“For the Mormons to grandstand on marriage is just nuts”

With their support for Proposition 8 the Mormons have more or less done what someone might do who — in an incredibly dumb moment — decides to call up the local IRS office and start asking the kind of questions that inevitably leads to getting audited.

Frank Schaeffer has an opinion piece on Huffington Post entitled Perspectives on Marriage: Score 1 For Gay America — 0 To The Mormons. I think it would help for Mormons to read this article–with an open mind–just for the purpose of understanding how the rest of the world views them.

I happen to have just been thinking about how Mormons make a big deal about celebrity Mormons (athletes, movie stars, professional singers, etc.), and how they probably do that because it makes them feel more normal and mainstream. But it’s delusional. As Frank says,

It seems that the Mormons have begun to believe their own propaganda when it comes to seeing themselves as “just another” evangelical group. They aren’t.

The evangelicals may be plenty crazy, as they have manifested themselves to be through the late great Religious Right (that is now crashing in flames following the Obama victory), but the Mormons are exponentially crazier when it comes to marriage, and gender roles. [snip]

New religions, where their founders are not shrouded by the merciful mists of time — for instance L. Ron Hubbard of the Scientologists or Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons — seem stranger than the founders of older religions. Maybe that’s unfair, but there it is. That is because the newcomers lived recently enough so that truth claims and character are easier to check out.

Here is just two of many quaint bits of Mormon “teaching” ( this first on race is no longer the official position of the church, but still…)

“And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane [i.e black people] the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward & have his head cut off & spill his blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children.”

(Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1852, Brigham Young’s address before the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah upon slavery)

“Nearly all the great discoveries of man in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet… I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to be a greater age than we do, that they lived generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants of the sea — to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.”

(Oliver B. Huntington, Young Woman’s Journal, Vol. 3, p. 263-264)

So, okay, enough already of the “seed of Cain,” moon men, on to marriage, California’s Proposition 8 and the Mormons…

As most in this community know, that’s just the tip of the iceberg of crazy Mormon quotes. But Frank’s entire piece is a pretty interesting read as he quotes a church histories who tallies up Joseph Smith’s wives by age and shows that “The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy was an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy.”

. . . for the Mormons to grandstand on marriage is just nuts, given their history and beliefs.

I don’t care one way or the other whether Mormons ever become mainstream. But I do care when they meddle in the rights of others in order to promote their own agenda. I think this time the widespread attention to Prop. 8 will be a net negative for the church’s purposes. And Mormons will eventually come to understand that, and being the survivors they are, will make adjustments.

, ,

  1. #1 by Cliff on December 14, 2008 - 2:42 pm

    Add to that an undistinguished track record on divorce, Mormons marriage appears to have no greater likelihood of success than the average ‘Joe.’

  2. #2 by jasonthe on December 14, 2008 - 11:03 pm

    It’s been eye opening to watch Utah’s reaction to Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping failure as a candidate and the large backlash to their involvement in Proposition 8.

    The communities I have known as “home” for the better part of my life were not/are not ready for a national spotlight and the public criticism that entails. It was like watching a teenager receive their first speeding ticket. Petulant and aghast that the world did not embrace them with open arms.

    As some famous person in some day and age whose name I forget said: Sometimes the best way to learn who we are is to listen to how others see us. The Mormons I know seem a little dazed by the result.

  3. #3 by Leo Brown on December 14, 2008 - 11:19 pm

    One Utah seems to have become fixated on praising gays and criticizing the LDS.

    For a different perspective, see this link.

    Somehow, the traditional definition marriage winning three elections (CA, AZ, FL) has to be scored something other than 3-0 by the gay lobby and explained away, so they have decided to scapegoat Mormons for their failure at the polls. Similar amendments have passed by bigger margins in the South, where the LDS are few, but where black voters are many.

    Divorce rates for temple marriages are better than for the average Joe.

    However, when Joe and Joe or Jane and Jane get together divorce is much, much higher.

    In Sweden, gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

  4. #4 by Cliff on December 14, 2008 - 11:30 pm

    Leo,

    Some interesting points.

    I wonder. What percentage of Mormons have a Temple recommend?

  5. #5 by Becky on December 15, 2008 - 5:24 am

    Leo,
    Thanks for the link to the article. I did read its arguments against gay marriage. Actually, if you were to read the whole article I linked to, you’ll find the author himself is against gay marriage for religious reasons. But his point is that it seems strange to him that the Mormon church would take such a visible role in the controversy, considering the church’s own history.

