If you have ever wanted to know who is working to deny LGBT people their rights and how they are doing it, 8: The Mormon Proposition is worth seeing. 
[Website]

It's about Prop 8 in California and how the Mormons poured money into anti same sex marriage campaigns to work to change the California constitution.  You will be shocked at the extent they go to in order to force their beliefs on everyone else. 

Imagine what they have spent or will spend fighting ENDA.

QuoteImagine what they have spent or will spend fighting ENDA.

Imagine if they actually did do God's work and promote equality under the law.  Oh wait we are talking about the Mormons.  *Personal opinion withheld *

QuoteSpokesperson: They are the greatest threat to America.
interviewer: who the Gays?
Spokesperson: Yes

He was half right,  The Mormons are the greatest threat to America.

One of my fears is that some day the Mormons and the other christofacists will take over the country via revolution.
If that happens we (LGBT) will be hunted down and exterminated in the name of rightousness.
Makes me silently hope there is a Christian Hell. There will be alot of christians down there should it be real.

I first read about this in an article in TimeOut Chicago.
8 Is Enough

From the article:
In 1996, Hawaii becomes the first state to declare limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples unconstitutional. According to Karger's papers, the Mormon church is already on the offense. It conducts a public-opinion survey and learns it has a low favorability rating in Hawaii. So it forms a partnership with the Catholic Church and creates a coalition called Hawaii's Future Today, fronted by a young mother, which funnels $1.25 million toward amending the state's constitution. The successful strategy is used again in California in 2007, when the Mormon church forms the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to lobby for the passage of Prop 8

They find out they aren't well liked in Hawaii so they make up some organization, use a young mother as their front woman and pour $1.25M into a campaign to overturn the 1996 ruling on same sex marriage. It works so they do the same thing in California. These people are devious AND dangerous!

"Mormons make up 2% of Californians but represented over 71% of the contributions for Prop 8."

I thought religion was about god, not money.

It becomes available on DVD next month, I look forward to seeing it, has been saved in my netflix queue for months.

Z

Quote from: Julie Marie on June 22, 2010, 09:02:20 AM
These people are devious AND dangerous![/font][/color]

"Mormons make up 2% of Californians but represented over 71% of the contributions for Prop 8."

Yup, so much for the 9th Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"


Dawn

---

Post Merge: June 22, 2010, 12:29:27 PM

---

Quote from: cynthialee on June 22, 2010, 08:20:22 AM
One of my fears is that some day the Mormons and the other christofacists will take over the country via revolution.
If that happens we (LGBT) will be hunted down and exterminated in the name of rightousness.
Makes me silently hope there is a Christian Hell. There will be alot of christians down there should it be real.

Let 'em begin the hunt. I'm not a bad shot myself! They need to remember, bullets can fly both directions!

Dawn

I hate it when people use religion to justify discrimination and pretend that they have the ultimate authority to define who gets rights and who doesn't. Sounds like they are playing God to me.

Quote from: Dawn D. on June 22, 2010, 12:25:38 PM
Yup, so much for the 9th Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

Dawn

Sadly, for all their claims, these people are not Christians. Even more so than the SBU and their ilk.

They have their own book and suppliment this with their leader who they claim gets messages from god and speaks these.

I should add that, here in Europe, the separation of Church and state that the US constitution offered was initially welcomed. But like every revolution that has ever occured, the end result has been somewhat worse than what they sought to eliminate.

Ours is a gradual, developmental approach. We seem to have put these religions into the context they deserve.

Quote from: spacial on June 22, 2010, 12:58:15 PM
I should add that, here in Europe, the separation of Church and state that the US constitution offered was initially welcomed. But like every revolution that has ever occured, the end result has been somewhat worse than what they sought to eliminate

This would be, that the original reasoning behind "freedom of religion" was to escape the fundamental nut jobs that were running around the Middle East and Europe putting people to death for what? Being questioning and different!

And, now we come full circle here at home in the U.S. (as well, in some other parts of the world) with those whom have forgotten the very purpose of the principle intended and returned to the controlling, discriminatory and oppressive tendencies that derive from people who wish to do so. All in the name of salvation and righteousness.

Dawn 

The problem in the US is the combination of the official recognition of religion in the form of tax breaks and other protections combined with the intentional exclusion from schools.

The first is empowering. The Mormons and others can deliver huge amounts of cash because of it.

The second has been used and misrepresented as an attack on the welfare of children, which needs to be defended. Hence their excuse for taking radical political stances.

But the reality is, most of these so called religious groups are political and simply using the liberities granted to religion as an excuse.

It has often been said that America's greatest enemy is itself. That when America does collapse, it will be from within.

