedoms and values.

The election for Proposition 8 was hard fought, but in the end, as before, traditional marriage won. That is our process in a democracy. As noted in the Sacramento Bee editorial below, (and remember the Bee was a strong No on 8 supporter) the other side has crossed the line of appropriate political discourse.

Tomorrow, we will begin to show just how outrageous the No on 8 street mob has become. In the meantime, we appreciate how hard you all worked to help us succeed, and the quiet dignity in which you have celebrated our victory. We assure you that we will vigorously defend our victory in the courts of law and the courts of common decency and respect for democracy.

In the meantime, here are some articles we thought you would like to read.


Jeff Flint
Campaign Manager
Yes on Proposition 8

Elton John: Heterosexual Couples Have Marriage, Same-Sex Couples Have Civil Partnerships

USA Today published an article yesterday in which Sir Elton John spoke about his position on Proposition 8. John clarified his position on Prop 8 while attending the annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation. He was accompanied by his longtime partner David Furnish, whom he joined in a civil union in 2005. John was quoted as saying, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."

John went on to emphasize that civil unions grant same-sex couples the same rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. He stated, "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership…the word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Sacramento Bee Editorial: No on 8 Supporters Cross the Line that Separates Civil Protest from Harassment

An editorial in the Sacramento Bee today takes a close look at the outrageous actions undertaken by many No on 8 supporters following the passage of Prop 8.

The editorial summarizes the opposition’s actions, citing that, “Angry opponents of Proposition 8 are targeting businesses and individuals who contributed money to the “yes” campaign. Vandals have hit churches that supported the initiative. Sparked by the speed and reach of the Internet, supporters of gay and lesbian rights are organizing protests from California to Salt Lake City, the home of the Mormon Church.”

And while the editorial takes a sympathetic approach to the opposition’s protests, saying their “charged reaction is understandable,” it does not justify that by “venting their anger and in exercising their right to challenge Proposition 8, some opponents risk crossing the line that separates civil protest from harassment. And by crossing that line, they undermine the message that some gay and lesbian leaders are trying to impart: that everyone's rights should be respected.”

The editorial went on to acknowledge that the No on 8 campaign has not adequately addressed the acts of violence and harassment undertaken by their supporters, saying that “a lone statement” on their Web site asking supporters to not isolate those who oppose their views is simply not enough.
Sacramento Musical Theatre Director Resigns Due to Harassment by No on 8 Supporters

Today the Sacramento Bee announced that Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned under pressure Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the Yes on 8 campaign. This kind of blacklisting shows that the No on 8 campaign, which claimed to be all about tolerance, is in fact a cauldron of intolerance and bigotry.
No on 8 Campaign in Turmoil During Last Weeks

Over the last week, details have emerged revealing that the No on 8 campaign was unorganized and for the most part, in a state of complete disarray. Key campaign staff, including the campaign manager, were replaced in the final weeks as it became apparent in polls that the Yes on 8 campaign was quickly gaining ground.

Their replacements sought to shift voter support for Prop 8 by pouring millions of dollars into television and radio buys aimed at convincing California voters that support for traditional marriage was the equivalent of Japanese internment camps. They went so far as to compare Yes on 8 voters to bigots.

They were ultimately stunned that California voters saw past their deceptive ads and voted to once again uphold the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. Ethnic communities, those who have truly been affected by civil rights issues, turned out to vote Yes – African Americans alone supported the measure by more than 2 to 1.

It is true that the Yes on 8 campaign ran a better campaign. We raised important issues, our messages appealed to voters and we had a volunteer army that was unprecedented in California history. But just as the best farmer cannot raise crops in the barren desert, our campaign, no matter how well run, could not have succeeded if there were not still a deep well of respect for the sacred institution of marriage. And for that, the voters in their wisdom deserve the credit.

Theater exec forced to resign b/c of contribution to Prop 8

I was surprised at just how far this is going and will continue to go to targeting individuals. (See previous posts about targeting mormons on prop 8)

Theater exec Eckern, caught in Prop. 8 flap, resigns

By Marcus Crowder
Published: Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008 Page 1A

Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California.

"I understand my supporting of Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal," Eckern said in a written statement. "I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved."

Richard Lewis, the executive producer of the California Musical Theatre, said he does not plan to immediately seek a replacement.

"We're not going to worry about having a so-called artistic director. That was a title specific to Scott," he said. "… I do need another No. 2, but in the interim, I think it will be a committee of my senior staff."