    My point is that regardless of the outcome of the gay marriage issue, the resulting publicity has harmed the Mormon church which is still seen as at least weird by some and as a cult by others.

    As I said, I think Mormons really want to be accepted as a mainstream religion, but they haven’t achieved that yet, despite the willingness of other churches to join with the Mormons on political issues such as this.

    Jason’s comment above about paying attention to what people see in us is worth considering.

  6. #6 by Leo Brown on December 15, 2008 - 9:01 am

    Becky,

    Here in Southern California the Church has made a lot of friends in the Catholic and Evangelical communities because of Proposition 8. There is not theological ecumenism, such is not expected, but it is an ecumenism of the trenches.

    In contrast, the Episcopalians, as is there constitutional right, have been considerably more gay-friendly, and have been rewarded with schism and declining membership. See this link. That doesn’t make the Episcopalians right or wrong, but it does suggest that LDS public relations would be ill-served by chasing the approval of, say, the religion editors of Newsweek.

    As for “meddling in the rights of others,” the members of the Church have just as much right as anyone else to vote and express their opinions on the definition of marriage and what is a natural right and what is not, as anyone else.

    If someone charged Jewish voters of meddling in the rights of others to promote their own agenda by supporting Israel, the MSM would immediately and rightly see this as rank anti-Semitism.

    The pro-choice folks don’t like to be told that abortion is “meddling in the most basic right of all,” the right to life.

    What you call meddling, I call citizenship.

  7. #7 by Kevin Owens on December 15, 2008 - 9:34 am

    While Mormons at large have a pretty normal divorce rate, the divorce rate is much lower for marriages in which both the husband and wife are Mormon (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm). As Leo mentioned, Mormons who marry in the temple have an even lower rate of divorce.

    Among born again Christians, you see a similar pattern. Their divorce rate at large is pretty normal, but it drops significantly among those born-again Christians who go to church regularly (http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/001660.html). So it makes a big difference whether someone just identifies as a Christian, or if they actually practice it.

    Simple statistics about divorce rates among people who identify with a particular faith don’t tell the whole story.

  8. #8 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 12:33 pm

    “While Mormons at large have a pretty normal divorce rate, the divorce rate is much lower for marriages in which both the husband and wife are Mormon (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm). As Leo mentioned, Mormons who marry in the temple have an even lower rate of divorce.”

    I have to support that. I have many of those couples in my extended family.

    “Simple statistics about divorce rates among people who identify with a particular faith don’t tell the whole story.”

    Again I agree. Several of those temple marriages in my family? The most miserable hate filled relationships I have ever seen. Lying, cheating, adulterous relationships full of violence and threats and miserable children who are scarred for life. Temple marriages all. And they stay together, oh yes they do. No divorce there! No, they lie, cheat, drink, hate, and all the rest for the sake of the children! Yes they do.

    And the divorce in the family? Well, they didn’t have kids.

    …otherwise she might have stayed with him even when it turned out his entire life story was a lie and he was embezzling and living under 6 different names. For the kids.

  9. #9 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 2:02 pm

    Leo,
    I got a few paragraphs into the blog post you linked to and found this non-sensical gem:

    We can also discern basic human goods that are necessary for existence and social life, such as procreation, health, safety, freedom, friendship and religion.

    Suffice it to say that religion is clearly not a “natural right” as defined by the author. Religion, I would argue, is wholly unnecessary for, and more than likely detrimental to, the continuance of human existence.

    The entire post is just another apoligistic screed, a la Paul Mero, trying to justify bigotry, ostensibly without resorting to relgious dogma. Kudos on the effort, not so much on the result. If any of that “complementarity of the sexes” BS were true then how do so many straight people end up with gay children?

    The truth reamains that if the state cannot show a compelling interest in denying gay people equal access to the right to marry then the right should not be infringed upon.

    Maybe you could provide an answer to the question as to what compelling interest is served by denying gay people equal access to the right to marry? I’ve asked Kevin before, never saw an answer (maybe he gave one, but I gave up checking back after several days). I would welcome an answer from anyone, including Paul Mero, although I know he won’t answer because he thinks rights need to be earned.

  10. #10 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 2:16 pm

    “What you call meddling, I call citizenship.”

    I have never heard taking away others rights and claiming that as your own right defined as citizenship before. Fascinating.