You are saddled with a constitution that itself, has taken on religious importance and significance. These religious types will often and deliberately exclude those parts of the Bible they find inconvienent. Not killing for example.

Yet the constitution is held to be absolutely sacrosanct, even when the wording is either embiguous or clearly different from the general interpertation. The second Ammendment for example.

But you are all saddled with it, in its entirety.

Dang!!! I need new glasses... I thought it said "The Mormon Prostitution"

spacial:

Quote from: The United States Constitution Online The Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Pretty well self explanatory to me.  It establishes a regulated army of citizen solders, aka The National Guard..  And it also establishes the fact that we have the right to keep and carry weapons.  Both of these are for the defense of the United States.

But most important is the First Amendment.

Quote from: The United States Constitution Online The First AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While there is no Official religion in the United States, which we all know is unofficially Christianity, there is nothing stopping the LGBT community from forming their own religion and get the same benefits that the Mormons get.

Maybe it is because I am American and I have been taught the Constitution that I know it and understand it.

QuoteIt has often been said that America's greatest enemy is itself. That when America does collapse, it will be from within

It may well be that we are our own greatest enemy   But Even Marx was surprised when the US did not have a revolution to adopted Communism.  But if America does collapse, another democracy shall raise from the ashes.

Quote from: spacial on June 22, 2010, 04:14:26 PM
The problem in the US is the combination of the official recognition of religion in the form of tax breaks and other protections combined with the intentional exclusion from schools.

Hi Spacial!

I hope you don't mind, I would like to address your comments quoted above. Just so that you are assured, what I say in disagreement or clarification to parts of your last post, is done so with the utmost of respect.

First. Problems? Oh yeah, we have lots of those. LOL.

With respect to recognition in our tax code regarding religion; of what ever qualifies under those codes as a religion, and the tax breaks accord them. I feel that if they are removed from said codes (and I actually support this cause), then also any other entity that operates as a tax exempt organization under the U.S. tax code, who uses that organization in a political manner should likewise be removed from tax exempt status, post haste!

QuoteThe first is empowering. The Mormons and others can deliver huge amounts of cash because of it.

Having come from a background within the Mormon Church and having a vague understanding of the financial obligations expected of the Mormon faithful, I'm pretty sure, tax exempt or not, the Mormon church among a number of other denominations would still have plenty of cash available to them to support the causes they do.

QuoteThe second has been used and misrepresented as an attack on the welfare of children, which needs to be defended. Hence their excuse for taking radical political stances.

Of course, they always want to throw the "children" out there in your face demanding protection for them based upon their interpretation and misgivings for whatever the issue. It's a typical scare tactic that becomes an effective emotional political tool toward the argument in vogue at the time. It's nearly always repulsive when it occurs and in regards to our situations and the same sex marriage issue, we know this is a red herring. However, it seems that is the last ditch effort they run to when they have no real, valid evidence to offer in support of their position.

QuoteIt has often been said that America's greatest enemy is itself. That when America does collapse, it will be from within.

I'm sorry, I cannot agree that America's greatest enemy is itself. That position would be the antithesis of the same position that these religious wacko's feel that we represent to and within this country. Instead, as the "great melting pot" that we are, there is going to be disagreement and there is going to be some ugliness to our process. However, if our system was more of a threat to itself from within, then we would have never reached the milestones we have. Such as the successful end to our own civil war in 1865. As close as that event was to the point you raise, it still did not destroy us as a nation. Nor our constitutional system. One hundred years after that event we achieved the 1964 Civil Rights Act which equalized our voting system and effectively ended racial segregation. Was it perfect? No, far from it. But, here is the beauty of our system. We can change what needs to be changed for the betterment of those who are oppressed if the will is there to do so. And, if our politicians don't respond to our will as a people, we can give them a new mailing address in November!

QuoteYou are saddled with a constitution that itself, has taken on religious importance and significance. These religious types will often and deliberately exclude those parts of the Bible they find inconvienent. Not killing for example.

"Saddled with a constitution"? I can't agree with that assessment. I think we are lucky and fortunate that we have the constitution that we do. I am maybe one of that few "conservatives" that feel that our constitution is a living, breathing document; as is so often a thought laid at the feet of "liberals" in their beliefs about our constitution. What's wrong with it being thought of this way? If it is not a living, breathing document then our founders should never have placed within it a method of adding to it or deleting from it as our needs in society dictate!

As for the religious elements wrapping themselves within it. Yes, I agree that they do pick and chose their parts of it and those parts within the Bible that suit their own benefit and convenient interpretations. I just think we need to call them on every single one of their self-empowering misinterpretations that we find them gripping to in their fear based false theories and accusations.