News of Eckern's campaign contribution, which popped up on Web sites following the passage of Proposition 8, quickly spread through an industry that has long advocated for gays on rights and health issues. It was met with shock, disbelief and ultimately anger.

Eckern's duties as artistic director include helping select touring productions and creating the annual Music Circus season. He also was responsible for Music Circus casting.

Los Angeles-based and Tony Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman ("Hairspray") wrote a blog saying he would never allow any of his shows to again be licensed or performed by California Musical Theatre while Eckern was employed there.

Despite support from many in the local community who valued his contributions and championed his right to free speech, Eckern decided he could no longer be effective as the creative force behind the area's largest producing and presenting performing arts organization.

Lewis, who is also chief executive of California Musical Theatre, accepted Eckern's resignation but said he exerted no influence over it.

"Scott made a decision, and he informed us of the decision," Lewis said. "He sent his release around to the press, which we knew would happen, and we wanted to make a statement as well. We want to make sure the public understands that I didn't put any pressure on Scott and nor did anybody else."

In his statement, Eckern, who is a Mormon, said, "I am leaving California Musical Theatre after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theater-going and creative community."

Mormon church leaders supported Proposition 8 and encouraged members to contribute time and resources to its passage.

Eckern became interested in the Mormon faith as an undergraduate at University of California, Santa Barbara. In 1983, he received a master's of fine arts degree in acting from Brigham Young University.

He eventually landed a position teaching theater at the University of the Pacific. Eckern and wife, Paula, have three children. In an apology he issued earlier this week, he noted that he has a sister who is a lesbian, and that he loves and supports her.

Eckern, 50, had been with California Musical Theatre for 25 years, working his way up from a summer intern coordinator to becoming the assistant to Leland Ball, then the company's producing director.

In 2002, when Ball stepped down, Eckern became artistic director of CMT and Lewis became executive producer, splitting Ball's former responsibilities. Eckern also held the title of chief operating officer.

It was Eckern's dream job and, by all accounts, he did it well, helping to cement the organization's reputation as a progressive, accessible, artist-friendly organization. It produces the Music Circus, presents Broadway Sacramento, and recently opened "Forever Plaid" at the capital's newest performing venue, the Cosmopolitan Cabaret.

Ball, who over the past couple of days has talked to both Eckern and Lewis from his home in New York, expressed appreciation for Eckern and regret over his circumstances.

"The theater has had such an overwhelmingly positive reputation among artists as a welcoming place to work. And he was at the center of that," Ball said. "He was the camp counselor and cheerleader out there. He's given a lot of blood to that theater."

Although many contacted by The Bee disagreed with Eckern's stance on Proposition 8, they lauded his artistic contributions.

Adrienne Sher, who worked with Eckern for seven years on the League of Sacramento Theaters board, said she was inconsolable.

"He's done more for theater here than anybody. He was the League," Sher said. " … He struggled morally over every issue that came up. I think he's a hero, and I'm just crushed that this has happened."

"I am stunned that this happened," said Stephanie Gularte, artistic director of Capital Stage. "I don't feel anger or hostility to either side, but I do feel great sadness and I think the Sacramento theater community has lost an important leader."

Added Buck Busfield of the B Street Theatre: "We know that every political and social movement has casualties, and it's really sad that it should be Scott, who is such an incredibly, decent talented man and a friend of ours."

Busfield used a theatrical allusion to sum up the conflict: "You want your villains to be villains, and Scott's not that."

Monday, November 10, 2008

Proposition 8 Passes

Proposition 8 passed by a majority vote of California voters. However, with the passing of the proposition our particular religion has been singled out by many of those opposing traditional marriage. Although I could post a lot of different articles about the persecution the Mormons have been receiving, I chose the one below because I thought it was a nice summary of what has been occuring.

In the Face of Hatred: By Paul Bishop

It has been an interesting week.

The Chinese homily, “May you live in interesting times,” has its roots in a curse, not a blessing.

As I said, it has been an interesting week.

The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 (the proposed amendment to the California constitution defining marriage to be strictly between a man and a woman) built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday's election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8's slim passage into law.