  11. #11 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 2:19 pm

    Leo,

    If Jewish people (as a religion and as individuals) had organized and supported Prop 8 in the exact same manner and extent as LDS people then it would not be “rank anti-Semitism” to charge them with bigotry for wanting to deny marriage equality for gay people.

    You seem to have a bit of a persecution complex about this issue. Did you really not expect the Church to receive any kind of criticism for its support of Prop 8?

  12. #12 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 2:23 pm

    Shane,
    I was thinking the exact same thing. Since when does citizenship include having the right (as a majority) to arbitrarily vote away the rights of others who may be a minority? That might be a “right” of citizenship in other countries, but I didn’t think so here in the United States of America. Hopefully the courts, as is their duty, will correct this travesty . . . again.

  13. #13 by Kevin Owens on December 15, 2008 - 2:28 pm

    The compelling state interest is to promote a good environment in which to raise the young generation. This same principle explains why we have public schools, WIC, Child and Protective Services, the child tax credit, welfare for single mothers, and a host of other government programs. It’s in society’s best interest to take good care of its children.

    Who came up with the idea that gay marriage is a basic, natural right? In the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegination laws, the court opined:

    These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

    Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

    In California’s 1948 Perez v. Sharp case, which also struck down anti-interracial marriage laws based on the 14th amendment, the California supreme court wrote:

    While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” (Italics added; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 [43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042].) (2) Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means.

    The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” (Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) (3) Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.

    In these decisions, marriage was seen as a fundamental, natural right because it is necessary for procreation and advancement of the species. In a same-sex marriage, this most critical component–the ability to procreate–is absent. Why should it be a fundamental human right, whereas other freedoms are not?

  14. #14 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 2:52 pm

    Kevin,
    How does legalizing same-sex marriage preclude the state from “promot(ing) a good environment in which to raise the young generation”? Isn’t it in society’s best interest to “take care of” the children of gay people as well?

  15. #15 by Kevin Owens on December 15, 2008 - 2:59 pm

    Legalizing same-sex marriage will weaken the institution of opposite-sex marriage, and in so doing, it will harm children.

    Yes, society ought to take care of the children of gays as well. However, even if these children are best served by having one of their parents married to his gay lover, I don’t think it’s worth sacrificing the best interest of the many in order to serve the best interest of the few.

  16. #16 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 3:04 pm

    “There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means.”

    What would be the “important social objective” for denying gay people equal access to the right to marry?

    Your conclusion from the cases you cite that “marriage … is necessary for procreation and advancement of the species” is specious at best. That isn’t what the courts said. They said marriage and procreation are each fundamental rights. One does not necessarily depend on the other.

    “Why should (same-sex marriage) be a fundamental human right, whereas other freedoms are not?”

    I’m not arguing that same-sex marriage should be a fundamental human right. I’m arguing that marriage is a right that should not be arbitrarily infringed upon based solely on the participants being the same gender. I’m not sure what “other freedoms” you are talking about; you’ll have to be more specific if you’d like to further that discussion point.

  17. #17 by Glenden Brown on December 15, 2008 - 3:08 pm

    Kevin – I don’t think it’s the either/or choice you’re presenting. To borrow an analogy – it’s like going to a buffet that includes vegetarian and vegan options – that doesn’t mean you can’t have a steak. (Yes, I’m thinking food today.)

  18. #18 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 3:08 pm

    Kevin,
    You make a lot of bold claims. Surely you have the ability to back them up with specifics, right?

    Do tell, exactly how will legalizing same-sex marriage weaken the “institution” of “opposite-sex marriage”? (I don’t see it as its own institution, but you made the claim, so please, humor me.)

    Furthermore, exactly how will the children of opposite-sex married couples be harmed by allowing the gay couples to marry?

  19. #19 by Kevin Owens on December 15, 2008 - 3:12 pm

    The important social objective for prohibiting same-sex marriage is to promote the institution of opposite-sex marriage, which setting is clearly advantageous and preferable in the production and upbringing of children.

    Marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of its link to procreation, which is fundamental.

    The law discriminates against all kinds of behavior. For instance, where I live in Bountiful, I can’t park on the street overnight during winter. I can’t build a garage right up to my property line. I can’t light off fireworks in December. These are all infringements of my rights, but not my fundamental rights.

    Since same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, it is not necessary to demonstrate a compelling state interest in prohibiting it. However, even if this requirement were to stand, I think a clear and compelling interest exists.