QuoteYet the constitution is held to be absolutely sacrosanct, even when the wording is either embiguous or clearly different from the general interpertation. The second Ammendment for example.

As for the Second Amendment. It's been, and is getting even more settled in our court system by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that it means what it says and has been interpreted as meaning for the last 220+ years. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. 

Again, Spacial. No disrespect is intended nor arrogance meant to fly against the opinions you've offered. I value your thoughts as much as any other person out there! I just have rather strong pro-U.S. Constitution opinions.


Dawn   

---

Post Merge: June 22, 2010, 06:57:48 PM

---

Quote from: Janet Lynn on June 22, 2010, 05:19:30 PM

But most important is the First Amendment.

While there is no Official religion in the United States, which we all know is unofficially Christianity, there is nothing stopping the LGBT community from forming their own religion and get the same benefits that the Mormons get.

Janet, please correct me if I'm wrong about what you meant. However, when we refer to our country as a "christian nation" or the official, unofficial religion is Christianity in America, I get a bit tense. Usually I respond that way when I hear the likes of Sean Hannity on Fox or some other individual make such a statement, as though it were actually written into the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution. I don't think that is what you meant though. And, I apologize in advance for placing your name and that of the likes of Hannity in the same paragraph, lol. Believe me, I have much more respect for you than I will ever have for him!

Back to my point. There is plenty of evidence that supports the truth that this country was never founded as a "Christian" nation. Nor intended to be thought of as such. In 1791 George Washington negotiated and signed a treaty with then Tripoli (now Libya) in North Africa. In that treaty it states very clearly that, "As the government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,......". That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and even Abraham Lincoln, they all have made public comments and declarations about the miss-assumed intent or idea of Christianity being somehow thought of as a foundation of our government and the pitfalls associated with that premise.

Dawn

I really didn't mean to open any cans of worms here.

I was attempting to suggest that the very different cultural and social developemnt between Europe and the US is based upon the gradual development and change in constitutional practice in Europe. Whereas, the continual reference to the constitution and its intention is a benchmark in the US which tends to make change difficult.

The relative power of religious organisations in the US is a case in point. Having been constitutionally excluded from government, while having constitutional legitmacy, they have ended with more legislative influence than most other interst groups in the US. This level of influence is seen frequently as rather alarming by many here.

I appreciate the second ammendment, though the way I read it, the reference to people is as a body, rather than as individuals.

I understand the reverence that many Americans place in their second ammendment rights. I apppreciate the enormous numbers who are regularly murdered by some nutjob with a gun is seen as a price to pay. I certainly wouldn't seek to interfere. But I do remanin curious why this constitutional provision is not granted to those on death row. It does seem sad that red blooded Americans, facing their ends cannot own a gun like everyone else.

But I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you.

I have heard a lot of stories about Karl Marx. Having read some of his work and many others aprasals of it, I often wonder why so many Americans haven't realised that, America Europe and many other societies are progressing quite well along the gradual path he predicted. (Or perhaps I shouldn't be mentioning it. Sorry).

The statement that America's greatest enemy is itself was not intended to be critical of demeaning. Rather an observation. A similar observation has been made in the past using the term, hyphenated Americans. It seems that so many groups need to spend so much effort demanding equality. The end result is yet another diverse community with privelege.

America is a nation of separate communities, each jealously guardng their special rights. Each looking for any justification to claim offense or to demand privelege. While researching Oprah winfrey, for another thread, I read of an incident in Paris when she arrived at a store, 15 minutes after closing and was refused entry. She claimed this was some sort of racial slurr.

QuoteWinfrey arrived fifteen minutes after the store's formal closing time. Winfrey believed she would have been allowed in the store if she were a white celebrity. "I know the difference between a store that is closed and a store that is closed to me", explained Winfrey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey#2005

Those of us who know Paris well would find this both very funny and really quite rude. But are we permitted to say that Oprah winfrey is a rude, semi literate ass whose skill is playing the race card?

But I'm sure that the development of such special privelege based upon an accident of birth suits Americans well. The irony is not lost on Europeans as we continue to dismantle the structures that the founding father claimed to be so aggreved about. And no-doubt would have Karl Marx feeling quite proud.

But in any case, we all really should try to stick to the matter in hand. Creating an environment where people can express themselves openly without fear of attack from those that don't like change.

spacial,

Most of Europe, if not all, were at one time a monarchy.  The US was founded with the Constitution and every law is based on it.  Even though sometimes it does not seem like it.

QuoteThe relative power of religious organisations in the US is a case in point. Having been constitutionally excluded from government, while having constitutional legitmacy, they have ended with more legislative influence than most other interst groups in the US. This level of influence is seen frequently as rather alarming by many here.