I am a Los Angeles Police Department detective supervisor running a sex crimes unit covering the western quarter of the city, which also includes the area where the Los Angeles temple is located. I have a fantastic crew of 20 detectives who are an amazing mixture of races and sexes. I have several detectives who are openly gay or lesbian. This orientation has nothing to do with their efficiency as investigators. I deeply respect and like these individuals. I enjoy working with them. My life is often in their hands when we serve high risk search or arrest warrants. I trust them implicitly.

Obviously, the types of crimes we investigate bring us into regular contact with victims who are of an alternative lifestyle orientation. It is incumbent upon us that our compassion for these victims be no less than for victims who are heterosexual.

Hard Choices

Working in such an environment, I found taking a position on Proposition 8 to be difficult. Even though I chose to follow the direction of our Church leaders in my voting decision, it was extremely hard for me to place myself on the line when it came to actively working to ensure the passage of Proposition 8.

Still, I watched in amazement as my fellow ward and stake members worked tirelessly, committing themselves full-heartedly to the cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage. Their faith strengthened mine, and I committed to participate in a sign waving public rally sponsored by our stake to be held at a local intersection.

By following through on this commitment, I found I had a greater stake in the battle than I had ever thought. I learned a number of hard and harsh lessons. And in the events following the election and passage of Proposition 8, I felt great anguish forcing me to drop to my knees in prayer – eventually coming to a more personal understanding of the Love of Christ and what he expects from me.

During the Proposition 8 rally, as I stood with my wife and friends waving Yes On 8 signs and waving to the passing rush hour traffic, I learned several things. I learned supporters of both Yes On 8 and No On 8 liked to honk their horns. I learned the way to tell the difference is the No On 8 supporters usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb.

I learned when we didn't engage in argument with the No On 8 supporters who intermingled with us in the intersection, they became enraged, red faced, and fit to burst.

I have no doubt Yes On 8 supporters both from our church and other churches engaged at some point in the shouting matches during the numerous rallies and demonstrations across the state. However, on the evening of my participation, I was amazed by the cool and non-confrontational way the Yes On 8 supporters conducted themselves.

I learned at the rally several of our ward members had received hate mail after their names, religious affiliation, contribution mounts, and addresses were published on a website inciting No On 8 supporters to target the listed individuals. Their houses and cars had been vandalized, their campaign support signs stolen, and opposition signs planted in their place.

When I returned home after the rally, I had a huge headache and my stomach was in knots. I am not a fan of confrontation, and the noise of the horn honking, both pro and con, and the divisive atmosphere inherent in the volatile situation had taken its toll. Still, after praying with my wife, I felt calmer and was pleased we had chosen to participate. While our efforts were miniscule compared to the hours of service to the cause provided by others, we had at least jumped down from the fence and done something.

Then I saw the latest No On 8 television commercial.


Supposedly produced by an independent group not affiliated with the official No On 8 campaign, the thirty second commercial spot shows two scruffy male white actors portraying Mormon missionaries who force their way into the well-kept home of a married lesbian couple.

“Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” one says.

“We're here to take away your rights,” says his companion.

The missionaries then rip the wedding rings from the women's fingers and ransack the house until they find the women's marriage license, which they destroy.

“Hey, we have rights,” one of the women says.

“Not if we can help it,” answers a missionary.

Moving outside the residence, one of the missionaries smugly says, “That was easy.”

Flexing his muscles, his companion asks, “What do we want to ban next?”

While I was appalled by the commercial, I was even more appalled both MSNBC and The Comedy Channel happily took money to broadcast this overtly hate filled vignette. I cannot imagine a similar commercial, targeted at any other religious or racial group, not being considered a hate crime with a civic outcry for prosecution.

My hackles were beginning to rise in a distinctly unchristian way. However, the fun was just beginning.

Election Day And Aftermath

Election day in California saw numerous No On 8 activists distributing literature and vocalizing at polling sites in clear violation of election laws. Police were called, 100 yard distances from the polling places were paced off, yet the agitation continued.

Despite these efforts, Proposition 8 obtained a slim majority (52.5% to 47.5%). Exit polls showed the proposition was supported by 7 of 10 Black voters, a majority of Latino voters, and by people with children under the age of 18 still at home. Clearly, it was supported by all people who believed marriage is a special and protected institution.

The day after the election, spontaneous protests sprung up in West Hollywood – a small residential community, with a large gay and lesbian population, located within Los Angeles County , but just outside Los Angeles city borders. The protests did not have a particular focus or target other than outrage as they strayed outside the confines of West Hollywood and into Beverly Hills , Hollywood , and West Los Angeles . Several arrests were made, but the seething anger at the passage of Proposition 8 was not dampened.