  20. #20 by Kevin Owens on December 15, 2008 - 3:22 pm

    Same-sex marriage will weaken opposite-sex marriage because it will probably induce people to marry less and, even when marriage occurs, to divorce more.

    This effect has been seen with the advent of no-fault divorce, the watering down of traditional gender roles, welfare for single mothers, widespread contraception, and other 20th-century changes. While each of these changes seemed like a good idea, and indeed did some good, they also each contributed to the weakening of marriage and the family in America. I believe same-sex marriage will also contribute to this decline.

    If you pay for something, you tend to get more of it. Giving special privileges to gay couples will produce more gay couples. (While some people feel like their sexual preference is innate, others find it to be malleable. There are at least some people who currently identify as heterosexual who will change to identify as homosexual if gay marriage becomes widespread.)

    Furthermore, if gay marriage became widespread, some heterosexuals may avoid it, by perceiving it is a “gay” institution, in the same way that many blacks see marriage as being “for white people.”

    Marriage as we know it did not simply grow out of nothing. Almost every society on earth recognizes marriage as a male-and-female bond. Why did our forefathers create it this way? It must have been a solution to some problem. If we remove the solution, the problem will surely appear again.

  21. #21 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 4:18 pm

    Kevin,
    No, allowing gay couples to marry will not “probably induce people to marry less and … divorce more.”

    Frankly, your entire line of argument is kind of an affront to marriage itself. If marriage is such a weak institution that it can’t stand allowing more people to enjoy its benefits then I would think it is doomed no matter what we do. Allowing gay people to marry can only strengthen the institution as a whole as it becomes the socially accepted goal for all couples to strive toward. The choice to marry or not remains with individuals themselves, but with society encouraging long-term, stable, monogamous relationships (by promoting marriage to everyone) then society as a whole will benefit.

  22. #22 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 4:30 pm

    “The important social objective for prohibiting same-sex marriage is to promote the institution of opposite-sex marriage, which setting is clearly advantageous and preferable in the production and upbringing of children.”

    No, it’s not.

    “The law discriminates against all kinds of behavior. For instance, where I live in Bountiful, I can’t park on the street overnight during winter. I can’t build a garage right up to my property line. I can’t light off fireworks in December. These are all infringements of my rights, but not my fundamental rights.”

    There is, arguably, a compelling interest in restricting such behaviors. Marriage is restricted as well Kevin, but only when necessary to protect the rights and/or safety of others. Your arguments outlining the state’s interest in restricting gay couples from marriage have not come close to the level of “compelling”. Your wild assertions aside, gay marriage is not a threat to society or any individual’s rights or safety.

  23. #23 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 4:43 pm

    I am starting to think Kevin has a point. If just anyone is allowed to marry then marriage is less meaningful.

    To make the union between my wife and I more meaningful, I hereby propose that we outlaw marriages between LDS couples.

    Kevin, for the sake of your own argument, leave your wife now.

  24. #24 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 4:45 pm

    “Marriage is a fundamental right BECAUSE of its link to procreation, which is fundamental.”

    …and as everyone knows, if you aren’t married, you can’t produce children.

  25. #25 by Becky on December 15, 2008 - 4:47 pm

    Kevin, it was helpful of you to cite those cases, and they clearly show the opposite of what you are trying to say. Although marriage IS important for procreation, it is also said by the Supreme Court to be a “right” and cannot be infringed.

    To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. (emphasis mine)

    So while the citation says marriage is fundamental to our survival, it does not say that that is the only reason that marriage must be allowed. It only says that that is a reason marriage must not be prohibited — see the difference? Otherwise, the law would then say that those who cannot procreate, also cannot marry.

    Ultimately, this issue may have to be decided in the same way as the race issue.

  26. #26 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 4:49 pm

    Shane,
    Can your marriage survive mine? Afterall, mine is between an atheist and a Mormon . . . egads! Maybe you should leave your wife so that atheist/Mormon marriages can flourish! ;)

  27. #27 by Becky on December 15, 2008 - 5:01 pm

    My first marriage was sealed in the temple but ended civilly (legally and otherwise), so that temple marriage is counted on the church records as still intact, perhaps partially explaining some exceptionally low percentages of divorce among temple marriages.

    Kevin, those links you provided offered some very controversial information about temple marriages including the fact that if two people are divorced and the temple sealing is canceled, the woman must obtain permission of her ex-husband before she can remarry in the temple. There’s more, but this thread has wandered far and wide already.