I emphasize this portion because, not only does this happen in the rest of the world, but here also.

QuoteBut I do remanin curious why this constitutional provision is not granted to those on death row.

Anyone convicted of a felon and certain misdemeanors give up a lot of their rights.  Some of which is the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to vote.

QuoteAmerica is a nation of separate communities, each jealously guardng their special rights. Each looking for any justification to claim offense or to demand privilege.

Yes we are.  American has been call the "Great Melting Pot".  And those communities, such as the Trans-community, only wish to be afforded their basic right granted to them.  There are groups who will use the Constitution to deny those rights.  But the nice thing about the Constitution is that it is changeable.  Thus the amendments.  Like the 19^th.

Quote from: FindLawSection 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

ENDA is a similar type of law.

As for Ms. Winfrey.  She is only half right.  Had Paris Hilton done the same thing, she might have gotten in.  Who knows.  But even here when a store is closed it is closed.  But to play that card was uncalled for.

QuoteBut in any case, we all really should try to stick to the matter in hand. Creating an environment where people can express themselves openly without fear of attack from those that don't like change

Absolutely.  Well said.

With a bit of a front row seat on the California Proposition 8 challenge, (I live only about 8 miles from the Courthouse the Federal Court suit is taking place in) I am aware of a Friend Of The Court Brief that takes the position that marriage should not be used in ANY State or Federal law because of its ussurpation by various religions as a religious practice.  It also suggests that clergy which are currently given limited status to administer the civil contractual oath be relieved of the right to do so.  Net result, as far as the government goes, you have a Civil Contractual Union no matter if you are hetero-sexual or same sex unionist.  If you want to go to church and have a party afterward, call it what you will, marriage or holy fungus, or a bad hair day. I'm not betting that this type of good sense will prevail, but it has been presented. 

Its a bit like cutting the baby in two, and we know how that one ended-- or did it?

My comments on the US style were and always are intended as a reference. It is not my wish, certainly not on Susan's to get into a debate about the nature or vaibility of the US. I wish you all well, as I'm sure we do for all nations.

But Janet, I really wish you would stop and think about the notion of a transgendered community in the US.

The feminists and their fairweather supporters can identify themselves as liberated women when it suits them. Black people can come out chanting about being black. Many, but not all, gay people often feel little compunction with wandering around with a big gay badge on.

But, for the most part, transgendered people, of all progressions, seek to integrate. They want their documents altered and many even seek to conceil their past, in an effort to live fully in their chosen genders.

Do you really believe that most transgendered people would feel happy wearing a big badge?

Do you really think that most transgendered people will be comfortable living in a society where laws and regulations govern and protect their special interests. Special toilets for transgendered people? Special clubs? Quotas for companies to employ?

Quote from: spacial on June 23, 2010, 11:50:07 AMDo you really think that most transgendered people will be comfortable living in a society where laws and regulations govern and protect their special interests. Special toilets for transgendered people? Special clubs? Quotas for companies to employ?

At this rate I'll take it. As it stands we are a free target.

spacial,

There is a transgendered community, through out the US.  Do we all live in a ghetto?  No, we live where we can, not necessarily where we want to.  Thus ENDA.  Do we get to work where we want? No, some are lucky to even have a job.  Thus ENDA.

All we ask for is to not be afraid of discrimination, in work, housing, healthcare.  Special clubs, or bathrooms.  No.  Then the clock turns back to the days when blacks had to drink from certain fountains, eat in certain restaurants, use certain bathrooms.

Do I think that most transgendered people will be comfortable living in a society where laws and regulations govern and protect their special interests?  You are correct.  Just as woman have laws and regulations.  Just as Blacks have laws and regulations.  Just as any discriminated people has laws and regulations.

Do I want to wear a big yellow Star on my clothing?  No.  The Nazis did that in WWII.  And then rounded up all those wearing it into camps, for the Ultimate Solution.

Yes we just want in integrate into society, and many do.  But read this forum.  How many have problems changing their b/c, drivers license, SSA records?  The very laws and regulations we seek is just to guarantee that these things can be done.

I just want the same as anyone else.  To live my life as I see fit, without discrimination or fear of being attacked.  To marry who I want.  Most want the same thing.

What is wrong with asking for the same rights as anyone else.  Nothing special.  Look to your own country.  What do you have that is special.  Does your government pay for your HRT, SRS maybe?  Those are very special privileges for Transgendered people only.  Here we have to pay for it out of pocket.

I'm sorry Janet. I don't have the energy any more to carry on this thread. Hopefully it will pass in a few days.

I do hope things can work out for people in the US.

The European way is very different but there is nothing to be gained by comparisons. Transfer isn't possible.