On Thursday, however, two days after the election, rumors began to be picked up by LAPD of a large protest organized by gay and lesbian activists and their supporters to be staged outside the Los Angeles LDS temple on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Los Angeles.

LAPD has 22 geographic Areas divided between 4 administrative Bureaus . My investigative unit is attached to Operations-West Bureau – which has responsibility for the area where the Los Angeles temple grounds are located. We operate out of a squadroom across from the Bureau's administrative offices. In such proximity, I was in a position to observe the command post set up in the Bureau offices to monitor the actions of the field command post charged with keeping the already illegal (no permits) protest peaceful.

What I learned by watching and listening shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. During my 30+ year tenure, the LAPD as an organization has made great professional strides in the internal battle against sexual harassment, sexual orientation harassment, and racism. While there are still those in civil liberty organizations who contest we are still guilty of racially profiling on the streets (difficult to imagine when our department is so thoroughly integrated at this point in time), organizationally there is little or no tension remaining in these areas.

In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple. Imagine my surprise, when angry protestors began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, “I hope they burn that place to the ground.”

Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, “They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all.”

Really? My temple recommend must not be of a high enough clearance to get me into that part of the temple.

I'm now doing a slow burn. Not only am I watching a sacred building under siege from 2,500 angry people shouting, “ SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND HATE,” and carrying signs proclaiming MORMON HATERS and LOVE NOT HATE, I'm listening to other police officers who agree with the protestors or have the most imaginative fantasies about blood atonement armies hidden under the temple (exactly how do we feed them, drill them, get them in and out without anybody seeing, or are they all in a state of suspended animation until needed?).

I want to emphasize these were not officers or detectives from my own unit – who are all aware of my Mormon faith. Those in my unit who disagree with me over this issue are respectfully tolerant, as I am respectfully tolerant of their opposite beliefs. Tolerance, as Orson Scott Card recently pointed out, is indicative of disagreement. It is not a battle we choose to fight amongst ourselves. Most of us have known each other for a long time and are either embracing of, or oblivious to, our differences – divisiveness has no place in the types of investigations we conduct.

The Mob

The worst, however, was yet to come. The temple presidency made a decision to close the temple for the evening. The right decision, but since when do we as Americans stand by – no matter what our religion – while access to a place of worship is forced to close down because of aggressive outside influences?

The late local news showed scenes of several Hispanic females in tears outside the temple trying to remove the signs desecrating the walls and fences surrounding the temple. As these individuals – who according to a temple spokesperson were not church members – removed the hate-filled signs, the mob exploded and began beating the individuals to the ground. Police intervened and arrests were made, but the fact this was allowed to happen at all was appalling.

Other supporters of Yes On 8 drove slowly by the protestors with Yes On 8 signs attached to their cars and pickups sparking other violent confrontations.

A friend of mine, watching the same scenes play out on the television, called and said he felt like he wanted to go down to the temple with a baseball bat and begin swinging at the demonstrators. I must admit, the natural man in me agreed.

In actuality, the scenes on the television, literally drove me to my knees in prayer for the safety of the temple, the members, and our church. A lesson I have learned several times before, caused me to expand my prayers to include those who were opposing us for they are not our enemies – they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Appropriate Response

In the face of hatred, how are we to feel about this focused attack upon our church? An attack launched not because we are the only supporters of Proposition 8, but because we have been the most visible and financially supportive entity in the battle. We are an easy target.

In a recent article on Christian Courage , Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote, “I would say that one of mortality's great tests comes when our beliefs are questioned or criticized. In such moments, we may want to respond aggressively – to put up our dukes . But these are important opportunities to step back, pray, and follow the Savior's example. Remember, Jesus Himself was despised and rejected by the world. And in Lehi's dream, those coming to the Savior also endured ‘mocking and pointing … fingers' (1 Nephi 8:27). ‘The world hath hated [my disciples],' Jesus said, ‘because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world' (John 17:14). But when we respond to our accusers as the Savior did, we not only become more Christlike, we invite others to feel His love and follow Him as well.

“To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula. The Savior responded differently in every situation. When He was confronted by wicked King Herod, He remained silent. When He stood before Pilate, He bore a simple and powerful testimony of His divinity and purpose. Facing the moneychangers who were defiling the temple, He exercised His divine responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred. Lifted up upon a cross, He uttered the incomparable Christian response: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34).”

We have often been instructed to love our enemies, and despite the current horror of our trials, this is no time to do differently.

As I write this (Friday, November 7, 2008), plans are being made by the LAPD to respond to another larger protest/demonstration being planned by No On 8 supporters to be staged in front of the Los Angeles temple on Saturday.

This is interesting since Saturday is my stake's day in the temple. For some weeks now, we have been encouraging families to come together to the temple on Saturday to participate in ordinances.

How do we respond to hatred disguised by the adversary as tolerance? Our stake president has talked to the temple presidency who has assured him the temple will be open for business as usual. There are eight weddings scheduled on the grounds. Will we be able to get to the temple without being molested or our vehicles vandalized? We must place our faith in the Lord and proceed.

Challenges to our faith are not new. Nor are they likely to go away anytime soon. But, as Elder Hales reminds us, “True disciples of Christ see opportunity in the midst of opposition. We can take advantage of such opportunities in many ways: a kind letter to the editor, a conversation with a friend, a comment on a blog, or a reassuring word to one who has made a disparaging comment. We can answer with love those who have been influenced by misinformation and prejudice – who are ‘kept from the truth because they know not where to find it' (D&C 123:12). I assure you that to answer our accusers in this way is never weakness. It is Christian courage in action.”

Lessons Learned

Clearly there are lessons to be learned from the current unrest:

Tolerance is not agreement and should not be a one way street. However, we must still remain tolerant of those who are intolerant of us.

Recognize the adversary at work here – making good seem bad and evil seem good.

We can only be disciples of Christ when we respond to adversity in a Christlike manner. To do less opens our actions to the influence of the adversary and hurts us even more.

We should never take for granted the opportunities we have to gather together in worship. We should never put off the opportunity to attend the temple. For these valuable things can be disrupted and possibly even closed to us – if not permanently, then at least on a temporary basis.

Pray. Often. Don't forget to include those who are set against you.

And finally, have no doubt President Monson knows where all of this is leading. He will surely reveal the knowledge to us on the Lord's timetable. Meanwhile, we must support and trust him, his inspired councilors, and our inspired local leaders in our actions. Their actions of Christian courage will be our examples.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Looking Good for Traditional Marriage

With 95% of precincts counted 52.1% of voters said Yes to Prop 8 and keeping marriage between a man and a woman while 47.9% voted No. It is still close but it is looking very good for supporters of prop 8.

Similar amendments to the Constitutions of Arizona and Florida also passed.

Thank you everyone for your support, faith and prayers. This is such an important issue and we are grateful for our right as citizens to support causes we believe in.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Voting YES on Prop 8 is NOT about Hate.

We urge you to begin by reading the dissenting opinion by Justice Baxter regarding the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage by clicking here. By beginning with this legal document, we hope that people can begin to study the issue for themselves, and take consideration that there are many other very justifiable reasons for voting Yes on 8 than simply out of discrimination. This California ruling was huge, it was serious, and it is not as simple and clear cut as an issue of denying people rights, as the No campaign would like you to believe. This ruling is complex and controversial, and we urge everyone to vote in accordance with what they believe based on their own morals, beliefs, and respect for the judicial system.

With all that is being said about Proposition 8, many still do not understand why we are voting YES to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. While there are many other websites out there that lay out in much more detail the issues and ramifications at hand (see ), this website is meant to address the issue that claims if we vote Yes on Prop 8, then we must be hateful and intolerant.

Is this true? Are we fearful homophobics? Are we bitter Christians who are trying to impose our doctrines on others? Are we narrow-minded bigots who are simply discriminating against gay people? Are we on a crusade to attack and oppress the equal rights of our brothers and sisters to live their lives the way they want?

The simple answer is an emphatic "No."

The more complex answer can be found within this simple website, a collection of words and thoughts from other liberals who have a deep desire to continue to preach and practice according to our own moral convictions, while also having a great love for all those who live alternative to our own personal convictions. Yes, there are those out there who will be voting Yes on 8 because they are bigoted, because they are fearful, and because they think that they have the right to judge and condemn others. And we do not associate with them and their purposes. No one should ever use fear, hatred, or intolerance to support their religious or political beliefs. Instead, this website is here to explain how voting YES on Proposition 8 is not about stopping individuals from forming relationships and bonds with those whom they love of their same gender. It is not about taking away people's rights. It is not about playing moral police. It is not even about whether the homosexual lifestyle is right or wrong.

Proposition 8 is not about the moral argument of homosexuality. It is about the actual definition of the word "marriage" and the effect this has on the freedom of religion. It is also about the basis the Courts used to come to their conclusion to legalize gay marriage, and the shaky ground that was tread in coming to this determination--ground that is completely different than all other rulings on this issue that have thus occurred in every other state in the union. It is about preserving tolerance for religious freedoms to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

If gay couples establish partnerships, does that threaten the ability of others to continue to teach according to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman? Will the heterosexual marriages suddenly crumble and the children be turned to the streets in a mass demolition exodus? No. Of course not.

But does changing the definition of the word "marriage" to include these homosexual relationships threaten the ability of others to continue to teach and practice according to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman? Yes.

Could our freedom of religion be threatened? Surprisingly, yes.

When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, the judges there came to that determination by reviewing the case on a standard of rational basis. When the judges here in California legalized gay marriage, they came to that determination by reviewing the case on a standard of strict scrutiny, giving acknowledgement and classification of the homosexual lifestyle as a "suspect class." This is quite different than how ANY other states have ever ruled on the issue, including Massachusetts. This classification is not about anti-discrimination laws that already exist, rather it is about giving state-sanctioned protection to the the legal right that gays have to enter into marriage.

The legal ramifications of classifying homosexuals as a "suspect class" will be unprecedented as no other state in the United States of America has ever given this type of determination regarding gay marriage, and the decision to do so was highly controversial, even among the judges. Court decisions are never made in a vacuum. With this new determination by our Supreme Court, there now opens many new doors of cases that will build upon this one, and use the language and determinations of this ruling to support future rulings. Because the State has now considered it a civil right for the definition of marriage to be altered in order to suit same gender couples, there is now a very real threat to the ability of churches to continue to teach in accordance with their beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. Think that's not true? How long will the State continue to allow churches to teach and practice what basically amounts to discrimination against a protected class of people in the eyes of the law? What we are taking issue here with is the ramifications of changing the definition of the word "marriage." It could have greater consequences on religious freedom than many people can now recognize.

We support the civil rights of homosexual couples to engage in domestic partnerships and receive all the same legal and civil rights as heterosexual couples. Even though we may morally disagree with that lifestyle, we do not have the right to impose our beliefs on others. But changing the term "marriage" to also encompass homosexual unions will take away from our right to believe what we believe that marriage truly is. This issue isn't about bigotry. It is about allowing people to have the freedom to practice and adhere to their religious and moral beliefs without being labeled intolerant. It is about giving religions the same tolerance that our homosexual brothers and sisters desire--the freedom to practice what we believe without the State telling us that we are wrong. It is about being able to love our brothers and sisters who have same-gender attractions, while at the same time expressing why that doesn't mean we have to be forced to accept their moral lifestyle. Don't we have this right?
If changing the marriage laws did not interfere with our ability to teach and practice the things we hold sacred, we would not be pushing so much to support it. It's not the rights of gay people that we have a problem with. It is the infringement on our rights and the labeling of our beliefs as discrimination that is bringing this to the forefront. Having a difference of opinion is not discrimination. Having beliefs that are contrary to another's is not discrimination. Being forced to adhere to a system that is in opposition to our beliefs is discrimination.

We invite all visitors to step beyond the hype and the rhetoric and the anger and the uproar and the accusations that are surrounding this very important issue. Listen and understand why we love all of our brothers and sisters and completely support their free moral agency to live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciences, but why Proposition 8 interferes with our right to do the same.

We invite you to read the statements below, and ponder what you believe about a democratic society that includes tolerance for religious beliefs as well. If anything, we at least ask that you understand where we are coming from, and that we are not hateful or intolerant, and that it hurts us to be labeled as such. There is no difference in the love that I have for my gay friends compared to anyone else, and I hate to think that some person would call me a bigot and have my personal beliefs ruled "hate speech". We invite you to shun the hateful words of those who may also support Prop 8 but who do so in the wrong spirit, and to remember that it is they who are misguided, not this Proposition. When you go to the polls on November 4, remember that Proposition 8 is NOT about hate.
Disagreeing is not Discriminating.

No on Hate.
Yes on Prop 8.