  28. #28 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 5:06 pm

    Becky,
    That’s not controversial; that’s patriarchy in action. Long live the patriarchs! Support gay marriage (for men only though . . . two patriarchs are better than one!)

  29. #29 by Becky on December 15, 2008 - 5:08 pm

    And certainly better than none!

  30. #30 by Don on December 15, 2008 - 5:10 pm

    But of course! :)

  31. #31 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 8:07 pm

    Don, my marriage is between a philosopher and an economist, which is worse than bringing religion into it. If we do bring in religion however, I am hard pressed to explain how an agnostic/taoist/humanist/pantheist and a (insert a friendly local liberal denomination of any belief in general here) got married.

    And both of those are jokes compared to our personalities. My wife had a councilor that advised her company based on personality testing. I went in too. She tabulated the tests for us, looked at our interaction predictions and just said “oh, my.” She was then silent for several minutes while she looked back and forth between us and the paperwork. It was hilarious.

    Becky, I knew they danced that dance with membership, but marriages too?

    More and more I wonder if there aren’t about 200,000 LDS members and the rest is just smoke and mirrors.

    • #32 by Becky on December 15, 2008 - 8:18 pm

      Yes, in fact, Kevin’s source goes on to say:

      “Since February 1994, LDS men must have permission from the First Presidency to remarry in the temple, but do not need permission from their ex-wives. And, men are not required to obtain cancellations of prior sealing(s) in order to remarry ‘for eternity’ (as women are required), thus allowing men to accumulate numerous wives for the afterlife.”

      And people wonder why women leave the church.

  32. #33 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 8:40 pm

    I don’t wonder Becky. It is perhaps the single most sexist institution remaining in America today.

    Oh, sorry, you meant “the people” along the lines of the Biblical “unwashed masses” didn’t you? My bad. ;-)

  33. #34 by Ken on December 15, 2008 - 8:54 pm

    The LDS relief society is on of the largest Womens organizations in the world. Dwarfing the NOW gang. Women are not “leaving the church”, in fact women tend to be the most active.

  34. #35 by Becky on December 15, 2008 - 9:09 pm

    Ken,
    I’m a woman. I left the church. There are many like me. Don’t we count? Of course not. My temple marriage is still on the books.

    And by the way, every woman in the church is automatically enrolled in Relief Society including “less actives”. It’s not like they all signed up voluntarily, as with other organizations. It’s just another way of skewing numbers in order to say “We’re number One!”

  35. #36 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 9:40 pm

    Thank you for pointing out the compulsory enrollment Becky. Ken, since he hadn’t known this before, will now rebel against the church. As he pointed out on another thread he is a sworn enemy to such tyrants…..

  36. #37 by Ken on December 15, 2008 - 9:44 pm

    The LDS Church is not tyrannical because just like Becky pointed out she was free to leave at anytime. The Church is all about free will.

  37. #38 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 10:17 pm

    tyrannical |t??ranik?l|
    adjective
    exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way
    characteristic of tyranny; oppressive and controlling

    No Ken, the LDS church is very often oppressive and controlling. But the ones who drink the kool-aid never see it that way do they?

  38. #39 by Shane Smith on December 15, 2008 - 10:20 pm

    Ah, I too hit submit too soon, don’t I?

    “The Church is all about free will.”

    Unless you are gay of coarse. Then you can’t choose to marry someone can you? No, the LDS church is all about free will.

    The same way virginity is about sex. A lack of it.

  39. #40 by Uncle Rico on January 24, 2010 - 7:20 am

    This may or may not be the right thread to post this in, but if anyone is going to the screeing of “8” at Sundance, let’s hear your thoughts about it. I love the fact that “this is the place” its release is happening. Added intrigue. I also love this quote in today’s Trib from church spokesperson Kim Farah. Oh the wasted irony!

    “LDS Church officials have not seen the film but have reviewed a trailer and other materials posted online, a spokeswoman for the faith said. Latter-day Saint leaders have given many interviews on the church’s involvement in Proposition 8, but did not want to participate in something they view as biased, Kim Farah said.”

  40. #41 by shane on January 24, 2010 - 9:57 am

    I wish i could go see it. I know a few people who were involved indirectly in making it, and it does look interesting. I hope it has some good solid information in it and if so that it does well. Would be nice to get some attention paid to the connections there….

    And that is indeed good irony, but I am not sure it is wasted, I am enjoying it. ;-)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: