Prince Research Excerpts on Gay Rights & the Mormon Church – “18 – Prop 8”

Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “18 – Prop 8.” You can view other topics here.

Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.

---

18 – Prop 8

1242:

“Bishop George H. Niederauer, who has led Utah’s 200,000 Catholics for the past 10 years, has been named Archbishop of San Francisco. The announcement was issued to the Vatican on Thursday [December 15, 2005].…

Bishop Niederauer has served on the Coalition for Utah’s Future, was president of the Utah Coalition Against Pornography, and served on the Alliance for Unity, established in 2001 to help bridge religious and ethnic divides in Utah.

‘His approach is something that transcends tolerance,’ said Elder Alexander Morrison, emeritus member of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who served on the Alliance for Unity with him. ‘It represents something higher, respect, understanding and acceptance.’…”  (Elaine Jarvik, “Niederauer named San Francisco archbishop,” Deseret News, December 16, 2005)

3410:

“The LDS Church has joined with several California religious groups to file a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of Proposition 22, a law passed in 1999 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Opponents have challenged the law’s constitutionality and will make their case before the California Supreme Court in a three-hour hearing on March 4.…

The LDS Church has been involved in the California effort to promote traditional marriage since 1998, when members were asked by their local leaders to support Proposition 22, financially and personally.

‘We were asked to canvass neighbors, go door to door with the petition and ask for support,’ said Russell Frandsen, a Latter-day Saint in southern California. ‘A large number of us volunteered to do that. I suppose most of us did it out of a sense of responsibility.’…

Now there is a move in California to amend the state constitution, making Proposition 22 permanent. It is not clear whether the LDS Church will get involved again.

‘I have heard nothing about it at church,’ Frandsen said. ‘There is no official church involvement in pushing the constitutional amendment yet.’” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “LDS Church wades into California traditional marriage case,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 23, 2008)

1832:

“Following the California Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to overturn a ban on gay marriage there, both the LDS Church and the Catholic Archdiocese in San Francisco released statements about the decision, reiterating their views of marriage and commenting on the court’s action.

Both churches worked to help outlaw gay marriage in California several years ago.

The LDS Church released the following statement:

‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Today’s California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate.’ …

The LDS Church was active in urging California residents to ban gay marriage through a public referendum in March 2000. Proposition 22 was designed to prevent formal sanction of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions from gaining future legal recognition on par with traditional marriage. Voters approved the measure, with 61 percent in favor and 39 percent opposed.

Thursday’s 4-3 Supreme Court decision said voters got it wrong.…” (Carrie A. Moore, “LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision,” Deseret News, May 16, 2008)

3412:

“A support group for gay Mormons [Affirmation] is urging LDS church leaders to stay on the sidelines after the California Supreme Court said same-sex marriage there is legal.” (Associated Press, “Gay Mormons to church: Don’t fight California court ruling,” Salt Lake Tribune, May 28, 2008)

3413:

“In a statement Wednesday, the executive director of Affirmation said he hopes church leaders would not ‘use their energies and their funds’ to overturn a ruling that affirms the worth of families or meddle in politics that demonizes gays.…

California, meanwhile, issued a directive Wednesday that said same-sex couples will be able to wed in the state beginning June 17.…” (Jennifer Dobner, “Gay LDS urge church not to fight ruling,” Deseret News, May 29, 2008)

1286:

“An LGBT Mormons group is urging church leaders to stay out of the fight to nullify the California supreme court ruling May 15 legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.” (“Gay Mormons Urge Church to Stand Down in Marriage Fight,” Advocate.com, May 30, 2008)

2818:

What will become Prop 8 initiative certified by California Secretary of State.  Proponents needed 694,354 valid signatures, turned in 1,120,801. (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

1834:

“June 20, 2008

(To be read in sacrament meeting on June 29, 2008)

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot.  The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas S. Monson

Henry B. Eyring

Dieter F. Uchtdorf

The First Presidency” (Circular letter to General Authorities, Area Seventies, and the following in California: Stake and Mission Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents)

2993:

June 21: First Presidency letter leaked to Wikileaks. (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

3415:

“Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.

And yet there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion.…

Religious liberty claims rarely, if ever, have prevailed in the face of complaints about racial discrimination.…” (Marc D. Stern, “Marriage ruling likely to impinge on religious rights,” Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2008, reprinted in Deseret News Mormon Times)

1403:

“Affirmation leaders are scheduled to meet with the head of LDS Family Services, a church social services agency, in August to begin a conversation to bridge the divide between Mormonism and gay members hurt by church teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

It will be the first meeting between any arm of the church and Affirmation, which was formed in secret in the 1970s by students at the church-owned Brigham Young University.

‘We’re not going to let this stand in the way,’ Affirmation spokesman David Melson said. ‘The church has said they are open to finding new avenues and new solutions to minister to gay members, and we are taking them at their word.” (Jennifer Dobner, Associated Press, “LDS Church enters fray on gay marriage,” Provo Herald, June 23, 2008)

3417:

“On the 39th anniversary of New York City’s Stonewall Riots, which arguably launched the gay rights movement, the LDS Church is asking California Mormons to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.…

‘We are disappointed,’ said Dave Melson, assistant executive director of Affirmation, a support and advocacy group for Mormon gays, lesbians and their families that has about 2,000 members. ‘We had hoped the church would back off and stay on the sidelines of this one.’

Current California law deals only with civil marriage. It does not affect religious rites or institutions.

‘This initiative will hurt so many people,’ added Olin Thomas, Affirmation’s executive director. ‘Without [gay] marriage, a couple who have been together 30 years could be torn apart at the doorway to the emergency room.’

Melson and Thomas will meet with Fred Riley of LDS Family Services and Harold Brown of LDS Social Services on Aug. 11 to discuss the church’s political and religious approach to homosexuality.” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “LDS Church backs proposed California ‘one man-one woman’ marriage amendment,” Salt Lake Tribune, June 23, 2008)

2797:

“Dear Bishop Branson,

I am writing to beg you not to read the political letter that the Presidency has asked you to read in our most sacred meeting, Sacrament. The letter will be destructive and divisive.  Families will be torn apart, wards will be taking sides, and many young men and women will feel cut out from their family and church, feeling they have no alternative but to end their life.…” (Barb Young to her bishop, June 24, 2008)

1475:

“I have been in meetings today with HRC [Human Rights Campaign] in DC talking about ways that I can possibly help. For one thing, I plan to go to various gatherings in California trying to raise money and also telling the ‘other side’ of being a gay Mormon. Basically, I am tired of letting the Church spread lies about homosexuality. I am tired of THEM ruining families and dividing family members and pitting them against each other. THAT is also a story that should be told, and I am not afraid to tell it.” (Bruce Bastian to Carol Lynn Pearson, June 25, 2008)

915:

“On 29 June, Apostles M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, along with Seventies Lance B. Wickman and L. Whitney Clayton, met with the stake presidents of California via an interactive telecast to discuss LDS involvement on the issue.

‘We are asked to use “our best efforts” and to do “all we can” to support this initiative with both our “means and time,”’ wrote director of Orange County Public Affairs Joseph I. Bentley in an email widely circulated over the Internet. The email included an attachment with talking points created by Newport Beach Stake President Wheatherford Clayton. ‘More talking points … are being prepared,’ the email explained, ‘and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ in Salt Lake City.’” (“Mormons Mobilize For, Against Proposition 8,” Sunstone, October 2008, p. 77)

1498:

“I sit here in my church clothes, having almost an hour before I have to leave.  Today in all of the LDS wards in California there is to be read a letter from the First Presidency, asking the members to do all they can to “protect marriage and strengthen families” by giving of their means and time to make sure we pass the amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman in the November election.…

I’ve had several conversations with Barb [Young] over this last week.  She is, clearly, very emotional.  I’m trying to encourage her to cultivate as much peace as she has passion.  She told me Steve told her that night that he had spoken to two general authorities at the tournament.  Both said something about protecting the church legally.  Steve has since called their bishop and asked him not to read the letter.  As of yesterday, Saturday, the bishop had not received this letter.  Barb is prepared to stand up in church after the letter is read.…

Steve [Young] knows she’s planning on standing up in church and he has not asked her not to.…

Barb is entirely ready to be public, and to be public as the wife of Steve Young.…

I hung up and called the offices of both Marlin Jensen and Jeffrey Holland.  Neither were available.…

To my surprise, two days later, the phone rang and it was Marlin Jensen.  We spoke for perhaps half an hour.  It was a good conversation.  I thanked him very much for spending the time with me.  He was authentically appreciative of the things that I said.  He began by saying that yes, this is a very hard issue, that he knows a number of people who are gay and they are such fine people.  He said that he himself has thrown in his lot with the Prophet, that he is committed to standing with the Prophet.  “There may be some things on this issue that we don’t see, and therefore we need our Seer, our Prophet and Revelator.”…

‘Massacre, polygamy, racism, women’s issues…but we will be most ashamed of how we have treated our gay brothers and sisters…no black man took his life…not I nor my feminist friends have taken our lives…but hundreds of our best LDS gay men have taken their own lives because we have made them feel so helpless and hopeless and when we understand that we will be deeply, deeply ashamed.’…

We Mormon are very big on preparedness…I have wheat in my garage…most will never have a flood or fire, but predictably maybe 20% of all our families will have a gay child…what have we given them to prepare for what to many of them is a disaster bigger than a flood?  They reach into the backpack we’ve given them and what do they find?  Very little.  Maybe an old copy of The Miracle of Forgiveness, which really ought to be recalled along with children’s toys that have lead in them because of toxicity.  Parents still turn their back on their kids; or they turn their backs on their church because we’ve taught them well that family comes first.  But the pain in families–the division!  What are we really giving them?”

He was very impressed by that.  “Yes, yes, you’re right. I am going to take that up with the Brethren.  You’re right about that.”…

He told me it’s Russell Ballard who is the engine behind all this.  The others who address the issue are more moderate, but Ballard is vehement that “This is humanity’s watershed issue.”  Here is the continuation of this story: 

At the end of our conversation we both said some important things.  I said, “You know, Keith, bottom line for me is that I look at the amendment to find the love that is there, and I don’t see any.  I see fear and judgment, but no love.  Where is the love?  I’ve committed to look at everything and ask, “Will this thing bring a little more love to the planet, or take a little love away from the planet?”

He replied, “You have a good point there.  And we need also to remember that when this life is done and we meet Christ, we will be asked, ‘Did you see me an hungered and you fed me?  Did you see me naked and you clothed me?  In prison and you visited me?”

I added, “And did you see me as a gay young man about to take my life and you put your arms around me?”

“Yes.  Yes.  It all comes down to love, doesn’t it?” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, June 29, 2008)

3438:

“Sign for Something is a diverse group of members and friends of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) united in their desire [to] speak their conscience on the matter of civil marriage. We each have our own views on this issue but we stand united in the belief that each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities. This runs contrary to the LDS church’s current policy, which asks its members to actively work toward making marriage between one man and one woman the only legal option. Our goal is [to] empower members of the LDS church in sharing their views and making political decisions for themselves.” (Derek Price to Peter Danzig, July 2, 2008)

1836:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties.…

While some members see the letter as a test of their willingness to ‘follow the brethren, others feel that it is their civic and moral duty to vote against an amendment which they see as violating the central democratic principles of non-discrimination and equal civil rights.

Some see a conflict between the recent statement and previous statements from the First Presidency: ‘We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children’ (1963), and ‘Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights’ (1969).

For many California Mormons this is ‘deja vu all over again.’ The previous ballot attempt to define marriage, Proposition 22, which was vigorously supported by church funds and by individual contributions, was divisive for many congregations, especially in instances in which some members felt coerced by leaders and other members to support an initiative they found morally objectionable.…

The dilemma for members who have allegiances as both church members and citizens is that when there is a conflict between the two, they cannot satisfy both. In such instances they must feel free to make moral choices based on their best judgment without fear of censure, reprisal or retribution.

In such matters, some feel the church should follow the dictum of its founding prophet, Joseph Smith, who, when asked how he governed the Latter-day Saints, replied, ‘I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.’ This seems like sound advice for both churches and states.” (Robert Rees, “Church should let people ‘govern themselves,’” Op-Ed, Salt Lake Tribune, July 5, 2008)

2842:

“July 7: Meridian Magazine publishes a letter from Protect Marriage’s grassroots director Gary Lawrence titled, ‘Wonder What the War in Heaven Was Like? Watch California This Fall.’ In part, it reads, ‘In short, if the arguments used in the war in heaven were persuasive enough to draw billions of God’s spirit children away from Him, why should we not expect them to be used on the present battlefield? The same minions cast out from the Father’s presence still remember what worked up there.’” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

1500:

“[Note from Bob Rees]  Since you are the unofficial keeper of the records on this matter, I am sending this to you and asking you to keep it in strict confidence.…

Based on what happened to me with Proposition 22, in which I was summarily released from all my stake callings (not for anything I did but for what the stake president feared I would do), I am inclined to resign from my stake high council calling, suspecting that he is going to release me anyway.…

[Attached is the letter Rees wrote to his bishop, Donald Scott, San Lorenzo Valley Ward:]

I am both disappointed and hurt that you rescinded my temple recommend this morning. Let me try and articulate what seemed to be your justification: I wore a hidden pin, one that only you saw, that read “All Families Matter” against a rainbow background.… My concern over the initiative to amend the California constitution is that it will unleash the kind of blatant homophobia we witnessed during the Proposition 22 campaign, some of it in our own ward and stake. I know personally individuals and families, including members of the Church, who suffered because of the hatred and vitriol unleashed by Proposition 22. As you may recall, several Latter-day Saints, including a good friend of mine, committed suicide over the issue. My concern over what might transpire this time is grounded in those very real, and very well documented, cases.…

Elder Holland was asked whether supporting gay marriage would be grounds for taking away one’s temple recommend. 

Elder Holland was very clear on this point–that is not grounds for losing a recommend, nor, he hopes, will it ever be. Political opinions of such a nature have no bearing on temple worthiness.… [Ronald Schow email to Robert Rees, June 29, 2008)

I have a long catalogue of inappropriate and illegal actions and activities undertaken by stake and ward leaders as well as individual member during Proposition 22. These include using official membership lists for political purposes; using priesthood, Relief Society and other church meetings for organizing canvassing and placard placement; soliciting funds in support of Proposition 22 in stake presidents’ and bishops’ offices as well as church meeting facilities; statements made from pulpits by church officers and members both calling for support of Proposition 22 and criticizing those who were not in support of it; etc. Not only are such activities illegal, some are in violation of
Church policy specified in the Handbook of Instructions. I know of no instance in which any of these violations, including those that have taken place in our own stake, ever resulted in a loss of a temple recommend or disciplinary action (or even a verbal reprimand).…

An example of what can happen is the following letter sent by a bishop in the Los Angeles Stake to members during the Proposition 22 campaign.

This is not just about an election. Our effort to support the Marriage Initiative is a test of our faith and our willingness to keep the covenants we have made to follow the prophet. In same ways it is like Zion’s Camp, an important and difficult assignment given to early church members to help the Saints in Missouri (see D&C sections 103 and 105). The faithfulness of members’ responses to that call was an important training experience for future leaders of the Church, including future apostles and prophets. Likewise, as we support the Church’s request that we work to help pass this initiative, we follow the Prophet (see D&C section 101) and express our faith in his divine calling. In the meeting yesterday President xxxx said he was as concerned about the corrosive effects on our souls of failing to follow the Prophet as he was about the outcome of the election. (document in my possession)…

(Carol Lynn Pearson diary, July 7, 2008)

3443:

“Regardless of their rationale for disagreeing, any ‘active Mormon’ sustains President Thomas S. Monson is the prophet, seer, revelator and mouth-piece of God. ‘Active Mormons’ raise their right hand during General Conference and sustain him and the other 14 apostles as the leaders of God’s church on the earth today. In sustaining, they are not voting for them or agreeing with their position, they are promising to support and listen to them.

Consequently, ‘active Mormons’ know that when the prophet speaks, the debate is over. No matter how diligently someone reads their Scriptures, attend church or pays a full type, unless they sustain President Monson, his counselors and the other 12 apostles, they are not ‘active Mormons.’” {BYU Daily Universe editorial, July 8, 2008)

1639:

“A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

The Field Poll of 672 likely voters found that 51% oppose Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and woman. Forty-two percent of voters support the November ballot measure.

Poll director Mark DiCamillo said the results indicate a substantial change among voters since 2000, when Proposition 22, a similar ballot measure, was approved with 61% of the vote.…

DiCamillo predicted election results would not mirror those of Proposition 22.

‘There has been a long-term [shift] in voter attitudes toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage,’ he said.

Proponents of Proposition 8 view the poll results differently.

‘We think this bodes quite well for us,’ said Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage campaign. She noted that a Field Poll released in May showed that 54% of Californians opposed Proposition 8, and said the new results ‘show the opposition has lost a few percentage points and indicates they are losing momentum.’…” (Jessica Garrison and Dan Morain, “Voters warm to gay marriage,” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2008)

1501:

“Today I phoned Joan Moss… Joan is very, very upset at what the church is doing around this amendment business.  She has a gay son, whom she adores, and who has been a great blessing to her.  In 2000 her son had his name taken off the records of the church.  She had two gay nephews (brothers) who committed suicide a few years ago.  And she has many gay friends.  She told me she went in to see Bishop Bain and told him how deeply upset she is, that she will not be able to support the effort of the ward around this, that she will not be able to pay tithing until after November if she thinks any of her money is going to this effort.  ‘What in the world does the church think they can get out of this?  There is no benefit to be had.  All the families that are being divided once again!  And for the church that I love to be seen again as hateful and homophobic!  I know it will hurt the missionary program.’” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, July 19, 2008)

1502:

“Now, to our sacrament meeting today.…

Bishop Donald Scott prefaced his remarks by quoting from D & C 1:12-16 ‘Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh; And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth. And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For they have strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant. They seek not the Lord nor his righteousness, but every man walked in his own way, and after the image of his own god.’

He then quoted from D&C 90: ‘And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house.’

He spoke of ‘severe punishments’ that would befall those who didn’t follow the prophet, suggesting that those who were opposed to Proposition 8 might suffer dire consequences. He quoted President Lee who warned of those who secretly plot against the Church.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, July 20, 2008)

1640:

“Just two days after the state Supreme Court ruled that proposition eight would remain on the November ballot, a new statewide survey indicates that 51% of likely voters intend to vote no on the initiative.

The Field Poll, released July 18, also showed 42% would vote yes, while only 7% were undecided.” (Seth Hemmelgarn, “Poll shows slim majority opposes Prop 8,” Bay Area Reporter, July 24, 2008)

1977:

“Dear [Stake] Presidents:

Yesterday a wonderful meeting was held with the eight Area Directors in Northern California.…

The Brethren have felt that the best way to organize and pass the proposition is to have an Ecclesiastical arm in a Grassroots arm organization. Elder Dalton, Area Seventy and Chair of California for everything, reports to the Brethren. I assist him. We work with coordinating councils, all 17 in California and then Stake Presidents and Bishops, rank and file. The second leg to organization is grassroots. This is down so as to engage as many like-minded folks who are not LDS, but who will help. The senior folks who run the grassroots are LDS at the coalition and are headed by Glen Greener and Gary Lawrence.… In

The grassroots folks in each Stake, Regional Directors will train ZIP Code supervisors. Their goal, is to find the voters who will vote yes. It is not to persuade others but to find those who will vote yes.…

There was a conference call last week with 1200 pastors in California James Dobson is the featured speaker. This Thursday, there is another conference call with 2000 California clergy. It appears that the effort on the part of like-minded people is huge compared to eight years ago.…

What is the timeline from here for the next few weeks?

1. Congregations of LDS all having been taught the doctrine in July so that they may see the importance of fundraising and grassroots participation. Some Stakes have called all Stake Council and wives as well as several folks who may be able to contribute not on the Council. The Stake President, in that Cottage Meeting, has asked for their support. A great part of a fundraising effort, accomplished in one night.

2. August 1: All Regional Directors have been called and contacted by Area Directors for training.

3. August 3: training of Regional Directors commences by the Area Directors.

4. August 1-10: ZIP Code Supervisors are in place and are to be trained by Regional Directors.

5. August 16: The First of three Saturday precinct walks are to be held under the direction of the Regional Directors.

6. August 23: The Second of the Saturday precincts walks are to be held.

7. September 22: 1 million signs will be put up in yards around the state by 7:00 am.” (Robert Packer to “Dear Presidents,” July 28, 2008, Latter-day Chino, July 28, 2008)

3454:

“Bruce Bastian, the co-founder of WordPerfect, now says he’s giving a seven figure donation to help protect gay marriage in California.…

This weekend, at a big human rights fund raiser in San Francisco, Bastian donated one million dollars to fight Prop 8.…” (ABC4 News, July 31, 2008)

2932:

“In my stake temple recommend [interview] earlier this month I was told that if I do not agree with the church’s position on gay marriage, that I am not worthy to attend the temple.…” (Sumer Evans, “I may not be worthy of my temple recommend,” FeministMormonHousewives.org, July 31, 2008)

2069:

“Please forward this update immediately to all Regional Coordinators and to all Zip Code Supervisors.

Thanks to all of you for your great work as we organize our grassroots efforts in this critically important endeavor, one that Elder Lance Wickman has aptly called the ‘Gettysburg of the culture war.’…

Phase One – Identification.  We have three ‘Walk Saturdays’ planned for this phase: August 16, August 23, and September 6. This phase is designed to find our voters and our potential voters. The information will b used for the Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) efforts…

Phase Two – Advocacy and Persuasion. In this phase we will re-contact (either by walking or phoning) those whoa re in the Mushy Middle – Soft Yes, undecided, and Soft No voters.  We will provide information and persuasive points for them to consider.

Phase Three – Get Out the Vote. This will have two parts – an ongoing contacting effort to those who intend to vote by mail, and a big GOTV effort on election day itself.

ELECTION DAY:  We will need 100,000 volunteers on November 4 – about 5 per voting location.  One of the team will be posted at a polling place to monitor the voting list that election officials must post indicating who has and has not voted. The monitor will then contact the others on the team who will drive to the homes of our voters who have not yet voted and encourage them to do so.…

REIMBURSEMENT: We are asking ZCSs [ZIP Code Supervisors], with the help of RCs [Regional Coordinators], to bear the price of printing various materials.  If this becomes too much of a burden for anyone, would you Regional Coordinators please find someone in your ward or stake who could help out?

LANGUAGES: The campaign is translating and printing materials in Spanish.…

SCHEDULERS: … Even if we could pass around a sign-up list in Priesthood or Relief Society, we wouldn’t do it.  People respond best when directly asked by someone they know, while a sign-up list only causes them to study their shoelaces.

CHURCH ANNOUNCEMENT: Elder John Dalton, the Area Authority responsible for all aspects of our LDS effort to assist the coalition, is asking stake presidents and bishops to announce our Walk Saturday program in church this Sunday. We cannot organize volunteers or hold training meetings on church property, we can provide information concerning the who, where, when and what of our effort, the same as we do for a Red Cross blood drive. Bishoprics are being asked to provide that information as part of the regular ward announcements.

…

TRAINING OF VOLUNTEERS: … ZIP Code Supervisors will hand out to each volunteer walk list, badge, walk or phone script, handouts for walkers, and the background materials (Facts, FAQ, and Myths & Facts) they can read before the start.…

Each ZCS will receive two pdf files for each zip code, one for even-numbered addresses and one for odd-numbered addresses.…

RECORDERS: After each walk/phone session, the ZCSs should turn the walk lists over to the Recorders for data entry into our statewide data base.…” (Gary Lawrence, State LDS Grassroots Director, to All Area Directors, Regional Coordinators and Zip Code Supervisors, August 7, 2008)

2839:

“8/9/2008 – Meridian Magazine publishes a message from the Family Leader Network titled, ‘What Happens if California’s Marriage Protection Amendment (Prop 8) Fails?’ The author is Glen Greener.  His nine talking points are similar to those used in other state cases (such as Alaska and Hawaii) and also to the ‘Six Consequences’ lists Gary Lawrence is said to have created which flooded the web shortly after Greener’s column appeared at Meridian Magazine.…” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

1508:

“This is not the church I grew up in.  We have been catapulted back into the Dark Ages.  I need to take some significant time to get this down for history.

As I was getting read for church, the phone rang.  Barb Young, crying.  ‘I just got back from church.  Went to Relief Society, had a seat next to the door.  The bishop came in and read this other letter, telling us that we were all called to participate for three Saturdays in working to pass the marriage amendment.  I was just so taken by surprise.  I thought they would do some private kinds of things…  He said, ‘you can meet either over at this house…or at this house…’  I couldn’t stop myself.  I stood up and I said, ‘Bishop…where do you want those people to go who are about to commit suicide over what we’re doing here?…where would you send Stuart Matis, who did take his life?…where do those of us go who do not believe in this amendment…?’  I was crying.  The Relief Society president said, ‘Now, Barb, this is inappropriate…’  I said, ‘No!  What’s inappropriate is what is being done here.’  They asked me to leave.  I said, ‘No.  I stand here for Christ.  I can’t have that blood on our hands again.’ I was standing by the door.  Someone was pulling me.  The Relief Society president had her hands on either side of my belly [Barb is six months pregnant] and she was pushing me. [Barb continues to cry as she tells me the story.] Out in the hall I saw Steve running toward me.  They read the same thing in priesthood and he knew he’d better get here right away.  I fell into his arms and I said, ‘Steve, let’s get the children and leave.’  ‘Yes,’ he said.  So we got the kids and got in the car and I cried all the way home and then called you.’…

Got home to a message from Kim Barentsen: ‘Carol Lynn, give me a call.  I just walked out of the worst sacrament meeting in my entire life.  I need to talk with you.’  When we spoke, she told me that they have RS first, and she was to give the lesson on death.  ‘A high councilman came in and took ten minutes on the marriage thing.  Told us that we were all expected to participate.  Not participating is not an option, he said.’  In some other conversation, Kim had told a friend in the ward that she could not participate in this effort.  The friend said, ‘But you’re just like the frog that was put in a pot of cold water that got hotter and hotter until he died; you’ve just gotten used to this evil idea.  This is a test of your faith, Kim!’  Sacrament meeting was ‘Follow the Prophet.’  He has spoken and we need to respond.  Our job is to follow the Prophet and not our conscience.  I said, ‘Kim, he said conscience?’  Yes, I’ve got my notes right here: never mind your conscience, follow the Prophet.  On this issue, he’s the only one who knows the difference between right and wrong.  We have been put on the defense in this.  The proclamation on the family was not given haphazardly and the Prophet will not lead us astray.  Don’t try to choose between reason and the Prophet–it is simply Whose on the Lord’s Side?  We don’t know how much is at stake here.  It is not politics, it is God’s law.  ‘If you do not follow the church on this you do not follow Christ.  We expect your time and your means.’  Kim was just sick.  ‘I’ve been trying to get more centered in the church because it’s hard to be half in and half out, but I don’t know if I can even try now.’” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, August 10, 2008)

1838:

“The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized.…

Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed. 

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference. 

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony. 

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.…

Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children.… Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.…

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.… A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family. 

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage. 

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task.…

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women. [What does same-sex marriage have to do with these assaults?]

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition. 

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.…

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place ‘church and state on a collision course.’ 

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services. 

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same- sex couples from club membership. 

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished. 

How Would SameSex Marriage Affect Society? 

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. ‘It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society. 

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.…

Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring. 

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children – through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children? 

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.…

But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue. 

The Sanctity of Marriage 

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society. 

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: ‘We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.’ This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.” (“The Divine Institution of Marriage,” LDS Newsroom, August 13, 2008)

2933:

“Today’s statement from the church about marriage is intriguing because of what it ways about non-marital legal rights.  The statement reads, in part:

The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

… In addition, the church previously appeared to oppose Domestic Partner rights.  Elder Wickman stated:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married.  What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it.  If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, ‘That is not right. That’s not appropriate.’

In contrast, the current Newsroom statement appears to be a move towards acceptance of Domestic Partner rights—mentioning specific, important legal rights, like probate, medical care, and employment law protections—so long as the label of marriage is not included.…” (“A change on Domestic Partnerships?” ByCommonConsent.com, August 13, 2008)

2854:

“8/14/2008 ZIP Code Supervisor Jack Slade writes:

‘I (Jack Slade) have been asked by my bishop to be a zip code supervisor in my area to organize volunteers to identify voters in my area who are voting in favor of this proposition. I learned during training sessions that the LDS church is the only member of the Protect Marriage group that will be performing this initial door-to-door voter identification. It is a solemn duty that we have been called to perform.’”

(Mormons for Marriage timeline)

2853:

“8/16/2008 First weekend of precinct walking.… Handouts include ‘Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails,’ which includes arguments from the 9 consequence article written earlier.” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

1469:

“The Church’s recent statement on ‘The Divine Institution of Marriage’ states, among other things: ‘As church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others’ understanding, honesty, and civility.’

… A couple of Sundays ago I attended a combined priesthood–Relief Society meeting in my ward that contained scripted series of three talks. I’m sure someone above the ward level wrote the script because the same talks were given throughout the stake. (I trust you weren’t involved in this.) I expected the meeting would focus on how ward members could help in the anti-gay marriage initiative. Although I considered that an inappropriate subject for regular general church meeting, I was resigned to sit and listen to it. Imagine my surprise and dismay when I discovered the main thrust of the meeting was to reiterate that when the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done, and to vilify those who would not support the initiative.…

The bishop spoke first and the primary thrust of his talk was that the people who wouldn’t get behind Proposition 8 were like the wicked and foolish people in Noah’s day and would meet a similar fate. The bishop’s first counselor then spoke and explained that since church leaders in the Book of Mormon were involved in politics, it set the precedent for the church being involved in our day.… Finally a counselor in the stake presidency spoke and essentially read Gary Lawrence’s unfortunate Meridian piece in which Lawrence claims that we are in a battle not unlike the pre-mortal battle between Lucifer and Satan [sic]. In that article (as you know) he explains that having sympathy, compassion and a concern for equality are tools of the devil and those who use them in the current ‘battle’ are comparable to Lucifer’s fallen angels. Just to state Lawrence’s premise is to demonstrate how utterly absurd it is. I can imagine the same talk being given to the men of Cedar City just before they marched out to murder 120 innocent Arkansas travelers. ‘Don’t give into compassion or concerns for fairness. Just do what President Haight has told you to do!!’

I have never in my life felt more sadness after attending a Church meeting. I have never felt more ostracized by my own friends. I realize that understanding, honesty and civility are not going to be part of this campaign.” (Morris Thurston to Joseph Bentley, Director, Orange County Public Affairs [LDS], August 17, 2008)

1509:

“Barb Young called again this morning at about the same time she had called last Sunday.  But her voice was smiling, which made me so glad.  She had just come home from church.  She said she had emailed her RS president and asked (as she and I had discussed) if she could take a minute in RS and apologize for her outburst.  The RS president had seen her outside (lives not far away) and came over and gave her a hug and ‘she held my face in her hands and said, ‘Barb, there are many people who feel as you do, and everything is going to be all right.’

So in RS Barb got up and did apologize for her outburst.  ‘But,’ she said, ‘I am not apologizing for the words that I said or for my strong feelings around this, only that I said them in such an emotional way, which I know was inappropriate.’  She also thanked the people who had sent her cards, supporting her and telling her she had to come back.  (She had learned that after she left last Sunday women got up and variously said, ‘I support Barb in what she just said.’  ‘I support our bishop.’  ‘I support the Prophet.’  ‘I support separation between church and state.’  ‘I support civil liberties.’)

After Barb said her piece this morning, the bishop got up, saying he had something to say and also that he had brought a peace offering–several big plates of brownies that were passed around.  The bishop said (he had already come over to the Youngs and told them this separately) that he had taken all this to the stake president who had taken it to the area representative, who had gotten back to them with this information: ‘How one feels about the marriage amendment is not a membership test.  You can vote against the amendment and still be a good member of the church, can still hold a temple recommend.  You should always vote the conscience of your heart.’

Barb said ‘The relief in the room was huge.  Also the bishop said someone wanted to know how the brethren responded when the statement was read to them last week.  He said, ‘They all just yawned at the same time.’  Then we had the lesson on Zion–being of one heart even though we have differing opinions on things.  The feeling among all the sisters was so sweet.  One woman came up to me afterwards and said, ‘Barb, I’m so glad you had your outburst–it moved us all to take a look at a lot of things.  Plus we got brownies!’’

Barb said there will not be a sign-up at church for people to do things regarding the amendment.

She said, ‘Carol Lynn, I couldn’t have done any of this without you–you have given me such courage.  Finding you has been the best thing that has ever happened to me other than finding Steve and having my children.’” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, August 17, 2008)

1840:

“Prompted by their church’s support for a California initiative to ban gay marriage, some Mormons are voicing opposition to the proposed ban on the Internet – saying in cyberspace what they might not be able to express in church buildings.

‘We need a place where people can have a discussion and get information,’ said Laura Compton, a contributor at MormonsforMarriage.com. ‘And people need to know that it’s not coming from an anti-Mormon place, or a gay Castro district place. It’s coming from a faithful place.’

MormonsforMarriage is one of a handful of Web sites to spring up since june…” (Jennifer Dobner, “Mormons take gay marriage to the Web,” Associated Press, August 22, 2008)

3463:

“’Legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions endangers not only marriage as an institution but will endanger the civil rights’ of those who don’t approve of it, [BYU Professor Lynn] Wardle said. ‘It’s about the right to express opposition, and those who do so already surfer harassment and hostility.’…

Most people who hear much from same-sex marriage proponents but little from the opposition wonder what the harm is, Wardle said. ‘It’s not like a bone sticking out of the limb or blood squirting out of the wound.… It will be at least a full generation before all the consequences are known. Like smoking, it will take years and decades to see the result.’…

Yet, within a decade social scientists began documenting very distinct harm to children, he said. ‘There is now a large body of irrefutable evidence of the serious, harmful effects for children divorce that have been documented.’

While the impact is ‘temporary for two-thirds, it is lifelong for about one third,’ he said. ‘Making same-sex marriage legal will harm you and your family the same way polygamous marriage to 14-year-olds will harm you.… It will transform the meaning, expectations and practices of marriage as a social institution and affects everyone who has a stake in marriage.’” (Carrie A. Moore, “Gay marriage would have long-term societal impacts,” Deseret News, August 23, 2008)

1513:

“Just hung up from a call with Barb Young.  She called, increasingly upset with what she’s hearing that the church is doing in California.  She had a brief phone visit with Bob Rees and he told her some of the rhetoric that is being used in Southern California–that this proposition is like the war in heaven, weeding out the righteous from the wicked.  Barb’s girlfriend in Laguna said they had a two hour priesthood-RS meeting where an ‘ambassador’ presented a lot of information about how if gay marriage passes we will lose religious freedom in this country.  This friend didn’t make any big objections, just kept asking questions–’So does this mean we have to vote yes on the amendment?’  ‘Yes.’  ‘And does this mean we have to vote for McCain?’  ‘Yes.’

Barb had just gotten off a conference call with people from California’s Equality Now.  She was told the Mormon Church is the major foe in the fight for marriage equality.  She called Steve and said, ‘If this is what the church has become, we have to rethink what our family is going to do.  I won’t raise my children in this atmosphere.’” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, August 25, 2008)

2787:

“8/30/2008 – Mormonsfor8.com goes up connecting donor names to LDS membership. Mormons accounted for not quite 2% of California’s population, yet are credited with raising more than half of the $32+ million donations to protectmarriage.” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

3472:

“All donations of $1,000 or more are reported daily to the California Secretary of State. Smaller donations are reported less often.” (“Mormons for Proposition 8.com,” ca. September 2008)

3474:

“I have heard that one of the ‘mainstream’ Mormon arguments being used in the telephone scripts they have is that it is not a good idea to have four or five people (in the California Supreme Court) deciding what should be the will of the people. My rebuttal to that is that it is significantly better to have four or five Californians who have the responsibility to decide what is constitutional in California than it is to have one person two states away in Salt Lake City who has zero jurisdiction over what is constitutional making that decision.” (Richard Rands to “Mormons for Marriage Volunteers,” September 1, 2008)

1515:

“Earlier in the day I was contacted by Nadine Hansen, who is spearheading a project to identify the Mormon donors on the huge list of donors to Proposition Eight, for the purpose of showing that the Mormon influence is far beyond what would be expected from their proportion of the population, but they’re responding to the call of church leadership that is reaching its long arm across two states to interfere in California politics.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, September 2, 2008)

1969:

“Guest poster Sheldon Greaves holds a Ph.D. in ancient Near Eastern Studies from the University of California at Berkeley where he specialized in Hebrew Bible. He is currently the Chief Academic Officer at Henley-Putnam University, where he also teaches classes in Religious Extremism.

Homosexuality in the Scriptures:

There is remarkably little said about this subject in the Bible. There are two verses in the Pauline epistles, and the Old Testament, upon which the New Testament passages rely.

The Old Testament and Leviticus 18

The first thing that should be mentioned is that homosexuality in toto is not prohibited in the Old Testament. Lesbianism is mentioned nowhere and is not specifically prohibited anywhere.…

Sex and the Mosaic Law

… The silence of the Old Testament on lesbianism now becomes clear; since there is no spilling of blood or semen, there is no reason to prohibit it.…

But let’s take a closer look at 22 verse itself:

‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.’

If you consult the original Hebrew text (both Lev. 18 and 20), the phrase used for ‘lying as with a woman’ is a specific idiom: mishkeve ‘ishah, which only refers to illicit heterosexual relations.…

So let us review. The Old Testament only prohibits homosexual acts if the following are true:

• The partners are male
• The act is taking place within the borders of the land of Canaan
• The partners are sufficiently consanguineous as to fall within the list of prohibited relations specified in Leviticus 18.

What is an ‘Abomination’?

There still remains the meaning of the last clause of verse 22: ‘it is an abomination.’ What is an ‘abomination’? Most readers of the English translations skip past this word, but they don’t realize that in the Hebrew text this word (to’evah) has a very specific and technical meaning in Leviticus. It is used to denote acts that are found in the practices and rituals of foreign religious cults, particularly those of the Canaanites of biblical times, which were forbidden by Israelite religion.…

Two Other Reasons to Prohibit Homosexuality

… The second reason for prohibiting homosexuality is its alleged role in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This also stems from a misconception, namely that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality (hence ‘sodomy’). But the Bible itself in Ezekiel 16:49 clearly states that the sin of Sodom was to neglect the poor and the needy. Nothing in that verse or those adjoining it can be construed to mean that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.…

A proper explanation of this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this treatment, but most modern scholars agree that the destruction of Sodom was believed to have been due to their violation of the institutions of hospitality rather than for homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality and the New Testament

… The only verses that mention homosexuality in the New Testament are in the Epistular literature: 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27. Jesus makes no mention of it. Paul mentions it in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which, incidentally, also includes the only reference to lesbianism in the entire scriptural corpus.

But there are reasons why we must not automatically accept Paul’s statement as a blanket prohibition of homosexuality. It is generally acknowledged that in these verses Paul is reliant on Mosaic law and, as we have seen, Mosaic law does not prohibit all homosexuality except under the narrow constraints specified. It should be noted here that Paul is not a reliable interpreter of Old Testament law. Many studies have been written about how even his representation of ‘accepted’ Jewish interpretations of Mosaic Law are often flawed, and therefore one must use Paul with caution in this context. The fact that he isolates himself by proscribing lesbianism when both the Old Testament and the words of Jesus are completely silent on the issue is a strong indication that he is injecting his own feelings into the matter or drawing upon extra-biblical tradition.…” (“Answers: The Bible and Homosexuality,” posted by Laura Compton on MormonsforMarriage.com, September 5, 2008)

1978:

“Three of the testimonies from today were lengthy discussions of Prop 8 topics covered included the need to help the amendment pass; the awful consequences for years to come if it doesn’t pass; the joy of Prop 8 volunteer work; the idea of the depression about doing Prop 8 work is sent from Satan to try to block the work; and satisfaction that we Mormons are pulling the laborers or in doing a lot more door-knocking than the Evangelicals.…

[The following were among the comments posted on the website:]

[mpb]  Prop 8 gets mentioned in Sunday School, usually by a commenter, on the order of every other week, or so in my Texas ward.

[Jon]  I can honestly say that I have not heard a single referenced to it in our ward in Oregon.

[Vesper Holly]  I live in San Diego and I have been ditching SM [Sacrament Meeting] but still have not been able to avoid prop 8.  It is mentioned in every meeting, donation sheets are passed around in RS [Relief Society] and there are pleas for donations and volunteers in the announcements as well as impromptu testimonies during classes. It is EVERYWHERE!!!! I can only imagine what we could do if we directed our efforts towards our local homeless population or something.

[the narrator]  I just moved to California a week ago. Some friends told me things were pretty bad out here, but today with two testimonies of prop 8 in a row (one by the visiting stake president), it finally dawned on me.…

[Stacy]  … While I agree that testimonies should not be used to push Prop. 9, the Prophet has asked us to support it. To me, it is a simple issue: do you have a testimony of the prophet or not? It is standing for what our church is based on – the organization of the family.… We are free to choose. I choose to follow the prophet. It’s what we teach our children to do.…

[Granddad] For the last two months I have endured listening to the fear-mongering from the pulpit in my Southern California Sacrament Meeting, Stake Conference, Gospel Doctrine and in my High Priest group meetings; this in spite of our Stake President’s instructions to ‘not discuss this issue in our meetings.’ I have respected his counsel (I oppose prop 8) but those in favor of prop 8 have not. Lobbying goes on.

In each case, the ultimate appeal is to ‘follow the prophet.’ And the message I’m getting is quite clear: if I do not support, campaign for, give money to and vote for prop 8, I do not sustain the brethren. Really? And if I disagree—they don’t want to hear about it.

(“Prop-8-imonies,” ByCommonConsent.com, September 7, 2008)

3478:

“Editor’s Note: Because California has no residency law, it will be exporting its same-sex marriages to the entire nation. No matter where you live, you may find yourself dealing with these consequences listed below.…

Consider these consequences if Prop 8 fails:

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.…

2. It will lead to more government intrusion into private lives.…

3. It will lead to speech monitors.…

4. Anti-discrimination regulations will become more important than religious beliefs.…

5. Churches will be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public.…

6. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father.…

7. Religions that sponsor private schools with married-student housing will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.

8. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government.…

9. It will cost everyone more money.…”

(Glen Greener, “What Happens If California’s Marriage Protection Amendment (Prop 8) Fails?” Meridian Magazine, September 9, 2008)

4317:

“… The Church affirms its neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates. The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.…” (LDS Newsroom, “First Presidency Issues Letter on Political Participation,” September 11, 2008)

1843:

“I do not believe these so-called ‘consequences’ have originated at or been approved by Church headquarters; rather, I suspect they are the result of overzealous volunteers who have misinterpreted California law and the legal cases on which the supposed consequences depend. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church. 

The original document text is in Times Roman font; my responses are in Calibri italics font. 

Six Consequences the Coalition [in Support of Proposition 8] Has Identified If Proposition 8 Fails 

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage. 

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (#51890) 

Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs. 

Response: This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that ‘pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.’ The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example, drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as ‘family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.’ 

Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach ‘respect for marriage and committed relationships,’ and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality.

Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same’sex marriage is ‘just as good’ as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.

2. Churches may be sued over their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries. 

Response: This false ‘consequence’ is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8. 

What was the New Jersey case about? The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. 

The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. ‘Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It’s even been used for debates and Civil War re-enactments.’ It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claim a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, they could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained only to the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax assessed was $200. The OGCMA continues to receive a property tax exemption for the remaining 99% of its property. 

This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church’s chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church’s income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New Jersey exemption and likely never would.

The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self-evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. 

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there. 

Response: Another misrepresentation. To begin with, it should be noted that Catholic Charities in Boston was not forced to close its doors—indeed it is still very active. (See its website at www.ccab.org.) Rather, Catholic Charities voluntarily ceased providing adoption service in Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, Catholic Charities elected to close its doors in protest over the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and because it was reluctant to undertake a lawsuit that might be lost.

LDS Family Services still operates in Massachusetts, as it does in California. There are several differences between LDSFS and Catholic Charities. LDSFS does not take federal or state funds; Catholic Charities does. LDSFS facilitates only voluntary adoptions and permits the birth mother to approve the adoptive parents. Catholic Charities handled non-voluntary adoptions (where the state seizes the children) and normally did not accommodate birth mother approval. Catholic Charities had contracts with the state and was, in effect, acting as an agent of the state. LDSFS does not. To date, LDS Family Services has never been forced to place any children with a gay couple, and has never been sued for not doing so.…

Therefore, the passage or failure of Proposition 8 will have no effect on the placement of orphans with gay couples in California.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits. 

Response: This claim relates to an experience at Yeshiva University in New York. Gay students were eligible for University housing, but their partners were not able to join them because they did not have marriage certificates. It should be noted that Yeshiva University (despite its name) is chartered as a nonsectarian institution, enabling it to receive state and federal funding. The New York court found that Yeshiva was discriminating against the students based on their sexual orientation—not their marital status. The ruling was based on New York City non-discrimination laws.

California’s existing non-discrimination laws give all registered domestic partners, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the right of equal access to family housing. To date, however, no California private religious school has been forced to comply with his law. Neither the passage nor the failure of Proposition 8 will have any bearing on the law relating to family student housing in California. 

The gay marriage problem will not arise at BYU and other Church universities because engaging in homosexual activity is a violation of the honor code and is a basis for expulsion from the University. These rules will not be overturned merely because California recognizes gay marriages, any more than they have been because Massachusetts, Canada and many European nations recognize them.…

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: ‘traditional marriage,’ or ‘family values’ because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is ‘hate speech.’ 

Response: Of course, anyone can be ‘sued’ for anything, but no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same-sex marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging in homosexual activity ‘shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.’ 

The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the speech ‘is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.’  Thus, even ministers who preach against same’sex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines. 

This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada. There have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four years.…

6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles. 

Response: The argument concerning cost is fallacious and calculated to engender fear. In actuality, the net fiscal effect of Proposition 8 will be an influx of revenue to California because of the anticipated increase in marriage ceremonies and the related boon to the economy. The change in the definition of marriage will not bring a ‘cascade of lawsuits’ because heterosexual and homosexual registered domestic partners already have all the rights of married couples in California. None of the lawsuits alluded to in this paragraph has anything to do with gay marriage. 

The wedding photographer case was in New Mexico, a state that has no gay marriage law. The medical doctor case was in California, but was based on our existing non-discrimination laws and would not be affected one way or the other by the passage of Proposition 8.…’

(Morris A. Thurston, “A Commentary on the Document ‘Six Consequences … if Proposition 8 Fails,” originally posted September 12, 2008)

3481:

“There are a few things that will get LDS Church members to open up their pocketbooks: a Mormon presidential candidate, tithing and gay marriage.

Church members, mostly from California, have made individual donations close to $5 million in support of Proposition 8, counting only donations of more than $1,000, according to one Web site.…

In June, California church authorities read a statement from Salt Lake City leaders over the pulpit that church members ‘do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.’

That has resulted in a mass of donations, said Nadine Hansen, who runs the Web site MormonsFor8.com. The site has a spreadsheet that shows donors in favor of Proposition 8 who have given more than $1,000. Such donations have to be reported immediately and are thus updated every night.

‘I suspect that when this is done, probably 80 percent of the money [from individuals] will be from Mormons,’ said Hansen, who describes her site as a neutral place to simply show who is donating. So far, the numbers show it’s closer to 30 percent, but many areas have yet to report and many small donors haven’t been catalogued yet.…

Coalition spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns said the church has played a significant role in support of the proposition, but that the coalition does not keep track of donors’ religions.…

There have also been 25,000 volunteers going door to door each weekend to inform voters about their point of view.

‘A good portion of those have been from the LDS Church,’ Kerns said.…” (Joe Pyrah, “LDS donate millions to fight gay marriage,” Provo Daily Herald, September 16, 2008)

2521:

“Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from California have donated nearly $4.5 million to a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The figures were collected by the group Mormons for Proposition 8…

Mormonsfor8.com tracked donations of over $1,000 by contributor name, city, state, date of donation and membership in the Mormon Church. A frequently updated spread sheet on the Web site listed over 1,200 Mormon contributors (some donating as much as $100,000) whose money made up 29% of the estimated $15,869,613 supporters of Proposition 8 have raised.…

Nadine Hansen, MormonsFor8.com’s maintainer, told the Daily Herald that she estimates ‘probably 80 percent of the money’ donated to the proposition will come from individual Mormons by November.…”  (“LDS Contribute Millions to Anti-Gay Amendment,” Q Salt Lake, September 16, 2008)

3482:

“’If we could identify every Mormon, I think that probably 85 to 90 percent of the donors would be Mormon,’ said Cedar City resident Nadine Hansen, creator of Mormonsfor8.com.…” (Rosemary Winters, “Utah Philanthropist kicks in $1M to fight California gay-marriage ban,” Salt Lake Tribune, September 17, 2008)

1465:

“[This was an article that Emily had written.  She sent it first to her mother for comment.] 

The Mormon Church’s involvement in California regarding Prop 8, of course, is still going strong.  A good friend of my mother’s called her one Sunday a few weeks back, beside herself, saying that she had just walked out of the ‘worst Sacrament Meeting of her life.’  She said, ‘That Sacrament Meeting I heard was not my church; if that’s the church, then it’s no longer mine.’

The theme was ‘Follow the Prophet’ wherein the congregation was literally told that the Prophet had spoken and they needed to respond.  That (direct quote) ‘Never mind your conscience, follow the Prophet. On this issue, he’s the only one who knows the difference between right and wrong. We have been put on the defense in this. The Proclamation on the Family was not given haphazardly and the Prophet will not lead us astray. Don’t try to choose between reason and the Prophet – it is simply who’s on the Lord’s Side?  We don’t know how much is at stake here. It is not politics, it is God’s law. If you do not follow the church on this you do not follow Christ. We expect your time and your means.’

Then a high councilman took ten minutes at the beginning of Relief Society and told them they were all to participate. That not participating is not an option.

In a conversation with a friend in the ward, this same woman expressed her absolute inability to participate. Her friend responded, ‘But you’re just like a frog that was put in a pot of cold water that got hotter and hotter until he died; you’ve just gotten used to this evil idea. This is a test of your faith!’

She called my mother again a few days later, still extremely upset. She and her husband had gone in to see their bishop. The bishop indicated he personally was not as hard-line as his talk sounded on Sunday, but he was following directions from the stake. They were told then their ward’s quote is $10,000.00, as it had been in 2000 [for Prop 22], and they are asking everyone to give 1% of their gross income. She said a number of her friends have been hugely upset as well.  One friend and husband had been assessed $3,000. They told them they couldn’t afford that. They were told, ‘We believe you can. We know the kind of vacations you’ve been taking.’ A man of sixty told his recruiter he didn’t have the money, and he was told to take it out of his retirement fund.’” (Emily Pearson email to Carol Lynn Pearson [her mother], September 19, 2008)

1847:

“Mormons have emerged as a dominant fund-raising force in the hotly contested California ballot fight to ban same-sex marriage.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have contributed more than a third of the approximately $15.4 million raised since June 1 to support Proposition 8. The ballot initiative, if passed, would reverse the current right of same-sex couples to marry. 

The tally of Mormon contributions was provided by Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com — Yes on 8, the initiative’s primary backer. A finance-tracking group corroborated Mormon fund-raising dominance, saying it could exceed 40%.

The Mormon Church decision to enlist members on behalf of the same-sex marriage ban has given supporters of Proposition 8 a fund-raising lead. The campaign to defeat the initiative has collected around $13 million so far, said Steve Smith, a top campaign consultant for No on 8, Equality for All. Both sides raised roughly equal amounts in the early stages, said Mr. Smith, but ‘all of a sudden in the last few weeks they are out-raising us, and it appears to be Mormon money.’

The top leadership of the Mormon Church, known as the First Presidency, issued a letter in June calling on Mormons to ‘do all you can’ to support Proposition 8.

Mormon donors said they weren’t coerced. ‘Nobody twisted my arm,’ said Richard Piquet, a Southern California accountant who gave $25,000 in support of Proposition 8. He said Mormon Church leaders called donating ‘a matter of personal conscience.’ Some Mormons who declined to donate said their local church leaders had made highly charged appeals, such as saying that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn’t give. Church spokesmen said any such incident wouldn’t reflect Mormon Church policy.…

The battle has drawn in money from around the country. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic group, has given more than $1.25 million to support Proposition 8. Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization composed mainly of evangelical Protestants, has given more than $400,000. The Yes on 8 campaign has received ‘more proportionally from the Latter-day Saints Church than from any other faith,’ said Mr. Schubert, 35% to 40% of the total.

The Mormon Church encouraged its members to send their donations to a separate post-office box set up by a church member, said Messrs. Schubert and L. Whitney Clayton, a senior Mormon Church official involved in the campaign. Mr. Clayton said the church didn’t keep track of how much individual Mormons donated, just the cumulative total. He said members bundled the donations and forwarded them to the campaign.

A Web site run by individual Mormons, Mormonsfor8.com, has tracked all donations to the Yes on 8 campaign of $1,000 or more listed on the California secretary of state’s Web site. The site’s founder, Nadine Hansen, said they have identified more than $5.3 million given by Mormons but believe that donations from church members may account for far more than 40% of the total raised.

Robert Bolingbroke, a Mormon who lives near San Diego, said he and his wife decided on their own to donate $3,000 in August. Later, he was invited to participate in a conference call led by a high church official, known as a member of the Quorum of Seventy. Mr. Bolingbroke, a former president and chief operating officer of The Clorox Co. , estimates that 40 to 60 Mormon potential donors were on that call, and he said it was suggested that they donate $25,000, which Mr. Bolingbroke did earlier this month. Mr. Bolingbroke said he doesn’t know how he or the other participants on the call were selected. Church leaders keep tithing records of active members, who are typically asked to donate 10% of their income each year to the Mormon Church.…

The prominence of Mormon donors in the Proposition 8 fight has also led to alliances with evangelical Protestant groups and other Christian religions, some of which have deep theological differences with Mormons.

Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, ‘I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for’ the marriage campaign. Rev. Garlow said he had developed a ‘friendship’ with the Mormons he met, although he feels the theological differences remain ‘unbridgeable.’

But he noted how Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed tight bonds through their joint work against abortion, and he said a similar process might occur with Mormons.

Asked if working on Proposition 8 might improve the standing of Mormons in the eyes of evangelicals, Mr. Whitney said, ‘That’s just not been on our radar.’…” (Mark Schoofs, “Mormons Boost Antigay Marriage Effort,” Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2008)

2231:

“Though the leadership of the Mormon church had phrased support for the anti-gay amendment as ‘a matter of conscience’ in urging its membership to contribute, some local church officials reportedly had told Mormons that it would endanger their souls not to give.

The Wall Street Journal cited the church’s top leadership as saying that was not consistent with the church’s official position.…” (Kilian Melloy, “Mormon Priest Threatened with Excommunication in Marriage Row,” EdgeBoston.com, September 22, 2008)

1463:

“I talked with a gal yesterday after church as to why she donated. She said the she and her husband are still on the fence on how to vote, but donated because they are in such horrible financial troubles they thought maybe they would be blessed if they ‘obeyed’ by giving their ‘means and time.’…” (Barbara Young to Brett Bradshaw, September 22, 2008)

1980:

“This file was presented as a handout to a small group of local LDS church leaders in hard copy form and was emailed to two people of which I am aware.

It contains information about the LDS Church’s involvement in and planning for the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Of special import is the first paragraph noting that the ‘broad coalition’ of churches involved in the Protect Marriage campaign is really not much more than just the LDS church.…

LATEST UPDATE PROP. 8

1. Elders Ballard, Christopherson [sic] & Clayton met last week with leaders of the Coalition for 2 hours. The brethren emphasized that there wasn’t much participation from non-LDS people. The work depends on us.…

8. VOTER REGISTRATION – less than half of our members are registered voters. We need at least one person per ward who is responsible to get voter registration cards and encourage members to get registered. We can use ward lists to call ward members to ask them if they are registered.  If they are not they can pick up a voter registration card at church.…”

(“LDS Church Proposition 8 anti-gay campaign notes,” WikiLeaks, released September 23, 2008)

1494:

“I too am witnessing the corrosive influence of this Prop. 8 campaign on relationships among Latter-day Saints, and I know that some of the damage is going to be permanent. Our stake leadership has avoided the heavy-handed demands for conformity and mobilization in favor of Prop. 8 in our stake, much to their credit.  I hear terrible horror stories, however, from other stakes (including Bob Rees’s as you are no doubt aware).” (Armand L. Mauss to Carol Lynn Pearson, September 24, 2008)

1493:

“I have resolved not to attend church in California until after the election, because Proposition 8 seems to find its way into almost every talk, announcement, comment, or lesson. People very pointedly say that ‘once the Prophet speaks, our only choice is to obey,’ meanwhile looking straight at me.”  (Larry Christensen to Carol Lynn Pearson, September 25, 2008)

1522:

“Early afternoon Barb [Young] called on a conference call with Bob Rees and me.  Reporting on their time with the two general authorities.  Barb said she and Steve were in prayer from the time they awoke to the time they went to bed.  She was very, very pleased with the meetings.  I’m looking at the notes I took:

Before going in to see Elder [Marlin] Jensen they asked his secretary if they could have a copy of his recent talk to 135 stake conferences by satellite.  The secretary said, ‘Of all the talks he has ever given, we’ve had more requests for this one!  I can’t tell you all the requests I keep getting for copies of this talk.’  They got a hard copy and an electronic copy.

Elder Jensen:  ‘He was unbelievable.’  We have to make a place for the gay people who want to stay in the church (the ones who want to obey the church’s rules, he meant).  They mentioned Carol Lynn Pearson.  Elder Jensen said he had gotten away from his commitment to the issue of our gay people.  ‘Then I re-read Carol Lynn Pearson’s Goodbye, I Love You and read No More Goodbyes, and they brought me back to where my heart is.’  Steve said, ‘Yes, finding Carol Lynn has saved Barb’s life on this.’

During Proposition 22 we were more loving.  This time is has really gotten away from us.

Yes, the evangelicals would like to ‘take down the Mormons.’

‘We’re not on the ground and we did not see this coming.’

No, the statement on Prop 8 was not a ‘revelation.’

Jensen showed a sense of urgency.

A stake president in Sacramento received an assessment for his stake of $43,000.  He was sick at heart at the thought of asking his people to raise this, so he contributed the money himself.  (I called my brother David this morning and asked him if he knew ???–the name I found on the financial donors list of a Sacramento man who contributed $50,000.  He said it’s a man in their stake, but not their stake president.  I’m sure it’s the story Jensen was telling.)

Yes, yes, it’s been handled the wrong way.  Yes, now we need to do damage control.

Elder Holland:  Was distracted (concerned about moving missionaries in Bolivia out in the middle of the night the night before).  Felt defensive when we mentioned Prop. 8.  Glad we hadn’t told him that was what we were coming for.

‘The general authorities spent hours and hours deciding on whether to get into this at all.  I fully expect it to fail, but we will go down with the flag of family values held high.’

‘We’re nervous about being sued for temple marriages for gay people.’

‘What will this open up–what if eight men want to get married?’

Barb  challenged him on the logic of the legal stuff.

‘I am part of the Institution and I can’t go outside even if I wanted to.’

‘We knew it would cause friction between the church and the rest of society, but we didn’t realize what would be happening inside of the church.’

‘No, this is not a membership test not an obedience test.’

He hoped this would not affect Barb’s testimony.

‘My testimony of Christ has never been stronger,’ said Barb.

‘And we hope the same for your testimony of the church,’ he said.

Elder Holland asked if he could give Barb a blessing.  She was fearful it would just be him guiding her back to obedience.  Ten minutes.  Acknowledged her important work, said she is to continue using her powers to do the work she has been doing and always follow it with her testimony of Jesus Christ.’

Agreed about the bad partnership with the evangelicals.

Barb told him her stake president’s wife bout 1000 copies of a DVD put out by an evangelical group about the wickedness of gay people. (Carol Lynn: I think this is Bob Rees’s stake presidents wife and not mine).

‘I’ve done more for gay people than anyone I know up here–to the point of putting my job on the line.’

Holland raised his right hand to the square and said, ‘I don’t believe this amendment is going to pass.’

Barb told both of them that there has to be a statement put out to counteract what is going on.  Both agreed something had to be done, that they would confer with the brethren and see what they could do.  Barb and Steve stressed that the saints in California need to hear it from them that they are expected to study the issues and follow their own conscience on this matter.

This morning–Saturday we received the announcement that there is a satellite meeting to be on Oct. 8^th, regarding the amendment, with all stake and ward leadership and all those involved in Proposition 8 to be present.  General authorities will be speaking.  I sent this on to Barb, saying, oh, oh, this doesn’t look good.  She replied:

Is it at all possible that maybe just maybe this is when they will say what we are hoping they will. Elder Jensen was really wanting to have some sort of damage control and said he would meet with Clayton immediately.”

(Carol Lynn Pearson diary, September 26, 2008)

2799:

“Just the other day the missionaries told Bob Rees that they have lost 5 baptisms over this issue. I have a friend who told me she is going to attend the Presbyterian church until this is over so she can hear a lesson on Christ’s love and feel the spirit instead of going to her ward where the talks are all about supporting Prop 8 and the sprit is gone. Another friend in Southern California told us that every Sacrament, Relief Society, and Priesthood meeting has been on this subject for the past 6 weeks. She said a pamphlet, or some type of literature, and even envelopes for donation, have been handed out every Sunday. This last Sunday, bumper stickers were distributed during Sunday school; she hungers, as well, to get back to the teachings of our beloved Saviour.…

What we are concerned with is the following:

• Inside the wards, there is so much dissension amongst the members. The wonderful spirit that used to be felt during church has been replaced by fear and political fervor.…
• Unrighteous dominion by authorities who tell the congregation, ‘this is not the time to vote your conscience, it is just time to obey.’ ‘You are an apostate if you go against the proposition.’ ‘This is a revelation and therefore you must just obey.’ ‘Being against this proposition is being against the Prophet.’
• Passing out material that is false and misleading. The materials being handed out are written by the evangelicals and written to impose fear in those reading it. As we can see from Morris Thurston, these are scare tactics that are false. Worse, there are some in leadership positions who know that the handouts are false, but believe ‘the ends justify the means.’
• The belief that the original letter is a revelation and that we must just obey.…

Examples:

• The scariest news came from my dear friend whose sister came to her home crying and shaking because a counselor from her Stake Presidency told the Elders Quorum and Relief Society that he is ‘going to help them find their testimony to support Prop 8.’ He went on to say that if you are against it, you are ‘aiding and abetting’ and then gave what she and her husband called a fire and brimstone speech referencing Revelation 3:16 saying, ‘the Lord will spew out of his mouth those who oppose Prop 8 and they will be responsible for the sins of this generation.’
• In the Laguna Beach ward, all members were asked in Elders Quorum/Relief Society meeting to raise their hand and show their vote for Prop 8. A member in that ward said that every week they get some type of propaganda to support the ballot. She said that they no longer have a Sunday school lesson; instead it is a combined meeting called ‘8 reasons to vote for Prop 8,’ and includes the Sunday school teacher’s authored handouts with the same title. She said they do not receive a Sunday school lesson just ‘political stumping. She said the Sunday school teacher is now preaching his own gospel.
• In this same ward, a lobbyist was brought in to the combined EQ/RS meeting to tell them why they have to support Prop 8. She used a lot of the false scare tactics that have been going around. When asked if she is telling the congregation they HAVE to vote for Prop 8, the woman replied, ’Yes.’ (In addition, when asked if she is telling them they HAVE to vote for McCain, the woman replied, ‘Yes.’ This is clearly a violation of our agency.)
• In the Santa Monica singles ward, members were asked to stand up in Sacrament meeting to show who would vote for Prop 8. The same happened in a Los Angeles ward as well.
• In a Corona Del Mar ward, individuals were called out into the hall and asked on the spot to commit 40-plus hours to walking and driving to support Prop 8 and asked exactly how much $ they would contribute. Members felt pressured into making commitments even when they did not want to.
• In the Stanford singles ward, the bishop told the Relief Society that children raised by gay parents are less educated and don’t do as well socially.…
• In another Southern California ward, the speaker told the congregation that this is comparable to the Great War in heaven and the wicked will be separated from the righteous in the church.

Elder Jensen, what is going on?  We are scared. We are watching the most beautiful gospel and doctrine be twisted and used as a weapon and with it, the spiritual blood of so many are being shed. Please, I am begging you to do something, anything, to stop this horrible fervor. If I sound desperate, it is because I am. Steve and I have never been so worried. It is like watching something implode and not being able to do anything about it. Our hearts are breaking.…” (Barbara Young to Marlin K. Jensen, April 24, 2008)

1524:

“Members are being told, ‘Never mind what you personally think about all this; our leaders have spoken.’  Members are being evaluated by whether or not they are joining the march, and peer pressure is significant.…

(It is estimated now that probably 80% of the entire amount going to the official ‘Yes on 8’ campaign is being raised from Mormons, who make up 2% of California’s population.  This fact is not lost on the press, and Californians in general do not view it kindly.)…

Below is a list of a few of the things I am observing.  I have either seen these first hand or received them from trusted friends:

• A long-term friend of mine was dismissed by email from the high council and had his temple recommend (which he had for fifty years) withdrawn and has been ‘silenced’ because he made it known he was against the Church becoming involved in Prop 8.  I have been told of other similar stories.
• In a Los Angeles ward the bishop asked everyone to stand up who was supporting Prop 8 ‘so everyone can see.’
• A friend walked out of ‘the worst sacrament meeting of my life.  I was told if I did not get on board with Prop 8 I was not following Christ.  I was told this is not a time to consult my own mind and heart, this is a time for obedience.’
• A couple were told their share of the ward’s assessment was three thousand dollars.  ‘We don’t have that kind of money,’ they replied.  ‘We think you do,’ replied the ward Proposition 8 representative.  ‘We know the kind of vacations you take.’
• In that same ward a sixty year-old man was asked for $1,000.  He said he didn’t have the money and was told, ‘This is important enough that we suggest you take it out of your retirement fund.’
• A friend in my ward went in tears to our bishop.  She has a gay son and had two gay nephews who both committed suicide.  She said, ‘I can’t pay tithing until November is over, if then.’
• Several of my friends have stopped attending church until after the election; I predict some will not go back.
• In a friend’s stake five scheduled baptisms have been cancelled because of Prop 8.
• In my stake a Young Woman’s leader told the girls that the terrible fires California had earlier this summer were a result of our state Supreme Court allowing gay marriage.
• LDS science fiction writer Orson Scott Card wrote in the Deseret News/ Mormontimes.com that if our government is one that will allow marriage to be so desecrated as to allow gay people to marry, then it is time to take to the streets and overthrow our government.
• I hear of bishops and stake presidents asking for names of those who are opposing the proposition.
• A couple who are in dire financial straits and in the process of losing their home gave a significant contribution to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign, believing that their obedience will result in financial blessings.”

(Carol Lynn Pearson to Dallin H. Oaks, September 28, 2008; in Carol Lynn Person diary, September 30, 2008 entry)

2794:

“Dear Barb and Steve:

I have hardly been able to think of anything or anyone else since you left my office last week. I didn’t feel I helped you very much and indeed my inadequacy probably made things worse. What I do know is that I love you both and want you to be peaceful and reassured through all this tremendous upheaval that is going on over Proposition 8.

I did take our conversation seriously and immediately went to the Brethren who are overseeing this matter, commenting about possible improprieties on the part of priesthood leaders or members who may not have displayed Christian attitudes in their communications on the subject. They reassured me that they had already sent two messages to all stake presidents in California pleading with them to guard against just such a conflict, but they did tell me that they would immediately send a third directive—at my request—to again ask everyone to be courteous, respectful, and civil. In short we are asking everyone to be Christian.

I am enclosing from the Church’s website a long piece entitled, ‘The divine institution of marriage.’ You’ve probably already seen it, so I don’t mean to be shoving things on to you. However, I do so if for no other reason than to note that on the first page the statement tries to make clear that:

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

Indeed they go on to say this document was produced in an effort to ‘reduce misunderstanding and ill will.’ Whether we have succeeded in that in all individual cases is doubtful.

The attached document also makes clear that the Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, and so forth.…

You may have left my office disappointed and felt I was of no help. I hope you at least could recognize my love for you my love for all who struggle with gender-related challenges.… There are matters of eternal consequence here which go beyond the contemporary debate. Let’s get through this the best way we can. Even if there are differences of opinion, we must never allow them to damage the brotherhood and sisterhood we feel for those inside the Church and outside the Church. We are all going to need some healing when this is over. I pray we can have that.

With warmest regards,

[Signed] Jeff

Jeffrey R. Holland”

(Jeffrey R. Holland to Mr. and Mrs. Steve Young, September 30, 2008)

1524:

“From Barb Young:

Here’s the info on the Sunnyvale situation.

Sunnyvale ward, Los Altos Stake

During the combined EQ/RS meeting the Bishop stood up and told everyone that it was important that they pray and find their own testimony pertaining to Prop 8.

A member of the Stake followed and said that he was going to help ‘you find your testimony by education you about Proposition 8 and the issues.’ According to my sister and her husband, this person spoke about aiding and abetting. He said that if you do not actively oppose Prop 8, you are aiding and abetting. He then quoted the scripture that said the Lord would spew lukewarm water from  his mouth upon you. And that those opposing Prop 8 would be responsible for the sins of this generation.

In the Laguna Beach Ward, all members were asked in EQ/RS to raise their hand and show their vote for Prop 8. Kristen says that every week they get something else, be it propaganda, bumper stickers, etc. to support Prop 8. She says they no longer have SS, the lesson has turned to “8 reasons to vote for prop 8” and that those leaflets, etc. are passed out and it is no longer church just political stumping. She says she feels it is out of control, but she is the only person she knows of that is not in support of it. She says she feels it is being pushed with ‘peer pressure.’

In Jeremy’s ward: Santa Monica Singles ward, they were asked to stand up in Sacrament meeting to show who would vote for Prop 8.

In Corona Del Mar ward, individuals were called out into the hall and asked on the spot to commit 40 plus hours to walking or driving???? to support prop 8 and asked exactly how much $ they would contribute.”

(Carol Lynn Pearson diary, September 30, 2008)

2784:

“10/1/2008 – LDS Church registers the domain preservingmarriage.org.” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

3498:

“We should not weaken the ancient legal, social and other safeguards of marriage in a reckless social experiment that would have been unthinkable as recently as 30 years ago.…

The pernicious consequences of undermining traditional marriage cannot be fully understood for generations.…” (Editorial, “In defense of marriage,” Deseret News, October 5, 2008)

3499:

“FYI, identified LDS church members have contributed more than $8.1 million to the ProtectMarriage coalition, accounting for 42% of the donations, per Mormonsfor8.com.” (Laura Compton to Karen Grigsby Bates [NPR], October 6, 2008)

2783:

“There is no record that the Church paid for any phone banking from Utahns, but Lawrence Research (headed by Gary Lawrence) paid Voter Link of Highland, UT $20,495.38 for phone banking.” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

3501:

“[Whitney Clayton] ‘We are looking at options to fulfill a request from the Coalition to help with phone calls to encourage support of Proposition 8. We’re also responding to the many requests we have had from students and others who want to help. Making phone calls is something they can do.

Elder Clayton said that no decision had yet been made by the Coalition on whether to activate any phone volunteers outside of California.” (Becky Bruce, Executive Producer, KSL NewsRadio, “Church Readies Members on Proposition 8,” press release, October 7, 2008)

3502:

“On Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. PDT, there will be a satellite broadcast regarding Proposition 8 to stake centers throughout California. General Authorities and others will speak during the broadcast.…” (L. Whitney Clayton to Area Seventies; Stake and Mission Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents in California, undated)

872:

“The opposition has enjoyed a healthy lead in several surveys taken by polling organizations that do not have a stake in the campaign. But officials with the No on 8 campaign held a conference call with reporters Tuesday to announce that their own poll showed the measure would pass by four points.…

Although the Yes o 8 campaign has not yet posted its latest fund-raising report, supporters said Tuesday that they have raised at least $25 million, compared with $15.75 million raised by the other side.…

Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on 8, said he wanted to be able to ‘match {opponents} dollar for dollar. If we don’t get there, voters won’t hear our messages.’

Smith also said his forces are being outspent in part because of a surge in contributions from Mormon Church members.

‘I don’t think we have ever seen a single religion in the state … so significantly participate in one political campaign,’ Smith said.…” (Jessica Garrison, “Prop. 9 leads in new poll, opponents say,” Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2008)

3503:

“During a special satellite broadcast from Salt Lake City tonight to LDS chapels in Utah County as well as in California, LDS authorities are expected to ask Brigham Young University students and other Californians living in Utah to participate in phone trees in support of Proposition 8, which would define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.…

At the coalition’s request, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is making arrangements for Californians living in Utah ‘to call friends, family and fellow-citizens in California to urge support of the effort to defend traditional marriage,’ spokesman Scott Trotter said Tuesday.…

No calls from Utah have yet been made, but a small test of the phone-call system is ‘anticipated soon.’…”  (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “LDS Church woos Californians in Utah to back gay marriage ban,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 8, 2008)

1462:

“My friend, Jared, who has had a difficult time with his family—and keeps the Word of Wisdom, does not ever swear—is a very good person—even was trying to still go to Church at a student Ward as of 4 years ago—although he is excommunicated—he sounded on the phone like this would probably destroy his last chance to convince his mom he WAS spiritual and born this way. He says her pain is almost worse than outright condemnation. He was the one that when he came out, his mom fasted and prayed for 2 weeks, having only minimal water and food in between and was getting sick. He begged her to stop, saying, ‘Mom, please stop! If I were black, you couldn’t fast and pray and turn me white!’…” (Cynthia Stevens to Carol Lynn Pearson, October 8, 2008)

1853:

“On 10/08/08, top leadership from the LDS (Mormon) church (Elders M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Elder L. Whitney Clayton of the Presidency of the Seventy) participated in a satellite broadcast officially called The Divine Institution of Marriage Broadcast. 

[M. Russell Ballard, quoting from the Proclamation on the Family] ‘Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.’…

These are truths. These are eternal principles upon which the core doctrines of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are based. Although many in the world may question them, we cannot walk away from them or alter them.…

Today the pressures and forces working to destroy the divine institution of the family and marriage are many. Divorce rates are growing and out of wedlock births continue to increase, and the scourge of pornography is destroying that which is sacred.…

Yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the essential doctrine of eternal marriage and the role it plays in our Father in Heaven’s plan.…

President Gordon B. Hinckley addressed the church’s involvement a number of years ago in similar issues in this way. He said,

‘Some portray legalization of so‐called same‐sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights. It is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of such critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives, indeed we are compelled by doctrine to speak out.’…

President Hinckley counseled, 

‘I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same‐sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies either individually or as a group. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God.’…

[Quentin L. Cook] Before going further I want to make clear that we are talking about protecting the divine institution of marriage.…

Some ask what is wrong when marriage is granted to those of the same gender, as was done by the California Supreme Court. I’ve already stated one reason: it is contrary to God’s plan. In addition, the court’s decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberties, freedom of association, and free speech rights. 

The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family. People inside of institutions with beliefs that oppose same sex marriage will increasingly be labeled as intolerant and subjected to legal penalties or social ostracism‐‐and this will not limited to California, as its powerful influence is felt across the country. 

Three Concerns … Public Schools Teaching Gay Marriage 

Three examples will illustrate this concern. First: curriculum in public schools. Nearly all public schools provide education about health and sexuality. By law, health education includes the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. By law, sex education includes age‐appropriate instruction in grades K‐12 that teaches respect for marriage. 

The California Supreme Court has declared that same‐sex unions must be given equal dignity under the law. That’s unless Proposition 8 passes, children in public schools likely will be taught about same‐sex marriages, and that such unions should be respected as the equal of traditional marriages. Children will also likely receive age‐appropriate information about sexual relations within heterosexual and homosexual marriages. 

Religious Adoption Agencies 

Second, religious adoption agencies. After same‐sex marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, the state tried to force Catholic charities in Boston to disregard its religious beliefs and place children with homosexual couples. Rather than abandon its faith, Catholic Charities discontinued its adoption services. California’s religious adoption agencies will likely face the same choice under California’s rigorous anti‐discrimination laws. 

Religious Tax-Exempt Status 

Third, religious tax exempt status. Pressure will mount to revoke the tax exempt status of religious organizations and other charities that refuse to recognize same‐sex marriages or open their facilities for the performance of such marriages. The argument will be that the government shouldn’t subsidize discriminatory beliefs with tax exemptions. [SEE MORRIS THURSTON’S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS ON THESE ISSUES]

[Whitney Clayton] This organized approach actually works. And that’s why we are doing these things as part of the coalition supporting Proposition 8. 

Three Phases 

Phase One: this is the voter identification phase, which consists of canvassing to identify voter preferences so that phases two and three can focus on those likely to vote for Proposition 8. 

Phase Two: phase two is the advocacy and persuasion phase in which we seek to educate and persuade those voters who are undecided. 

Phase Three: phase three is the ‘get out the vote’ phase, in which voters are encouraged to actually go to their polling place and vote.…

Next is the week of October 27th. The eight-day final calling list begins. Phone banks will be available for evening calling. Calling teams are also welcome to make calls from their homes. Calls will be both persuasive and ‘get out the vote’ in nature. Finally, the week of November 3. On November 3 we’ll have all‐day calling centers. On November 4, we’ll be working on ‘get out the vote’, which will require many different activities to help voters get to their voting places and cast their ballots. 

Thirty People in Each Ward 

As you can see, much remains to be accomplished. We have been asked that at least thirty people in each ward and branch in California be asked to donate four hours each week between now and the election. Think of the good that will come from this level of participation between now and November 4th. [DO THE MATH]

Six Ways to Spend Your Time on Prop 8 

As you will see, we are inviting you to consider up offering much more than four hours per week between now and the election. So number one, if you haven’t done so already, register to vote this week. Number two, contact your California friends and family living temporarily out‐of‐state, and make sure that they are registered to vote, that they understand the importance of voting in favor of Proposition 8, and that they have ordered an absentee ballot. 

Number three, if you belong to a young single adult ward, student ward, or young married ward, contact your bishop and get the name and number of the Proposition 8 coordinator for your ward. Call that person and volunteer to donate whatever time you can, Tuesday evenings to Thursday evenings from six until nine pm, or any other hours you may be available. 

Four, if you are a young single adult or a young married adult in a traditional adult and involved with Institute, please contact your Institute director and get the name of the Proposition 8 coordinator at the Institute. Consider making the same commitment for Tuesdays and Thursdays. Or, if the Institute’s primary effort is working with like‐minded organizations on‐campus to educate their members and register them to vote, then your tasks may be during the daytime. 

Five, we invite each of you to set aside Saturdays between now and the election from nine in the morning until two in the afternoon to participate in calling, walking, and other assignments. 

Number six, finally, the weekend before the election, as Saturday the 1st of November, through election day on Tuesday, the fourth of November, we invite you to set aside as much of your time as possible for the One Hundred Hour program. Details for this program will be forthcoming. 

We love you, and have faith in your testimony, your dedication, and your commitment to righteous principles. You are our future. 

Church-Prepared Multimedia Pieces 

Now, a specific request to you young singles or young married adults who are proficient in using the Internet. The Church has prepared several multimedia pieces that will help you better understand this issue, and what you can do to defend and protect marriage. And, perhaps more importantly, they will also help you inform and even persuade others whom you are close to‐‐ your friends and your family‐‐to join in this noble cause. These multimedia pieces include videos, a web site, and Internet sharing tools. We hope that as Elder Ballard has suggested, you will post these materials on your own blogs, social media sites, and elsewhere. We would like to show you just a few of the videos that have been produced.…

[David Bednar] I just simply feel this passionate because, for our children, for our grandchildren, and for our grandchildren’s’ children, my desire is that they would have the happiness of the family, and marriage between a man and a woman as the central feature of the Father’s plan. His plan is called the Plan of Happiness. It’s called that for a reason, and everyone who has happiness in mortality, it comes in a variety of ways, but all of those ways focus on and lead to the marriage between a man and a woman, and if they’re blessed to have children, the rearing and nurturing those children. That’s what it’s all about. And I don’t want that disrupted. I don’t want that redefined. I don’t want that altered for our children and grandchildren.…

[Russell Ballard] And there’s no way that our Father’s children‐‐spirit children‐‐can come to this Earth except through the bonds of marriage, of man to a woman.…” [????] (“LDS church Proposition 8 broadcast transcript, 8 Oct 2008,” WikiLeaks, Release date October 15, 2008)

2676:

“The instructions [about phone-banking] echoed a letter that was circulated in Idaho last week.

‘The goal is to get as many members as possible who would be willing to make phone calls for two to our hours a week from now through election day,’ Robert Chambers, an LDS area authority for Pocatello, Idaho, wrote in a letter to stake presidents in the Rexburg area. ‘We ask you to commit initially to a minimum of 150-200 volunteers from your stake.’” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Young Mormons urged to join fight against gay marriage in California,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 9, 2008)

1179:

“I am writing to formally resign my membership…

The church’s action in respect to Proposition 8 in California has forced me to face the stark reality that the church no longer reflects many of my core values. I support the right of gays and lesbians to marry and share their lives in committed, monogamous relationships. The intransigence of current church policy regarding homosexuality, in the face of the bitter fruit it so obviously produces, is, simply, inexplicable.” (Gary Watts to Member Records Division, LDS Church, October 9, 2008)

1180:

“Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Member Records Division of the church resigning my membership.…

I can’t begin to express my disappointment in you and the church for the shameless and inappropriate assault on the civil rights of our dear brothers and sisters and two of my own children. This action will bear bitter fruit that will pop you and the church for decades to come. The alienation it has produced in the gay community and their families and friends is incalculable.…” (Gary Watts to Quentin L. Cook, October 9, 2008)

1461:

“Last night I (along with perhaps tens of thousands of others) attended an unprecedented broadcast sponsored by the LDS church aimed at rallying members (and non-members) to work in a ‘grass roots’ effort supporting Prop. 8, the ‘marriage initiative.’ In my life time I have never seen the church get this ‘involved’ in the political arena.…

We were also reminded that it is NOT SENSATIONALISM to think that were same gender marriage allowed to stand and to become legal, it could lead to extreme shifts in what is taught in our public schools (‘sex’ education for example). Also this will FORCE churches (including the LDS church) to marry same gender couples or lose their Tax Exempt Status. Of course, we would never capitulate or lower our standards. Therefore we, as a church, would become an ‘illegal’ institution. Let your mind run with that statement for a moment and then you’ll understand why the Brethren are so serious about this!…

The Brethren are very concerned. They know if this ballot does not pass, it will be taken by the opposition as a sign that all restraints no longer exist The Supreme Court’s move was just a ‘toe in the water.’ If this initiative does not pass, it will be taken as a green light ‘dive in.’ As Elder Bednar mentioned last night, they will push as far and as hard as they are allowed. If this ballot does not pass, it will put our value system throughout the ENTIRE NATION on precarious ground, indeed.…” (Tom Fowler email to “All,” October 9, 2008)

1525:

“Last night on a flight from Salt Lake City to Oakland I ran into Clark Pingree.  He had just left a visit with his mother (counselor in a recent RS general presidency). ‘I talked. She cried. The only words she could say were, “It’s a moral issue; we have to be on the Lord’s side.” We had been doing better, but no more. I am sick at heart.’” (Carol Lynn Pearson to Dean Criddle [her stake president], in Carol Lynn Pearson diary, October 11, 2008)

1526:

“From 3:00-5:00 I had a conference call with Bob Rees and Steve and Barb Young.  For the first part Steve gave us a report on his interactions with Marlin Jensen.  He had two conversations with him.

1) A week ago Thursday.  Called to thank him for his seeing us.  After our meeting he sent to Clayton (head of the whole thing for California) a long letter, giving examples of how things have been happening outside priesthood authority.  Said the church need to apologize to those we have offended.  We need to separate ourselves from the Christian Coalition.

2) Last Tuesday night.  Jensen had spoken with Clayton.  There had been a call with Clayton and the stake presidents, asking them to be very specific that this is not a membership test.  They knew there were ‘hot spots’ where they needed to be helped with the rhetoric.  Jensen said, ‘I stuck my neck out here,’ and he felt positive about what he did.…

When told of these abuses, Holland had kept putting his hands over his face and saying, ‘We’re a lay church, we’re a lay church.’  To which I said, ‘I find that very disingenuous.  The brethren have the authority to put out any kind of message they want and to check any behavior that goes awry.’…

Barb read us a letter she had received from Elder Holland.  ‘I’ve been thinking so much of you…hope you’re peaceful and reassured.  I went to the brethren right after our meeting; they had already sent out two messages to the stake presidents.  I had them send a third, stressing that they be courteous, respectful and Christian in their dealings with this issue.’  To which I said, ‘Yes, they can be courteous and respectful in their insistence that they and they alone know the will of God and God says there will be no gay marriage.’  Elder Holland enclosed a copy of ‘The Divine Institution of Marriage.’  Also said that even though it was distasteful to work with the evangelicals who do hate us, we had to join with them on this.  Said, ‘There are matters of eternal consequence here.’  To which I said, ‘Yes, like the incredible damage that is being done to the relationships of family members, the terrible damage to the hearts of our gay people.’  Barb and Bob agreed with all my comments; Steve was off the phone by this time; they had to share the phone.…

[At this point, Bob left the conversation, and Barb and Carol Lynn continued.] [Barb] told me she’s ‘disenchanted,’ that for a long time she kept her eye on all the good things, but that now it’s like ‘the curtain has been pulled back and I see, I see.’  I said, ‘What, you mean the Emperor has no clothes?’  She laughed and said yes.…

She said someone who had been ward clerk when Bob was bishop (this would have had to be in LA) told her that the stake president [probably Bill Tanner] said to Bob, ‘I hear your ward is becoming a haven for gay people.’  Bob replied, ‘I hope our ward is a haven for anyone who needs the love of Christ.’  One month later that stake president’s gay son jumped off the Golden Gate bridge.  I tell this story because this is what Barb heard.  I have not verified it with Bob.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, October 12, 2008)

1856:

“Pam and Rick Patterson have always followed teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tried to live within their means. He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at-home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three bedroom home in fulsome.

It’s a traditional lifestyle they believe is now at risk. That’s why the Patterson’s recently made a huge financial sacrifice—they withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

‘It was a decision we made very prayerfully and carefully,’ said Pam Patterson, 48. ‘Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.’…

Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for protectmarriage.com, the primary backer of the ‘yes’ campaign.…

‘I think anyone would be troubled by any one religion exerting that kind of financial influence in a decision about what our Constitution is going to say,’ said Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the executive committee of No on Prop 8. ‘The amount of money the Mormon church is giving is alarming and sobering,’ she said. ‘This is a wake-up call.’” (“Mormons lead the way in financing Yes on Prop. 8 efforts,” Sacramento Bee, October 13, 2008)

2237:

“ProtectMarriage.com: This is the official Web site of ProtectMarriage, a coalition supporting Proposition 8.

PreservingMarriage.org: This Web site provides multimedia resources to help Latter-day Saints and others better understand the Church’s position on Proposition 8.…” (“Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8,” LDS Newsroom, October 16, 2008)

2782:

“10/17/2008: ProtectMarriage.com TV ad featuring the Robb and Robin Wirthlin family airs.… Elder [Joseph] Wirthlin was Robb’s grandfather; Richard Wirthlin is Robb’s great-uncle.…” (Mormons for Marriage timeline)

1459:

“As the LDS 48-year-old mother of a lesbian 28-year-old, who I am very close to … Lately I have felt downright chafed from ‘straddling the fence’ on issues that the church would have me see one way, but my heart, and my love for my daughter, her partner, and their precious little 9-month-old daughter, born to my daughter’s partner through artificial insemination, would have me see things very differently from what is being taught over the pulpit.” (Kimberly Reimann to Carol Lynn Pearson, October 17, 2008)

1458:

“My name is Mary and my son is gay. I love him and his partner and they are a part of our family of 5 kids. We could not, as some of my friends have done, push him out of the family. I love the church, and want to still be a part of it, but am finding that I am so uncomfortable there. The unkind words, however unintentional, make it hard to go to church.” (“Mary” to Carol Lynn Pearson, October 18, 2008)

875:

“No on Eight, the group leading the battle against Proposition 8, admitted it had been caught off-guard by the size of the anti-gay-marriage advertising campaign, funded by $30M of donations.…” (Guy Adams, “The honeymoon’s over for gay newlyweds as Mormons lead revolt,” The Independent (London), October 18, 2008)

1857:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose followers are more widely-known as Mormons, has swooped into two election battles against gay marriage this year. The Mormon Church is exercising its might in both California and Arizona like never before. If passed on November 4, Proposition 8 in California would immediately eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. In Arizona, Proposition 102 would write this discrimination into their Constitution by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. In both states, the Mormon Church has hijacked these campaigns.

On June 20th, three days after same-sex marriage became legal in California, the top leadership in the Church, known as the First Presidency, sent a letter to be read to all Mormons to ‘do all you can to pass Proposition 8.’ The Wall Street Journal reported on September 20th, that church members were told ‘their souls would be in jeopardy’ if they do not donate money.…

Despite tough economic times, an amazing 59,000 Mormon families have succumbed to substantial pressure from church elders, and have given huge amounts of money to California’s Yes on 8 campaign. These Mormon families have given a staggering $18.6 million since June 1st and the total grows daily. This represents 77% of all money raised and 88% of all individual money raised (not including funds from the big out of state organizations). In Arizona where a gay marriage ban is back on the ballot after losing just two years ago, Mormon families have contributed nearly all of the $6.9 million to the Yes on 102 campaign. What is going on here?…” (Fred Karger, “Mormon Power Grab: It’s Tearing Families Apart,” Huffington Post, October 20, 2008)

2236:

“Jim Abbott

Managing Partner, Abbott & Associates/Abbott Realty Group

San Diego, CA

We write as the Executive Committee of ProtectMarriage.com…

Equality California is advertising on its website that it has received a contribution of at least $10,000 from you.… We are sure that you would want to review the way that they are using Abbott & Associates’ name, since many more of your clients support traditional marriage than support same sex marriage.…

We respectfully request that Abbott & Associates withdraw its support of Equality California. Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. A donation form is enclosed. We will be most grateful and will advertise on our website Abbott & Associates’ generous contribution.

Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published. It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage.…

ProtectMarriage.com, by

Ron Prentice

Edward Dolejsi

Mark A. Jansson [LDS]

Andrew Pugno”

(ProtectMarriage.com to Jim Abbott, October 20, 2008)

1530:

“Jan T. called to say that her sister in Southern California is working hard for Prop 8, is on fire with all the ‘consequences’ that will happen if it doesn’t pass. There is no stopping this wildfire of fear.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, October 20, 2008)

3510:

“Those speaking in the name of their God and prophets, led principally by out-of-state Mormons and joined by evangelical Christians, have made the removal of my rights a holy war for the new century.…

Why are Mormons, some fundamentalist Christians and apparently the Roman Catholic Church arrayed to attack my rights? How do I in any way undermine any of the beliefs or institutions of those religions? I feel laid bare that people I do not know can vote secretly to remove my rights. This is, unfortunately, reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg Laws that led to Kristallnacht, that horrible event 70 years ago next month that resulted in the burning of over 200 synagogues and countless other Jewish-owned establishments. The Nazis stripped rights from Jews piecemeal until finally Jews lost the right to eat and then to live.…

I am not sure that I want to get married, but if I do, it’ll be for business reasons. I don’t want to marry in a Mormon or Roman Catholic or fundamentalist Christian church. I don’t want Rabbi Lapin to officiate, either. I do want the right to choose how to handle my estate, my healthcare and all of the other hundreds of rights that married couples take for granted.

In Judaism, marriage is defined by a contract called a ketubah, which is a business agreement between bride and groom. The bedrock of marriage is in fact economic, not spiritual. Were it not the basis of ownership and property for couples who enter into it, the state would stay out of the business of marriage and leave it all up to religious institutions. And that would be just fine with me.

Were marriages simply religious unions, they would end through churches or spiritual advisors, without state involvement. But marriages end as they begin, in business transactions called divorce, governed by a huge body of law and handled in special courts.…

Perhaps the Elders of the Mormon Church can explain how, on the one hand, they are protected by the state from persecution by Christians who think them apostate, but on the other hand, they are free to persecute me for having civil rights?” (Rick Jacobs, “Do Mormons Deserve Equal Protection Under the Law?” Huffington Post, October 20, 2008)

1135:

“By the way, I donated $1,000 to Yes on 8, and although some helpful soul has identified me on this list as a Mormon, I see lots of individuals on the list whom I know to be members of the Church, but who haven’t been identified yet. Obviously, the supporters of ‘Mormons for Proposition 8’ need to work harder.…

Full disclosure: I am a Prop 8 grassroots worker myself.  My wife is Deputy Communications Director for the Yes on 8 Campaign.” (Lowell Brown, “California’s Proposition 8: Open Season on Mormons?” Article VI Blog, October 21, 2008)

1858:

“’We gave identified the Mormon contributions to Yes on Prop 8 and it totals $18.64 million contributed by 59,000 Mormon families in just over 3 months. This Mormon power grab represents 77% of the $22.88 million raised by the Yes on 8 campaign since they qualified their initiative for the November 4^th ballot,’ said [Fred] Karger.” (“Mormons Donate 77% of Money to End Gay Marriage,” Californians Against Hate, October 21, 2008)

3511:

“The main reason the ban on marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples has been able to finance a massive advertising campaign is that the LDS church is bankrolling the entire effort. Up to 40 percent of the financing comes from Mormons, who have also sent countless volunteers to the state to canvass door to door. It’s all legal, and totally within their democratic rights, but it is striking that one single religious grouping could invest so much in attempting to strip civil equality from gay couples.” (Andrew Sullivan, “The Mormon Church vs. Civil Marriage Equality,” The Daily Dish, October 22, 2008)

873:

“A state ballot measure to ban gay marriage in California is gaining momentum, with polls showing almost even odds of it passing after trailing by double digits a month ago.…

A Sept. 18 poll by the San Francisco-based Field Poll found the measure losing 55% to 38% among likely voters.

But now the measure is favored 48% to 45% among likely voters questioned in an Oct. 17 poll by Survey USA of Verona, N.J.…

Supporters of Proposition 8 have gained ground by capitalizing on their opponents’ missteps. They have been running a television ad for several weeks that shows San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom delivering a boisterous response to a throng of supporters after the state Supreme Court ruling. ‘The door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not,’ the Democratic mayor says loudly.

‘Gavin Newsom has been a great player on our team,’ said Sonja Eddings Brown, spokeswoman for Protect Marriage California, a group that has been leading the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.

Pollsters say that fueling the rise in support for Proposition 8 is an advertising blitz heavily bankrolled by the Mormon Church, which suggests, among other things, that if Proposition 8 doesn’t pass then schoolchildren will be indoctrinated about gay marriage.

Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the ‘Yes’ campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say. ‘Yes’ campaigners say the Mormons are just one of many religious groups that support the ban.

Officials in San Francisco — a national pioneer in recognizing gay marriages — have come out strongly against the Mormon Church’s campaign. ‘This is a blood feud on their part,’ said Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney of San Francisco.

A Mormon Church spokesman said it is acting only as a part of a broad coalition of groups opposed to gay marriage. ‘The campaign has had the support of over 60,000 individual contributors, the majority of which are not Mormons,’ Mormon spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement. Mormon leaders, on the church’s official Web site, ask their followers to support the California ballot measure to reinforce church teachings that ‘marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.’…” (Jim Carlton, “Gay Marriage in Peril in California,” Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2008)

2119:

“The Wirthlins story is simple as told by them. They were only trying to protect their son and felt wronged by the overwhelming opposition of their community and the First District Federal Court.  

What the couple and the Yes on 8 campaign do not mention, however, was that the Wirthlins were members of a political organization pressing for an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage before the teacher read the book King and King to their son, according to a 2006 article by Michael Meade of 365Gay.com. The Wirthlins, it seems, were looking for a reason to sue in Massachusetts.  Now they’re looking for a fight here in California.…

The Wirthlins lost their legal battle – the U.S. Supreme Court just declined to hear the case, letting the lower court ruling stand – but they are far from losing the war.…” (Dan Aiello, “Mass. Couple pushes Prop 8,” Bay Area Reporter, October 23, 2008)

3513:

“The LDS Church said it no longer needs volunteers in Utah County to help make calls in support of a California ballot measure that prohibits gay marriage.

Leaders in several Mormon wards in Provo and Springville on Sunday read a letter from Donald J. Butler, an LDS area authority over the Utah South region, saying that all those who were called to help with the initiative were released immediately.

LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah said the Coalition to Protect Marriage’s request for help prompted the initial plea for volunteers in California and later in Utah, but ‘the church has since determined that such phone calls are best handled by those who are registered California voters.’” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “LDS Church says Utah volunteers will no longer aid California marriage proposition,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 23, 2008)

2143:

“Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com … sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.…

The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: … Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…

Sonya Eddings Brown, a ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman, estimated that 36 companies were targeted for the letter and said those that do not respond with a contribution would be highlighted in a press release and on the campaign Web site.…” (Lisa Leff, “Calif. Gay marriage ban backers target businesses,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2008)

1861:

“This week Dante Atkins, writing at Daily Kos, a politically liberal Web site, published a link to a list of Mormon donors and encouraged people to ‘use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to . . . shall we say . . . less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious.’

To LDS blogger Lowell Brown, that is tantamount to religious intimidation.

‘If you are a Mormon and you donate to Prop 8, thousands of strangers will try to smear you, in the hope of intimidating you and others into not exercising your right to freedom of speech,’ Brown, whose wife is the deputy communications director for the Yes On 8 Campaign, wrote in a recent post at article6blog.com.

Yet Prop. 8 leaders are trying the same tactic. They threatened to out businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay-rights group, saying in essence, ‘Give us money or we’ll publicly identify you as opponents of traditional unions,’ according to an Associated Press story on Thursday.

John Schroeder, a Presbyterian elder and Brown’s co-blogger, argues that Proposition 8 opponents are trying to divide the Coalition to Protect Marriage, a broad-based group of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life. It has brought together more than 100 churches, including dozens of Baptist, Catholic, Assemblies of God, Evangelical and Lutheran groups as well as fundamentalist para-church organizations such as Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Creation Research, and Traditional Values Coalition.…

‘I am so grieved to see whom my church has chosen as friends in this campaign to pass Proposition 8,’ said Carol Lynn Pearson, a longtime advocate for gay Mormons. ‘We have gotten into bed with some of the most extreme of the “Religious Right,” some of whom are well known as hate mongers.’

This was not a ‘mutually affectionate liaison,’ Pearson said, sharing quotes from her own diary. ‘We have been raped by organizations that hate the Mormons but love our money and our energy . . . and now are we pregnant with their fear and their hate. Much of the rhetoric we use they have put in our mouths, words based more in fear than in fact.’” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Accusations fly as battle over Prop. 8 nears finish,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 24, 2008)

1865:

“The thought of going to church in her southern California LDS ward makes Carol Oldham cry.…

‘It has tainted everything for me,’ Oldham said, choking up during a telephone interview. ‘I am afraid to go there and hear people say mean things about gay people. I am in mourning. I don’t know how long I can last.’…

This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church’s built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members’ willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty.… 

‘I do expect the church to face a high cost – both externally and internally – for its prominent part in the campaign,’ said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a ‘prophetic imperative’ to speak out against gay marriage.

‘The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity,’ Mauss said. ‘In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders.’…

Latter-day Saints are free to disagree with their church on the issue without facing any sanction, said L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS Quorum of the Seventy. ‘We love them and bear them no ill will.’…

Gary Lawrence, writing in the online Meridian Magazine, compared opponents of Proposition 8 to those who sided with Lucifer against Jesus in the pre-mortal existence. Others have questioned such members’ faith and religious commitment, accusing them of undermining the prophet.” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “LDS Church’s stance against gay marriage its most vigorous since 1970s,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 26, 2008)

2139:

“The Yes on 8 campaign estimates that up to 40 percent of its donations come from Mormons. Some others estimate that Mormons account for over 70 percent of donations from individuals.

All of California’s Catholic bishops have all come out in favor of the measure. So have many evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. Yet it is Mormons, who account for 2 percent of the state population, who are catching the most heat.…

Nadine Hansen, who runs Mormonsfor8.com, said the church decided to enter politics and can’t excuse itself for the ramifications.

‘Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee,’ said Hansen, 61, a Mormon who lives in Cedar City, Utah, and has stopped going to church. ‘You can’t get involved in politics and say, “Treat me as a church.”’…

The Mormon church hasn’t taken the same level of interest in Arizona or Florida, which also have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

But California is a bellwether, said LDS spokesman Mike Otterson. ‘If same-gender marriage is approved in California … other state will follow suit.’…” (Matthai Kuruvila, “Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 27, 2008)

3517:

“Ten days before the vote on Proposition 8, campaign finance records showed that total contributions for and against the measure had surpassed $60 million, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

That would be a record nationally for a ballot initiative based on a social rather than economic issue, campaign finance experts say. It also eclipses the combined total of $33 million spent in the 24 states where similar measures have been put to voters since 2004.…” (Lisa Leff, “Same-sex marriage ban nets big bucks,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 2008)

1636:

“Donations of $10,000 or more require a special report that David [Bauer] will automatically complete and submit that report for the donors, therefore, it is actually recommended that anyone that was going to make a $10,000 contribution, that we change that amount to $9,999 and avoid the extra paper work.” (James B. Martino, Area Seventy, email dated October 28, 2008)

1534:

“The general leadership has given a clear signal that this is the work of the Lord and that the very survival of the Lord’s plan for the human family is in jeopardy.… I’ve never seen anything like this in my life, and I saw some awful, foolish things during the ERA.

By the way, Susan is doing fairly well now; her body is slowly adjusting.  She was in the hospital for two and a half weeks, most of that time in the ICU.  She nearly died.  Susan’s heart is broken over the prop 8 stuff.  The other day she cried as she told me her young friend Ashley Atkinson reports that nearly every week in the Berkeley University ward there has been a new round of ‘We have to come up with more money.’  Or ‘We have to give more time.’

This fork in the road that our church has taken will be seen historically, I believe, as a very large blunder.  And one from which it may never recover because, as you know, our church never acknowledges error.… Just as decades ago the church was known as racist, it will now be equally famous as anti-gay, and as the times become more and more gay-friendly the church will be more of an anachronism.  (Already some are calling prop 8 “The Mormon Amendment” due to our having provided between 40% and 80% of the pro-8 money.)  More and more people and families will leave the church over this, leaving an intellectual climate that is in harmony with the extreme conservatism that is going to make Utah one of the most enthusiastic McCain-Palin supporters.” (Carol Lynn Pearson to Craig E. Stewart [her bishop?], in Carol Lynn Pearson diary, October 28, 2008)

919:

“Campaign finance records show the Utah-based LDS Church has made its first financial contribution in support of a Nov. 4 ballot proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

The in-kind donation of $2,078.97 from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was made on Oct. 25 to ProtecMarriage.com, a coalition of faith organizations and conservative groups supporting Proposition 8.…

Jeff Flint, a co-manager of the ProtectMarriage campaign, says the LDS Church made the in-kind donation to cover the travel expenses of several Utah-based church leaders who went to California for a meeting last week.” (“LDS Church donates to back Proposition 8,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 29, 2008)

1535:

“Joyce King told me that 700 people from her daughter’s stake in the LA area lined the Pacific Coast Highway last Saturday holding Yes on 8 banners and signs.  Apparently, numerous other stakes down there did the same.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, October 29, 2008)

1867:

“The struggle over Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in California, has tightened dramatically in the past month, with opponents holding a slim 49 to 44 percent edge among likely voters, according to a new Field Poll.…

Opponents of Prop. 8 saw their 17-point lead in the September Field Poll melt away in the face of a multimillion-dollar onslaught of TV ads, leaving them hanging on desperately to their lead.…” (John Wildermuth, “Prop. 8 still trails, but margin narrows,” 

San Francisco Chronicle, October 31, 2008)

877:

“Reports that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a big supporter of Proposition 8 should sadden all Mormons. Based on the unique history of Mormons, there is no religious group in our country that should be more tolerant of ‘nontraditional’ forms of marriage than those of us whose ancestors were polygamist Mormons, who were persecuted because of their ‘nontraditional’ marriages.…

Our polygamous ancestors were accused of being incapable of providing loving homes for their children. Who knows better than we do that this was untrue? Who can deny that our ‘nontraditional’ ancestors left a heritage of hardworking, high-achieving progeny. And yet the fallacy that ‘nontraditional’ marriages erode and destroy family values is one of the main attacks being used against gay and lesbian couples by LDS proponents of Proposition 8.

Most Mormons today would concede that much of the continuing prejudice against the LDS church persists because of our history of ‘nontraditional’ marriage, even though 118 years have passed since the church abandoned polygamy. Still, what religious group has known more hatred and persecution in America than our families? And it lingers. Have today’s Mormons not learned to fight against prejudice and the vilification of people who happen to be different?…

Given the Mormon experience, why are today’s Latter-day Saints not in the vanguard of pleading for acceptance, equal rights and compassion for all Americans? They should be standing up in opposition to Proposition 8, knowing that loving homes and good parenting can come equally from ‘nontraditional’ or ‘traditional’ marriages.” (Lola Van Wagenen, “Debating Proposition 8: Should California eliminate marriage for same-sex couples?  Of all people, Mormons should be sensitive to those seeking nontraditional unions,” Los Angeles Times, November 1, 2008, A21)

1962:

“… wards are splitting as members’ beliefs about gay rights become a litmus test of righteousness.  Families are also divided between the uber-faithful and the conflicted.

Church leaders insist there is a higher cause: ‘Freedom of religion is at risk,’ says L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the LDS Presidency of the Seventy.

The irony is thick here.  But it seems lost on church leaders and many members.…

If polygamy can end with a revelation, wonders Washington Post columnist David Waters, what about Mormon opposition to gay marriage?…” (Rebecca Walsh, “LDS stand on Prop. 8 oozes irony,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 2, 2008)

1453:

“My brother-in-law and sister-in-law in California have suffered what I see as extreme church abuse. They both oppose the church’s fight against gay-marriage and I believe they are being unfairly treated as outcasts.

Here are the unfolding facts:

1. My brother-in-law has ALWAYS opposed the Proclamation on the Family because he sees it as purely an anti-gay document. When he was called into the stake high council, he told the stake president his feelings and was told that these opinions would not hinder him from serving. He served for many years. When the church decided to become involved in Prop 8, the stake president called my brother-in-law in and told him he would have to be released because he couldn’t have a member of the high council who supported gay marriage in the meetings. He was released.

2. They have been targeted as heretics in their ward and have been the recipients of many un-Christian-like comments and have had their car disfigured while parked in the church parking lot because they have a No on Prop 8 sticker on their car.

3. My sister-in-law decided to wear a rainbow ribbon on her dress (at church) and only talks about her feelings when someone asks her.  Yet upon returning home from a visit to Las Vegas to see her grandson baptized, she found a note on her door from a sister in the ward telling her that she had been released from her Relief Society teaching job. She never received an official call from any leader. When she called her bishop she was informed (in a very cold voice) that indeed she had been released because she doesn’t sustain the prophet and therefore cannot teach.

4. My family was interviewed in the Salt Lake Tribune and was quoted as saying they were saddened by the church’s position on this issue. Their comments were very mild, and not critical of the church, yet apparently someone from church headquarters called the local leaders in California, found out that my family had the missionaries renting a room in their home, and within one-half hour the missionaries were pulled from their home. They were told the atmosphere in their home was contentious and not conducive to having missionaries. This is ridiculous—and a member of the mission presidency knows my family well, and knows this isn’t true.

5. This week my sister-in-law received a call from her long-time visiting teacher and was told that the Relief Society President called and said that she could no longer visit my sister-in-law. Apparently, she isn’t worthy enough to have visiting teachers.”

(Larry Beaudin to Carol Lynn Pearson, November 2, 2008)

1868:

“The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign’s illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state’s gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households — among those most willing to take hard-to-place children — until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church’s religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.…

Another ‘Yes on 8’ canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today’s idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California’s Constitution that says, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized,’ Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8’s real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.” (“The myths of Prop. 8,” Los Angeles Times, November 2, 2008)

1869:

“With days to go before the second most watched election in the nation, the really big Mormon money has been pouring in from Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona like never before.

Led by Alan Ashton of Lindon, Utah who gave $1,000,000 on October 29^th, the Mormon Power Grab by funding 77% of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign has gone off the charts.…

The new Mormon money total contributed to pass California’s Proposition 8 is now a staggering $22 million dollars!…” (Fred Karger, “Out of State Mormons Just Gave $3 Million More to End Gay Marriage,” Californians Against Hate, November 2, 2008)

1538:

“Got this from Keith Atkinson, head of church PR for Southern California:

I’m afraid that enough blows have been dealt on both sides, that win or lose, the anger and divisiveness will go on for years — perhaps decades — to come.

Tonight was the latest blow from the No on 8 side. They released a new 60-second spot on YouTube showing two missionaries invading a lesbian home, confiscating their wedding rings, and tearing up their wedding license. The tag line says, ‘Say no to a Church that is taking over your government.’”

(Carol Lynn Pearson diary, November 3, 2008)

1871:

“President-Prophet Thomas Monson, the leader of the Mormon Church, clearly does not read history. If he did, he’d know that he and his apostles could not stand behind the stone walls and parapets of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, shoveling cash and lies into California without consequences.…

Thirty years ago, the Mormon Church at last decided that it was okay for African Americans to join its priesthood. Maybe, as we see real change in Washington, the Church will understand that it’s time now to welcome all people into its vision of America and thereby join America as well.” (Rick Jacobs, “Mormon Church on Prop 8: We Oppose Civil Rights (But Don’t Tell),” Huffington Post, November 4, 2008)

1872:

“A married lesbian couple answer a knock at the door and find two Mormons standing on their front porch.

‘We’re here to take away your rights,’ the Mormons announce, before shoving their way into the house, stripping the wedding rings off the women’s fingers, and ransacking their belongings.

‘You can’t do this!’ one of the women cries, to which one of the Mormons answers with a low, evil chuckle.

‘We have rights!’ they protest as the Mormons rip their marriage license in half.

‘Not if we can help it,’ the Mormons reply.

Strolling out of the women’s house, the Mormons jauntily trade remarks: ‘That was too easy,’ says one.

‘What should we ban next?’ the other one asks.

That’s a basic description of a TV ad produced by activists Dante and David Atkins and paid for by Courage Campaign Issues Committee to warn California voters that a yes vote for the anti-gay ballot initiative Proposition 8 is, in effect, a vote for a church-sponsored re-writing of California’s government.…

Yes on 8 was not alone in attacking the ad as being bigoted and anti-Christian. An article posted Nov. 3 at the right-wing Christian news site Christian News Wire described the ad so: ‘[It] depicts supposed missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day [sic] Saints conducting a home invasion of a lesbian couple’s home to steal their wedding rings and rip up their marriage license.’

The Christian News Wire item quoted the chairman of Yes on 8, Ron Prentice, as saying, ‘This ad reaches new lows of religious bigotry and intolerance.’” (Kilian Melloy, “Mormons’ $22M Backing of Prop. 8 Incites Critics,” EdgeBoston.com, November 4, 2008)

1873:

“The Yes on 8 campaign is doing its best to spread its outrage — outrage!! — over the latest ad against Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to take away the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The ad, which debuted on YouTube and is going out on television today, is certainly the most attention-getting TV spot to criticize the proposition. Most of the ads against Proposition 8 have been extraordinarily tame, unlike the fear-mongering rumors spread by the Yes side.…

Having viewed the ad, I can’t see what the big deal is. Skits like this are common fodder for campaign ads. Were opponents of Prop. 8 supposed to never touch the religious aspect of this? Is it supposed to be unfair to play the Mormon card, considering the role Mormonism has played on the Yes side (e.g., pressing its members to donate and work for the campaign)? Surely the Mormon church and its members never expected to leap into a campaign with this much vocal and financial might, funding it in large part and pushing for it relentlessly, without expecting that they would be viewed as a force that is trying to roll back the clock on gay rights in California. And considering that the Yes on 8 campaign has tried to depict gays and lesbians as attempting to take over elementary schools and force themselves on religious weddings, it’s not in a great position to claim bigotry and intolerance, let alone misleading advertising, coming from the other side.…” (“The Mormon missionaries and the lesbians,” Opinion.LATimes.com, November 4, 2008)

3528:

“As the owner of Mormonsfor8, I want to thank all of you who helped us identify Mormon donors. While many Mormon donors remain unidentified, I feel that we accomplished what we set out to do: shine a very public spotlight on the fact that Mormon leaders were the driving force behind the fundraising in favor of prop eight.

I’ve been called to repentance (get down on your knees, pray, go back to church), called a Nazi, and one person said that our website was Satan’s work. I resisted the very strong temptation to write back to him and tell him ‘the devil made me do it.’ I’ve also been gratefully thanked by many.

I will be watching the outcome tonight very closely. I just hope that the voters of my native California will come down on the side of the quality and refused to write discrimination into the state’s constitution.” (Nadine Hansen to supporters, November 4, 2008)

3529:

“I recently learned that [Gary] Lawrence has a gay son (Matt) who is (understandably) estranged from his father. It must be a sad family situation. Lawrence was one of the leaders of Prop 22 as well.” (Morris Thurston to Hugo Olaiz, November 4, 2008)

2239:

“Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” (“Church Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Votes,” LDS Newsroom, November 5, 2008)

1487:

“After receiving the news this morning that Proposition 8 passed in California, I sat here at my desk and solved. Hours later I am still crying.:

As a little girl I marched with my gay father and gave friends on Castro Street in the rallies and parades and was filled with pride and love. At the same time, I was filled with confusion because I write just little Mormon girl and I was taught that homosexuality is evil and wrong. That it is a sickness.

I am here to scream from the mountaintops that I am no longer a righteous little Mormon girl who can be scared and manipulated and I’m certainly no longer confused. I have learned to recognize evil when I see it and I am abundantly clear on where the sickness is coming from.…”  (Emily Pearson to Carol Lynn Pearson [her mother], November 5, 2008)

1488:

“My name is Tyler Zagoree.  I’m 19.… I’m gay and I used to be Mormon.…

I still cannot believe that the church can be so hateful. How can they truly want to take away the rights to good people? I have my name removed from the church records last spring and my mother and sister recently sent in their letters of resignation to in protest of the church is support for prop 8. I just cannot truly believe in a God that will favor the hurtful members of the church over the loving gay couples they are persecuting.” (Tyler Zagoree to Carol Lynn Pearson, November 5, 2008)

1489:

“To use a metaphor, the Church now has a pot overflowing and burning on a stovetop. It’s not going away. And it is their pot, and they are the ones who turned up the flame. It will make bad smells and a lot of smoke and make a whole lot of people angry. The thing will probably burst into flames at some point, and probably the fire department (the United States Supreme Court) will have to be called to put out the conflagration before it ruins any more of the house. It will be an interesting time.” (Larry Mann to Family Fellowship, November 5, 2008)

1874:

“The Mormon Church has paid a higher price than dollars, though. The battle split Mormons into camps for and against gay rights…

When California voters passed their initial ban, in a 2000 Mormon push, it was a lopsided margin, with fewer than 40% supporting gay marriage. Yesterday, nearly 48% supported gay marriage. That’s bitter progress.…

Catholics and other Christian groups were just as involved in the effort to pass Prop 8 as the LDS church. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento released this statement: ‘Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman, that has been the major building block of Western civilization for millennia. The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included, but were so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.…’” (Ray Ring, “Mormon Church wins on gay marriage,” High Country News (Paonia, Colorado), November 5, 2008)

1875:

“’We pick ourselves up and try again,’ said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a former Utahn.

She predicted that the movement for gay quality would continue to move forward. ‘If it’s not today or it’s not tomorrow, it will be soon,’ Kendell said.…

[L. Whitney] Clayton said the church never considered Proposition 8 to be a political issue.

‘We consider this to be a moral issue,’ he said, adding that ‘We’re not anti-gay, we’re pro-marriage between a man and woman.’…

Asked whether the LDS Church would engage in similar activism in the future, Clayton said, ‘I really don’t know. It depends on the issue, and the time and what is going on.’

In its statement, the LDS church said it does not object to domestic partnership or civil union legislation as long ‘as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.’” (Brooke Adams, “Mormon leaders urge respect for foes in gay-marriage debate,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 5, 2008)

1876:

“‘It pains me to describe it this way, but ‘No on 8’ – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead. Progressives were lulled into complacency by early poll numbers, and distracted by the Barack Obama campaign – even after it became apparent he would win.

But ‘No on 8’ was also a reactive campaign that did not anticipate the opposition’s arguments to sway swing voters. Bloggers were effective at pushing memes to define the opposition, but it failed to define much of the race. And ‘No on 8’ did not push a simple and compelling message – ‘Obama Opposes Prop 8’ – to the African-American community until the other side beat them to it, forcing them to play catch-up. This is no time for making excuses, or inspiring words that we’re part of a greater struggle. Our right to marry just got taken away from us, and we’ve got to be smart if we’re going to get it back.…

These swing voters like to think of themselves as ‘tolerant.’ They believe they support gay rights, but are not always comfortable thinking much about the issue. They have a ‘live-and-let-live’ approach, and don’t appreciate any group of people indoctrinating their worldview on the rest of society. For a while, the ‘No on 8’ message worked well with this crowd: it is morally wrong to have religious extremists impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society, singling out groups of people who don’t apply and depriving them of a basic right. Telling them the Mormons were funneling $20 million into the Prop 8 campaign was an especially effective message for this group.

The problem happened when the Prop 8 campaign—through blatant lies and deceit—changed the subject into gays and lesbians imposing their agenda on our elementary school children. Suddenly, the people who were ‘indoctrinating’ people who have a ‘live and let live’ attitude was the homosexual agenda. It became apparent to me a few weeks ago when I was phone-banking for ‘No on 8.’ I spoke to a black woman in San Francisco’s Western Addition who was dead-set against gay marriage now that she had been scared into believing we were imposing our lifestyle on her.…

One of the basic lessons in activism is to not react to a problem when it comes up, but to be pro-active and frame the agenda. It’s not like right-wing extremists haven’t used the ‘gay marriage will be taught in our schools’ line before, and the campaign should have been ready to anticipate such attacks.…” (Paul Hogarth, “’No on 8 – When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics,” Beyond Chron: San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily News, November 5, 2008)

3534:

“Elder [Whitney] Clayton said a connection to a Catholic friend is how his church became involved in Prop 8. San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer, who was Catholic bishop here, wrote a letter to Pres. Monson asking for his church’s involvement in the coalition.” [WAS THIS THE FIRST PUBLIC MENTION OF THE CONNECTION?] (Carole Mikita, “LDS Church reacts to the passing of Proposition 8,” KSL.com, November 5, 2008)

879:

“The most notable defeat for fairness was in California, where right-wing forces led by the Mormon Church poured tens of millions of dollars into the campaign for Proposition 8 — a measure to enshrine bigotry in the state’s Constitution by preventing people of the same sex from marrying.…” (Editorial, “Equality’s Winding Path,” New York Times, November 6, 2008)

1878:

“But there is still unfinished business in California. In the waning days of the campaign, a group called CourageCampaign.com aired a TV ad that featured Mormon missionaries knocking on the door of a home:

‘We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ the pair state. ‘We’re here to take away your rights.’

The ad goes on to claim that members of the LDS church donated $20 million to Proposition 8. ‘That was too easy,’ the two Mormon men say at the end. ‘What should we ban next?’

Go see the ad ‘Home Invasion’ online. Judge for yourself. But while you’re doing it, I’m going to ask you: Imagine that instead of Mormons, the ad featured two guys in yarmulkes and accused Jews of donating too much money for a cause they believed in.

This was a truly vile and outrageous attempt to win a political election by exciting religious hatred against a minority faith community.…” (Maggie Gallagher, “Marriage Wins in California,” RealClearPolitics.com, November 6, 2008)

1879:

“Gay marriage is once again banned in California after the nation’s most hotly contested citizen referendum ended in victory for Proposition 8 supporters, backed by major fundraising and grass-roots organizing by members of the LDS Church.…

[L. Whitney Clayton] said the church, as an institution, did not contribute directly but did pay for hotel and travel expenses for him and other leaders who participated in the effort.…

Prop. 8 supporters maintained that the court’s 5-4 ruling did not reflect the will of California voters and would put their children at risk for indoctrination by putting gay marriage on par with traditional marriage.

In recent weeks, several news organizations have said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was pivotal in the political fight, bringing in millions in financial backing for Prop. 8 and organizing its members as part of a grass-roots campaign by conservatives throughout the state.…

‘We’re not anti-gay but pro-marriage, and there were some things that were not entirely in keeping with a high tone to the discourse.’…

He said he isn’t aware of any instances of Latter-day Saints acting aggressively toward fellow members who opposed Prop. 8…

He said in general, the church ‘does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships,’ that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign.…

‘We feel religious liberty is safer when marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman.’”

When asked about whether Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline, Elder Clayton said those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved.…” (Carrie A. Moore, “LDS official lauds work for California’s Prop. 8,” Deseret News, November 6, 2008)

1233:

“The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Months before the first ads would run proposition eight, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to group he knew well, Mormons. Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. Now he asked them for help on Prop 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California. The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition—the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure. By bringing together Mormons and Catholics, Niederauer would align the two most powerful religious institutions in the Prop 8 battle.”

“The Mormons Spin Away From Prop 8,” The Atlantic, November 2008)

1487:

“After receiving the news this morning that Proposition 8 passed in California, I sat here at my desk and solved. Hours later I am still crying.:

As a little girl I marched with my gay father and gave friends on Castro Street in the rallies and parades and was filled with pride and love. At the same time, I was filled with confusion because I write just little Mormon girl and I was taught that homosexuality is evil and wrong. That it is a sickness.

I am here to scream from the mountaintops that I am no longer a righteous little Mormon girl who can be scared and manipulated and I’m certainly no longer confused. I have learned to recognize evil when I see it and I am abundantly clear on where the sickness is coming from.…”  (Emily Pearson to Carol Lynn Pearson [her mother], November 5, 2008)

1488:

“My name is Tyler Zagoree.  I’m 19.… I’m gay and I used to be Mormon.…

I still cannot believe that the church can be so hateful. How can they truly want to take away the rights to good people? I have my name removed from the church records last spring and my mother and sister recently sent in their letters of resignation to in protest of the church is support for prop 8. I just cannot truly believe in a God that will favor the hurtful members of the church over the loving gay couples they are persecuting.” (Tyler Zagoree to Carol Lynn Pearson, November 5, 2008)

1489:

“To use a metaphor, the Church now has a pot overflowing and burning on a stovetop. It’s not going away. And it is their pot, and they are the ones who turned up the flame. It will make bad smells and a lot of smoke and make a whole lot of people angry. The thing will probably burst into flames at some point, and probably the fire department (the United States Supreme Court) will have to be called to put out the conflagration before it ruins any more of the house. It will be an interesting time.” (Larry Mann to Family Fellowship, November 5, 2008)

1874:

“The Mormon Church has paid a higher price than dollars, though. The battle split Mormons into camps for and against gay rights…

When California voters passed their initial ban, in a 2000 Mormon push, it was a lopsided margin, with fewer than 40% supporting gay marriage. Yesterday, nearly 48% supported gay marriage. That’s bitter progress.…

Catholics and other Christian groups were just as involved in the effort to pass Prop 8 as the LDS church. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento released this statement: ‘Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman, that has been the major building block of Western civilization for millennia. The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included, but were so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.…’” (Ray Ring, “Mormon Church wins on gay marriage,” High Country News (Paonia, Colorado), November 5, 2008)

1875:

“’We pick ourselves up and try again,’ said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a former Utahn.

She predicted that the movement for gay quality would continue to move forward. ‘If it’s not today or it’s not tomorrow, it will be soon,’ Kendell said.…

[L. Whitney] Clayton said the church never considered Proposition 8 to be a political issue.

‘We consider this to be a moral issue,’ he said, adding that ‘We’re not anti-gay, we’re pro-marriage between a man and woman.’…

Asked whether the LDS Church would engage in similar activism in the future, Clayton said, ‘I really don’t know. It depends on the issue, and the time and what is going on.’

In its statement, the LDS church said it does not object to domestic partnership or civil union legislation as long ‘as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.’” (Brooke Adams, “Mormon leaders urge respect for foes in gay-marriage debate,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 5, 2008)

1876:

“‘It pains me to describe it this way, but ‘No on 8’ – like Michael Dukakis – blew a seventeen-point lead. Progressives were lulled into complacency by early poll numbers, and distracted by the Barack Obama campaign – even after it became apparent he would win.

But ‘No on 8’ was also a reactive campaign that did not anticipate the opposition’s arguments to sway swing voters. Bloggers were effective at pushing memes to define the opposition, but it failed to define much of the race. And ‘No on 8’ did not push a simple and compelling message – ‘Obama Opposes Prop 8’ – to the African-American community until the other side beat them to it, forcing them to play catch-up. This is no time for making excuses, or inspiring words that we’re part of a greater struggle. Our right to marry just got taken away from us, and we’ve got to be smart if we’re going to get it back.…

These swing voters like to think of themselves as ‘tolerant.’ They believe they support gay rights, but are not always comfortable thinking much about the issue. They have a ‘live-and-let-live’ approach, and don’t appreciate any group of people indoctrinating their worldview on the rest of society. For a while, the ‘No on 8’ message worked well with this crowd: it is morally wrong to have religious extremists impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society, singling out groups of people who don’t apply and depriving them of a basic right. Telling them the Mormons were funneling $20 million into the Prop 8 campaign was an especially effective message for this group.

The problem happened when the Prop 8 campaign—through blatant lies and deceit—changed the subject into gays and lesbians imposing their agenda on our elementary school children. Suddenly, the people who were ‘indoctrinating’ people who have a ‘live and let live’ attitude was the homosexual agenda. It became apparent to me a few weeks ago when I was phone-banking for ‘No on 8.’ I spoke to a black woman in San Francisco’s Western Addition who was dead-set against gay marriage now that she had been scared into believing we were imposing our lifestyle on her.…

One of the basic lessons in activism is to not react to a problem when it comes up, but to be pro-active and frame the agenda. It’s not like right-wing extremists haven’t used the ‘gay marriage will be taught in our schools’ line before, and the campaign should have been ready to anticipate such attacks.…” (Paul Hogarth, “’No on 8 – When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics,” Beyond Chron: San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily News, November 5, 2008)

3534:

“Elder [Whitney] Clayton said a connection to a Catholic friend is how his church became involved in Prop 8. San Francisco’s Archbishop George Niederauer, who was Catholic bishop here, wrote a letter to Pres. Monson asking for his church’s involvement in the coalition.” [WAS THIS THE FIRST PUBLIC MENTION OF THE CONNECTION?] (Carole Mikita, “LDS Church reacts to the passing of Proposition 8,” KSL.com, November 5, 2008)

879:

“The most notable defeat for fairness was in California, where right-wing forces led by the Mormon Church poured tens of millions of dollars into the campaign for Proposition 8 — a measure to enshrine bigotry in the state’s Constitution by preventing people of the same sex from marrying.…” (Editorial, “Equality’s Winding Path,” New York Times, November 6, 2008)

1878:

“But there is still unfinished business in California. In the waning days of the campaign, a group called CourageCampaign.com aired a TV ad that featured Mormon missionaries knocking on the door of a home:

‘We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ the pair state. ‘We’re here to take away your rights.’

The ad goes on to claim that members of the LDS church donated $20 million to Proposition 8. ‘That was too easy,’ the two Mormon men say at the end. ‘What should we ban next?’

Go see the ad ‘Home Invasion’ online. Judge for yourself. But while you’re doing it, I’m going to ask you: Imagine that instead of Mormons, the ad featured two guys in yarmulkes and accused Jews of donating too much money for a cause they believed in.

This was a truly vile and outrageous attempt to win a political election by exciting religious hatred against a minority faith community.…” (Maggie Gallagher, “Marriage Wins in California,” RealClearPolitics.com, November 6, 2008)

1879:

“Gay marriage is once again banned in California after the nation’s most hotly contested citizen referendum ended in victory for Proposition 8 supporters, backed by major fundraising and grass-roots organizing by members of the LDS Church.…

[L. Whitney Clayton] said the church, as an institution, did not contribute directly but did pay for hotel and travel expenses for him and other leaders who participated in the effort.…

Prop. 8 supporters maintained that the court’s 5-4 ruling did not reflect the will of California voters and would put their children at risk for indoctrination by putting gay marriage on par with traditional marriage.

In recent weeks, several news organizations have said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was pivotal in the political fight, bringing in millions in financial backing for Prop. 8 and organizing its members as part of a grass-roots campaign by conservatives throughout the state.…

‘We’re not anti-gay but pro-marriage, and there were some things that were not entirely in keeping with a high tone to the discourse.’…

He said he isn’t aware of any instances of Latter-day Saints acting aggressively toward fellow members who opposed Prop. 8…

He said in general, the church ‘does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships,’ that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign.…

‘We feel religious liberty is safer when marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman.’”

When asked about whether Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline, Elder Clayton said those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved.…” (Carrie A. Moore, “LDS official lauds work for California’s Prop. 8,” Deseret News, November 6, 2008)

1245:

“Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to a group he knew well, Mormons.

Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. And now he asked them for help on Prop 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California.

The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition—the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure.…

This Catholic-Mormon alliance was part of a broad pattern that underscored a critical difference between the rival campaigns: Yes on 8 sought to marshal support among many religions, while the No on 8 campaign often put religion on the sidelines.…

The last Field Poll, conducted a week before the election, showed that weekly churchgoers increased their support in the final week from 72% to 84%. Catholic support increased from 44% to 64%—a jump that accounted for 6% of the total California electorate and equivalent to the state’s entire African American population combined.

The shift in Catholics alone more than accounted for Prop 8’s 5% margin of victory.…

‘I don’t think there’s any sense in the church that this coalition has more life beyond this one issue,’ said Mike Otterson, a church spokesman. ‘We haven’t created a permanent alliance of churches here. What we did here was we came together to protect traditional marriage.’” (Matthai Kuruvila, “Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2008)

1236:

“Mormon and Roman Catholic theology might not be the same. But bishops in both churches found common cause to celebrate last week when California voters propped up Prop. 8, the ballot measure that brought same-sex marriages to a screeching halt.

At the annual meeting of the nation’s Catholic bishops on Monday, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George and San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer celebrated the victory and offered their opinions on why voters said yes.

Some say it was an unusual alliance between Catholics and Mormons that made it possible. In fact, it was Niederauer, former Catholic bishop of Salt Lake City, who rallied the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to join forces and campaign in favor of Prop 8. Protests over the past week have targeted the Mormons for funding the measure. Other religious groups had a hand in it as well, of course. White evangelicals and African-American churches also joined the chorus in favor of Prop 8.

But neither George nor Niederauer mentioned the unlikely religious coalition. Instead, George said voters were actually saying they’d had enough of the nation’s hubris.” (“Catholics, Mormons share Prop 8 victory,” Chicago Tribune, November 10, 2008)

1542:

“The aftermath of the Prop 8 vote goes on and on.  It is not going away.  It will die down, I think, but there is an energizing of a very significant civil rights movement here.  I believe our brethren really had no idea what they were opening up.  They ‘won,’ but what?  A little time.  Maybe five years at the most.  In five years more older people (most of whom were against gay marriage) will have died and more younger people will be voting (who overwhelmingly vote for gay marriage).  And in those five or less years, the LDS Church will experience a public relations debacle perhaps even worse than their reluctance to see black people as full human beings.  It boggles my mind that the brethren felt they could really ‘win’ in a long-term way.  But, they are true to their demographic.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, November 11, 2008)

2078:

PreservingMarriage.org, the LDS Church website devoted to promoting Prop 8, provided links (website printed 11/11/2008 and included in the packet of documents submitted to the California Fair Political Practices Committee) to the following videos that could be downloaded directly from that website:

“Protecting our liberties” (Time 2:22)

What’s the harm? If Proposition 8 fails, religious liberties and freedom of speech may be curtailed. Included are the rights of religious organizations to speak out against positions they view as harmful and the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

“Not a matter of civil rights” (Time 0:56)

Does Proposition 8 take existing rights away from same-sex couples? No. All the rights gay couples have in current civil unions will still be in force.

“Preserving the definition of marriage” (Time 0:44)

Don’t gay and lesbian couples deserve to be happy? The argument of happiness is really just a diversion. Proposition 8 is about protecting the legal definition of marriage and religious freedoms.

“Already decided once” (Time 0:47)

Didn’t we already vote on this? Yes, we did. In 2000 over 61% of Californians voted in favor of preserving traditional marriage. But because it did not amend the state constitution, four judges were able to overturn that vote.

“Enforcing the people’s will” (Time 0:48)

Can’t the courts just overturn this again? No. Proposition 8 amends the state constitution directly, meaning the courts cannot overturn it like a regular statute.

“An issue with broad support” (Time 0:58)

There aren’t many people supporting Proposition 8, right? Actually, a number of national and local organizations and individuals have formed a broad-based coalition to support Proposition 8.

“Defending an institution – not spreading hate” (Time: 1:35)

Isn’t Proposition 8 about intolerance? Proposition 8 isn’t about hating gay couples or their lifestyle. It’s about protecting the institution of marriage.

“I support Proposition 8” (Time 0:21)

“The definition of marriage” (Time 0:41)

“Preserving traditional marriage” (Time 6:13)

“Educate supporters” (Time 0:16)

“Elder David A. Bednar of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Time 8:12)

“Church broadcast to Californian Mormons” (Time 4:04)

“On the street” (Time 1:12)

“On the road” (Time 1:09)

“On the beach” (Time 1:00)

(“Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage,” http://www.preservingmarriage.org/)

2942:

“Of the approximately $40 million raised by the Yes on 8 campaign, roughly half came from Mormons, estimated Jeff Flint, co-campaign manager. Almost all of that came from individual church members rather than the church itself.” (Janet I. Tu, “Mormon church’s role in Prop. 8 fight debated,” Seattle Times, November 14, 2008)

2235:

“Optimism was so high that UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy projected that about half of California’s roughly 100,000 same-sex couples would marry in the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows.

Three months later, on one of those golden days that turns the San Francisco Bay Area into a picture postcard, I spoke before an assemblage of more than 50 people and recalled the warm June night in 1969 when the New York police raid of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village started it all. ‘Who would have thought,’ I asked, ‘that the resistance of a few hundred people would lead to the moment when the California Supreme Court would definitively end the ban on same-sex marriage and declare, ‘An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.’ Who imagined then that a social movement would arise from the ashes of those days of pain, rage, and violence—a movement that would change both the external social world and our internal psychological one as, little by little, it chipped away at centuries of prejudice, discrimination, and violence?’

Surely not I—who, in a life filled with unexpected twists and turns, could never have predicted that I’d be officiating at the wedding of two old friends who also happened to also be men. For in the nearly 85 years that make up my own life’s journey, I’ve traveled from total ignorance about homosexuality, to a kind of vague knowledge that left me with the same internal yuck that was common then, to a confrontation with these prejudices as the gay and lesbian movement for freedom and dignity swept across the land, and finally to a state of elation and awe at being a witness to the extraordinary moment of history when the Supreme Court struck down the ban on same-sex marriages.

Fast forward to November 4, 2008—election day. By a five-point margin, roughly 52-47, California voters said yes to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Yes, here in California; yes, now in 2008; yes by our neighbors, our friends, our allies in a hundred political struggles over the years.

Paradoxically, it was Barack Obama’s victory, for which so many gays and lesbians had fought and worked, that led to their defeat.…

Barack Obama won California 61-37, but only whites and Asian Americans voted against the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in significant numbers: 52-48. Among Latinos, the same people who gave Obama 67 percent of their votes, voted 59-41 for Proposition 8, and blacks who cast an overwhelming 95 percent of their ballots for the man who would become the first black president in the nation’s history, refused equality to their gay and lesbian children by a margin of 70-30. ‘Blacks,’ said ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer, ‘can be said to have put it [Proposition 8] over the top. Hypothetically, had no blacks voted we compute a vote of 50-50.’

That’s the simple version. The more complicated one tells a story of ancient prejudice in which age, class, and religion each played their parts, while each was also entangled with the others. Age is the easy one: those over 60, most of whom grew up when homosexuality was still in the closet, voted heavily against marriage equality for same-sex couples, while their children and grandchildren weighed in equally solidly for it.…

But age and class wouldn’t likely have been enough to ensure victory for Proposition 8. For that, they needed an organized religious community that would stand together in an assault on marriage equality for same-sex couples. With San Francisco’s Catholic Archbishop George Neiderauer leading the effort, the Mormon Church joined in creating a formidably aggressive and heavily financed multi-religious coalition to support Proposition 8. ‘What the exit polls say,’ commented Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, ‘is that religion trumps party affiliation when it comes to social issues.’…

Still, no accounting of the causes of the defeat of marriage equality for same-sex couples in California can conceal the irony that blacks and Latinos, the very groups who continue to struggle for their own basic rights, voted so heavily to deny them to another.…

But the future tells it’s own tale. The last of the slaves didn’t believe they would see freedom in their time, and modern Americans never expected to see a black man elected to presidency. Just so, one day Americans will look back at this moment and wonder how we could have been so blind to the course of history while we were living it.” (Lillian B. Rubin, Dissent Magazine, November 14, 2008)

1901:

“Less than two weeks before Election Day, the chief strategist behind a ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage in California called an emergency meeting here.

‘We’re going to lose this campaign if we don’t get more money,’ the strategist, Frank Schubert, recalled telling leaders of Protect Marriage, the main group behind the ban.

The campaign issued an urgent appeal, and in a matter of days, it raised more than $5 million, including a $1 million donation from Alan C. Ashton, the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church. The money allowed the drive to intensify a sharp-elbowed advertising campaign, and support for the measure was catapulted ahead; it ultimately won with 52 percent of the vote.

As proponents of same-sex marriage across the country planned protests on Saturday against the ban, interviews with the main forces behind the ballot measure showed how close its backers believe it came to defeat — and the extraordinary role Mormons played in helping to pass it with money, institutional support and dedicated volunteers.

‘We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,’ said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. ‘But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.’

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs.

‘California is a huge state, often seen as a bellwether — this was seen as a very, very important test,’ Mr. Otterson said.

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying ‘the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,’ and urging members to become involved with the cause.

‘And they sure did,’ Mr. Schubert said.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

The canvass work could be exacting and highly detailed. Many Mormon wards in California, not unlike Roman Catholic parishes, were assigned two ZIP codes to cover. Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from ‘walkers,’ assigned to knock on doors; to ‘sellers,’ who would work with undecided voters later on; and to ‘closers,’ who would get people to the polls on Election Day.

Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.

But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.

‘It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,’ one of the ward training documents said. ‘We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.’

Leaders were also acutely conscious of not crossing the line from being a church-based volunteer effort to an actual political organization.

‘No work will take place at the church, including no meeting there to hand out precinct walking assignments so as to not even give the appearance of politicking at the church,’ one of the documents said.

By mid-October, most independent polls showed support for the proposition was growing, but it was still trailing. Opponents had brought on new media consultants in the face of the slipping poll numbers, but they were still effectively raising money, including $3.9 million at a star-studded fund-raiser held at the Beverly Hills home of Ron Burkle, the supermarket billionaire and longtime Democratic fund-raiser.

It was then that Mr. Schubert called his meeting in Sacramento. ‘I said, ‘As good as our stuff is, it can’t withstand that kind of funding,’ ‘ he recalled.

The response was a desperate e-mail message sent to 92,000 people who had registered at the group’s Web site declaring a ‘code blue’ — an urgent plea for money to save traditional marriage from ‘cardiac arrest.’ Mr. Schubert also sent an e-mail message to the three top religious members of his executive committee, representing Catholics, evangelicals and Mormons.

‘I ask for your prayers that this e-mail will open the hearts and minds of the faithful to make a further sacrifice of their funds at this urgent moment so that God’s precious gift of marriage is preserved,’ he wrote.

On Oct. 28, Mr. Ashton, the grandson of the former Mormon president David O. McKay, donated $1 million. Mr. Ashton, who made his fortune as co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation, said he was following his personal beliefs and the direction of the church.

‘I think it was just our realizing that we heard a number of stories about members of the church who had worked long hours and lobbied long and hard,’ he said in a telephone interview from Orem, Utah.

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.…

Mr. Otterson said it was too early to tell what the long-term implications might be for the church, but in any case, he added, none of that factored into the decision by church leaders to order a march into battle. ‘They felt there was only one way we could stand on such a fundamental moral issue, and they took that stand,’ he said. ‘It was a matter of standing up for what the church believes is right.’

That said, the extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church’s leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for ‘respect’ and ‘civility’ in the aftermath of the vote.…” (Jesse McKinley and Kirk Johnson, “Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage,” New York Times, November 15, 2008, PAGE A1)

3588:

“… if the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education had been submitted to a national referendum, swaths of this country probably still would have legally segregated schools.” (Tim Rutten, “Both sides in the same-sex marriage controversy need to cool down,” Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2008)

1548:

“I asked what had been going on in the ward around prop 8 recently and they said not much; the bishop had gotten up before testimony meeting and said there would be no commentary about politics.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, November 19, 2008)

3598:

“Here’s Gary [Lawrence], back in August, firing up his Mormon brigades …

Why Mormons Are In This Fight:

If same-sex marriage advocates [win], the whole structure collapses – the family, the nation, and in time civilization itself. The time has come for those of us who believe that God, not man, created marriage … to take a stand and defend it. [Meridian Magazine]…”

(Chino Blanco, “Gary Lawrence: Familiarity breed contempt (for Mormons),” Daily Kos, November 20, 2008)

2081:

“Dear Friend:

California law requires us to notify those who give us $5,000 or more that they may have to file reports as Major Donors. A Major Donor is anyone who makes political contributions totaling $10,000 or more during a calendar year. I have included a Form 461 for your use and will assist you in preparing it if you desire.…”

(David Bauer, Treasurer, ProtectMarriage.com, November 20, 2008)

1906:

“Contributions to both sides of the successful ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage have already topped a total of $75.2 million, according to disclosures filed with the California secretary of state. And almost 5 cents of every dollar came from Utah.…

Those passions ran deep for Utahns, judging from the $3.6 million state residents contributed to the California campaigns. Fully 70 percent of Utah donations, or $2.58 million, went in support of the same-sex marriage ban, while $1.1 million was given to oppose it.

Utah ranked second only to California itself for total donations in support, while it ranked sixth for opposing donations, behind California and such heavily populated states as New York, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan.…

‘Mormon members were instrumental in the campaign, there’s no question,’ [Frank] Schubert [a spokesman for ProtectMarriage.com] said from his Sacramento office. ‘They donated far in excess of their representation in the population.’…” (Tony Semarad, “Utah money helped push Prop 8 spending to historic levels,” Salt Lake Tribune, November 21, 2008)

1139:

“The leak of a decade-old internal memo of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is providing insight into how deeply involved the church has been in the fight against same-sex marriage in California and causing some to question the assertions of a Mormon couple from Massachusetts who thrust themselves into the California marriage equality debate.

The March 4, 1997 memo from Loren C. Dunn to church Elder M. Russell Ballard, describes an insidious ‘go ahead’ HLM (homosexual legalized marriage) strategy of the late Mormon Church president, Gordon B. Hinckley. The memo appears to be tangible proof that Mormon leaders had been working to prevent marriage equality in California and Hawaii at least for the last 11 years while actively working to recruit the support of local California Catholic bishops.

Parts of the memo were first published on the DailyKos Web site November 3. It was later reported on the Box Turtle Bulletin blog, which tracks anti-gay groups.

Box Turtle’s Jim Burroway wrote that Ballard ‘has played a central role in the LDS’s fight in Arizona and California. He appeared on several closed-circuit satellite broadcasts to Mormon churches with specific instructions on the California campaign for Prop 8. In one such broadcast in late October, he reminded the faithful that the central doctrine of Celestial Marriage was propelling the church’s drive to impose its theology on state constitutions: ‘’We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and its place in our Father’s plan,’ Ballard said.’

In addition to revealing a long-standing Mormon strategy designed to recruit Catholic bishops to their cause three years before the state’s first political fight, Proposition 22, the memo also lists one of the Mormon’s key strategists as Richard ‘Dick’ Wirthlin, a relative of Joseph Robb and Robin Wirthlin, the Massachusetts couple who were featured in Proposition 8 campaign ads this fall as the parents of a boy who was read a book about a same-sex couple in his second grade class.

Dick Wirthlin, a Republican pollster by profession whose father was the presiding bishop of the church from 1952 to 1961, had been appointed general authority of the church by Hinckley in 1996, and served as a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy church leadership until 2001. Dick Wirthlin worked for many conservative causes, including Ronald Reagan, and operated the Wirthlin Group. He worked with the Yes on Prop 22 campaign, also known as the Knight initiative, as both the Mormon representative on the campaign’s committee and as its internal pollster.

Robb Wirthlin, Dick Wirthlin’s nephew, along with his wife Robin, introduced themselves to California voters in a Yes on 8 ad as the unwitting parents of a boy who was read the gay-friendly book King and King in his Massachusetts classroom. The Wirthlins claimed in several interviews to be unintentional players in the debate. They became the embodiment of the traditional family for Yes on 8 and appeared in a $2 million ad campaign central to the proponent’s argument that Prop 8 was needed to protect California schoolchildren from being taught about same-sex marriage, which the Wirthlins implied meant gay sex, in second grade.

But Prop 8 opponents did not recognize the Wirthlin name. Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on 8, told the Bay Area Reporter that the campaign learned of the Wirthlin’s familial link to the church’s strategy, ‘either very late in the campaign or just after November 4,’ leaving no time for the campaign to issue a news release or other materials that might have mitigated the Wirthlin’s claims.

Robb and Robin Wirthlin, as reported by the Bay Area Reporter October 23, were no small part of the success of the Prop 8 campaign. Smith, while speaking to Stonewall Democrats two weeks ago, said the Wirthlin campaign was ‘effective,’ and the No on 8 coalition spent the last weeks of the campaign fighting the issue of children being taught about same-sex marriage in public elementary schools.

Holes in their story

Holes began to emerge in the Wirthlins story almost immediately after they were first introduced by the Yes on 8 campaign. Parents in the Lexington School District in Massachusetts disputed many of the Wirthlins claims to the B.A.R., pointing out that when the Wirthlins moved into the district they were already involved with two groups seeking to ban same-sex marriage. One of those groups, MassResistance, run by Brian Camenker, has been called an ‘anti-gay hate group’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

Lexington parents told the B.A.R. that they suspected the Wirthlins moved into the community following parent David Parker’s very public fight with the district the year before, in order to become actively involved in the issue and to join Parker in filing a lawsuit to enforce parental rights to approve all materials used in the education of their son. In fact, the Wirthlins moved into the district just weeks before filing suit with Parker.

Paul Ash, Lexington School District superintendent, told the B.A.R. that the district had made several attempts to appease the Wirthlins and accommodate their religious convictions, but that he ‘came to the conclusion that they had no intent on settling. At the attempt to mediate prior to the case it was abundantly clear that the Wirthlins and Parkers had no intention of coming to a compromise, that they wanted a public fight. I only saw political campaigns and religious vigils. I never saw any evidence, not even a hint, that there was any intention on the part of these families to work out an agreement.’…

Whether the Wirthlins became involved in the marriage equality fight on their own, or as part of the church’s now-documented, HLM strategy, is not yet clear.

What is known is the Wirthlins moved to the Lexington School District, and within the Estabrook Elementary service area, in 2005 after the school had been targeted by Parker and the anti-gay, anti-same-sex marriage organizations to which the Wirthlins belonged. The Wirthlins enrolled their son Joey in the school already aware of the Parker’s complaint against the anti-bias curriculum. They immediately joined the Estabrook anti-bias committee, according to Meg Soens and Pam Hoffman. The women went on to start their own organization, LesingtonCares.org, to counter the anti-gay marriage organizations Mass Resistance and the Massachusetts Family Institute that elicited sympathy and support for the Wirthlins with public vigils.…” (Dan Aiello, “Memo links Mass. couple to Prop 22, Mormon strategy,” Bay Area Reporter, November 27, 2008)

1919:

“Catholics make up 30 percent of California’s population, compared to the 2 percent of the population who are Mormons and the 6 percent who are black. Protect Marriage strategist Jeff Flint told the New York Times that Mormons made up 80 to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in the campaign.…” (Mary Barron, “Christian vote key in Prop 8,” National Catholic Reporter, November 28, 2008)

2658:

“Gary Lawrence, the California LDS Grassroots Director for Proposition 8, wrote a column for Meridian Magazine comparing the battle over same-sex marriage to the war in heaven. ‘[The] battlefield is now California, and the parallels between that pre-mortal conflict and the battle over the definition of marriage are striking,’ wrote Lawrence. ‘If the arguments used in the war in heaven were persuasive enough to draw billions of God’s spirit children away from Him, why should we not expect them to be used on the present battlefield? The same minions cast out from the Father’s presence still remember what worked up there.’” (“Proposition 8 Passes, Triggers Massive Protests Against LDS Church,” Sunstone, December 2008, p. 79)

1244:

“San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer, in his first extensive explanation about his role in the passage of Proposition 8, on Wednesday defended the church’s actions in the successful ballot initiative.…

During the campaign, Niederauer issued statements, sent flyers and gave a videotaped interview posted at www.marriagematterstokids.org. But Niederauer’s most prominent action was drawing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members responded with intensive grassroots organizing and an estimated $20 million in campaign contributions from individuals that accounted for half of the Yes on 8 campaign’s total.…

The Mormon church has said Niederauer, previously the bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years, played a pivotal role in its joining the cause.

‘We were invited to join the coalition,’ Michael Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the church, told The Chronicle in an interview shortly after the election. ‘We didn’t unilaterally go into the battle.’

Otterson said Niederauer’s letter persuaded the Mormon church that they wouldn’t be fighting this battle alone, a status that would have made them vulnerable.

‘Having Catholics, evangelicals and Jews in a coalition was exactly the right way to do it,’ Otterson said. ‘We knew someone would make this a Mormon-versus-gays battle.’” (Matthai Kuruvila, “S.F. archbishop defends role in Prop. 8 passage,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 4, 2008)

1229:

“Last May the staff of the Conference office informed me that leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) had given their support to the campaign for Proposition 22 in the year 2000, and were already considering an involvement in connection with Proposition 8. Accordingly, I was asked to contact leaders of the LDS Church whom I had come to know during my 11 years as Bishop of Salt Lake City, to ask them to cooperate again, in this election cycle. I did write to them and they urged the members of their Church, especially those in California, to become involved.” (George Niederauer, Text of his essay, “Moving Forward Together,” in “SF Archbishop Niederauer Wants Gays to Accept Second-Class Status,” Towleroad.com, December 4, 2008)

1932:

“One month after the victory of California’s Proposition 8, Archbishop of San Francisco George Niederauer has written an essay defending Catholics’ role in the campaign and explaining his cooperation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are also known as Mormon.…” (“Archbishop Niederauer explains Catholic involvement in Prop. 8,” Catholic News Agency, December 4, 2008)

1933:

“Dave Campbell, a straight political science professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in religion and politics, said the Mormon church’s involvement was ‘a huge factor’ in the passage of Prop 8.

‘Without that financial support and the volunteer network that they could bring to the cause, I think it’s unlikely, actually, that the initiative would have passed,’ he said.

[Kate] Kendell said the Mormon church’s involvement was ‘massive and absolutely crucial to the result.’

‘There is no doubt that had the church remained neutral, Prop 8 would have been defeated,’ she said. Kendell said Mormon church members were particularly active in Southern California during the campaign and had ‘thousands of enthusiastic, committed, personable folks who walked their neighborhoods repeatedly [and] who put up yard signs and cajoled their acquaintances to put up signs.’

‘You essentially have a built-in field campaign, the likes of which are unparalleled,’ she said. ‘And it’s all free and utterly dependable.’…” (Chris Johnson,  “Calif. Officials investigate Mormon role in Prop 8,” Washington Blade, December 5, 2008)

1933:

“Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and an executive committee member of the ‘No on 8’ campaign, was raised as a Mormon and left the church in her early 20s. She said many Mormons backed Proposition 8 not because they could ‘articulate a rational threat’ but because ‘that’s what the prophet says, and faithful Mormons really do not disagree openly with church leadership.’…

[David Melson, assistant executive director for Affirmation] ‘Anything that threatens their definition of marriage they take as a personal threat to them,’ he said. ‘Now this seems a little bit strange coming from the group that sort of holds the patent on alternative family structures.’…

[David Campbell] ‘Had [Mitt] Romney been selected [as the Republican nominee], it probably would have been difficult for the church to get involved in California, given all the flak that Romney had taken for his religion. But with Romney out of the picture, it opened up the path for them to be active on Prop 8.’…” [NOTE: ROMNEY DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE ON FEBRUARY 7, 2008]

2089:

“About two weeks prior to the Nov. 4 election, an announcement on Idaho Falls KIFI-TV Channel 8 (ABC news affiliate) asked for volunteers to help man a phone bank which was set up in a building owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The announcer, Karole Honas, said that the purpose of the phone bank was to contact as many California voters as possible before Nov. 4 to ask them to vote for Prop. 8 banning gay marriage in California.…” (Letter [sender redacted] to Roman Porter, California Fair Political Practices Commission, Received by FPPC December 8, 2008)

1238:

“In his message, called ‘Moving forward together,’ which appeared on the San Francisco Archdiocese Web site December 1, Niederauer emphasized that he and the California Catholic Bishops Conference were responsible for the Mormon involvement in the debate, a point that may be contradicted by the recent leak of a 1997 internal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints memo that evidenced a Mormon strategy seeking recruitment of California’s bishops to the cause.

The Catholic bishops of California were first to endorse the proposition and then ‘urged Catholics and organizations of lay Catholics, to work for its passage,’ Niederauer claimed.

But following his assertion of responsibility of the Mormon participation, Niederauer limited his church’s responsibility for passage of the marriage ban, claiming only limited financial support to the Yes on 8 campaign.… 

This assertion by Niederauer also is questioned by Prop 8 opponents and some in the LGBT Catholic community because Niederauer, as bishop of Salt Lake City, was well-acquainted with LDS leadership and would likely already have known of the Mormon involvement in Prop 22 and would not have needed to be ‘informed’ of this by conference staff.

Beth Griffin at catholicnews.com mentions Niederauer with LDS leader Gordon Hinckley, Elder M. Russell Ballard, and General Authority Richard Wirthlin, the Mormon leadership included in the Ballard marriage strategy memo, in an article discussing Mormon participation in a papal gathering and the Vatican’s 2001 statement questioning whether Mormons are Christians (The Vatican ruled Mormons converting to Catholicism require full baptism, not a conditional one, as with other Christian faiths).

In fact, in the leak of a 1997 internal LDS memo to Ballard reported by the B.A.R. last month, Loren C. Dunn speaks of the Mormon recruitment of ‘California’s Catholic bishops’ to the Mormon’s fight against what the memo called Homosexual Legalized Marriage.

Kim Farah, media spokeswoman for the Mormons, explained this seeming contradiction to the B.A.R. ‘The church was involved in Proposition 22 in California in 2000, three years after the memo was written. However, the church did not become involved in Proposition 8 until invited by Archbishop George Niederauer,’ wrote Farah in an e-mail.

Opponents of Prop 8 add that Niederauer and the Catholic bishops were not among those who placed the initiative on the ballot. Rather, it was among others, state Senator Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Temecula), president of the Prop 22 Defense Fund, and Gail Knight, widow of Prop 22 architect then-state Senator William ‘Pete’ Knight (R-Palmdale). The Ballard memo noted that the Mormons had chosen the ‘referendum route’ because passing anti-same-sex marriage legislation would be ‘virtually impossible.’

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the LGBT Catholic organization DignityUSA, questioned both Niederauer’s timeline and his motive for claiming responsibility for LDS participation.

‘The timeline and the mechanics of the Mormon involvement, I wish I knew for sure, but I can’t say what came first,’ she said. ‘What’s important here is that a coalition of religious leaders used their moral authority, their funding resources, and their pulpits to institutionalize discrimination against us and our families. He [Niederauer] is clearly a major player in this issue.…” (Dan Aiello, “SF archbishop calls for tolerance, raises ire,” Bay Area Reporter, December 11, 2008)

1936:

“Election postmortems have been quick to scapegoat minorities for the loss. The right pointed out that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage; the left blasted Mormons who obeyed an unprecedented dictate from the church’s leadership in Salt Lake City and donated 45 percent of the funds for a campaign to pass Prop 8.

But evidence of entrenched homophobia and religious intolerance obscure a more difficult truth. Prop 8 should have been defeated — two months before the election, it was down 17 points in the polls — but the gay-rights groups that tried to stop it ran a lousy campaign. According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote.

‘This was political malpractice,’ says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. ‘They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn’t be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.’

FROM THE START, LEADERS OF the No on Prop 8 campaign and their high-priced consultants failed to realize what they were up against. According to Geoff Kors, who headed the campaign’s executive committee, the No side anticipated needing no more than $20 million to stop the gay-marriage ban. The Yes side, by contrast, set out to change how initiative politics are played, building a well-funded operation that rivaled a swing-state presidential campaign in its scope and complexity. It also built a powerful, faith-based coalition that included the Catholic Church, Protestant evangelicals and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ‘The direct involvement of the Mormon church — moving donors in a very short window to give early — was stunning,’ says Patrick Guerriero, who was called in to take over as campaign manager of No on Prop 8 in the final month. ‘It was unprecedented — and probably impossible to predict.’

In fact, as documented in an internal LDS memo leaked during the campaign, proposals for such a coalition had been on the table for more than a decade. In the memo, a high-ranking Mormon leader discusses approaches for fighting gay marriage in California: ‘The Church should be in a coalition and not out front by itself,’ the memo advocates. ‘The public image of the Catholic Church is higher than our Church….If we get into this, they are the ones with which to join.’

Once the Mormons joined the effort, they quickly established themselves as ‘the foundation of the campaign,’ says Frank Schubert, the consultant who directed Yes on 8. ‘We could count on their money and their people being there early.’

Schubert put Mormon volunteers to work in an expansive field campaign modeled on the effort his business partner, Jeff Flint, worked on in 2004 for George Bush in Ohio. ‘This is the first time in initiative history that it’s ever been done’ for a ballot measure, says Schubert. Throughout the summer, Yes on 8 deployed an army of more than 100,000 volunteers to knock on doors in every zip code in the state.

‘We had an enormous grass-roots advantage,’ Schubert says. ‘Our core was people of faith, and we were able to organize through churches.’ In the end, he says, the campaign visited 70 percent of all California households in person, and contacted another 15 percent by phone.

The No on Prop 8 campaign, meanwhile, was oblivious to the formidable field operation that the other side was mounting.… The field operation consisted of volunteers phone-banking from 135 call centers across the state, an effort that didn’t begin ramping up until mid-October. ‘They had no ground game,’ says a leading Democratic consultant. ‘They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté.’

The Yes on 8 campaign’s get-out-the-vote effort was equally prodigious. The weekend before the vote, Schubert’s religious volunteers once again went door to door, speaking to supporters and directing them to the right precinct locations. ‘On Election Day,’ he says, ‘we had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn’t showed up to vote.’

By contrast, the No on Prop 8 campaign mobilized just 11,000 volunteers on Election Day, which they deployed to polling locations to hold ‘Vote No on 8’ signs.…” (Tim Dickinson, “Same-Sex Setback,” Rolling Stone, December 11, 2008)

1943:

“It was impossible to foresee the ferocity of Yes on 8’s largely Mormon-sponsored fund-raising effort.  It took too long for LGBT citizens to shake off their complacency after winning the right to marry. The other side told too many lies and sowed too much fear.…

In July, when the Mormon Church was beginning to build its organizing machine—signing up volunteers, raising money, spreading the word—key members of the No on 8 leadership were literally absent. Kors took a 2 ½ week vacation. Jean went to Alaska for the month.…” (Ben Ehrenreich, “Anatomy of a Failed Campaign,” Advocate, December 16, 2008)

1564:

“[Dean Criddle, stake president] ‘Who do you think was in charge of all this?’ [Carol Lynn Pearson] Elder [Marlin] Jensen told Steve and Barb Young that Boyd Packer has been working on it for years.” (Carol Lynn Pearson diary, December 27, 2008)

1283:

“Mormons heeded the call. Not only did they donate what appears to be a majority of the funds raised by the Yes on 8 campaign — an estimated $20 million, according to Prop. 8 opponents, much of it from out of state — but church members also volunteered thousands of man-hours in support of the amendment. Though the Mormon Church avoided a visible public role in the campaign, it did formally join the coalition of religious groups supporting the amendment, and a prominent member, Mark Jansson, served on the Yes on 8 executive committee. (Jansson was one of four signatories to a public letter threatening a boycott of businesses whose owners contributed to No on 8.)

Mormons make up only 2% of California’s population, so the fact that they played such an outsize role in the Yes on 8 campaign testifies to their rigid and efficient organization as a religious community. Because the church requests that members tithe 10% of their annual income, LDS leaders are able to gain an accurate picture p of how much their congregants earn. With this information in hand, bishops in local communities went from house to house in California asking for specific amounts of money for the Yes on 8 campaign — an incredibly effective fund-raising tactic.…” (James Kirchick, “The New Religious Right,” Advocate, December 3, 2008)

1221:

“Mormons have historically called the Catholic Church the whore of the earth and the Catholic Church consider the Mormon Church to be counterfeit.” (Doug Wallace, “Who Created Marriage, God or Consenting Couples?” The Daily Crock, A Political Blog, January 15, 2009)

1569:

“Bob Rees sent me an email and later in the evening called me.  He appreciates my empathy and my encouragement.  His email said, in part:

I just found out that the direction to take action against me came from Church headquarters. While I always considered that a possibility, according to the information provided by my bishop and stake president, I was led to believe that it was locally directed. But my former bishop, now a member of the new stake presidency, told a friend this week who asked him how she could have worked openly and vigorously against Proposition 8 without receiving any reprisal or discipline while I, who had not taken a public stand against Proposition 8, could have received such harsh discipline (although my former SP insists that what he did was not ‘discipline’). His response, ‘Don’t you think that one of the brethren would have read Bob=s editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune and called President Pope and told him what to do and don’t you think that President Pope would have called me and told me what to do?’

I got a Christmas gift from Elder H[olland] along with a note saying, ‘I pray—literally—that the pain and invective (on both sides) of Prop 8 can cease.’ That prayer has not yet been answered for me because I still can’t comprehend how that op-ed piece could result in my being punished and silenced (apparently I can’t even pray in public) for the past eight months—especially in light of the Church’s clear statement that no one was to suffer any sanctions over their stand on Prop 8 (again keeping in mind that I never took such a stand).

I have never heard of someone being silenced in the Church—at least not without some kind of due process or council.

I am beginning to feel that this has affected me more deeply that I originally thought.”

(Carol Lynn Pearson diary, January 28, 2009)

3635:

“Frank Schubert, president of Schubert-Flint Public Affairs, and Jeff Flint, a partner in the firm, reveal just how they won the battle to pass Proposition 8…

‘A survey released by the Field Institute in mid-September showed that fully 55 percent of likely voters were opposed to Prop 8, with just 38 percent in favor. The political elite all but wrote off Proposition 8 as being dead once the Field Poll was published. To make matters worse for us, less than a week after the Field Poll came out, the No on 8 campaign began its television advertising in the state’s major media markets.’

… It was important to make gay marriage not just an issue about gays getting married, but about religious freedom, an ‘activist’ Court, and the potential threats to children. The more the water was muddied, the more opportunities voters had to latch onto a rationale for voting for the ban that wasn’t purely homophobic.

We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail. We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply ‘live and let live’—that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a ‘No’ campaign—raising doubts and pointing to potential problems—in seeking a ‘Yes’ vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign.’…

Our ability to organize a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations gave us a huge advantage, and we set ambitious goals: to conduct a statewide Voter ID canvass of every voter; to distribute 1.25 million yard signs and an equal number of bumper strips; to have our volunteers re-contact every undecided, soft yes and soft no voter; and to have 100,000 volunteers, five per voting precinct, working on Election Day to make sure every identified Yes on 8 voter would vote. All of these goals, and more, were achieved.…

Money, money, Mormon money. Not that there was any doubt, but the Yes on 8 campaign freely admits that an infusion of Mormon cash did a great deal in helping to bolster the campaign.

By this time, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts.

Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church. Our fundraising operation also relied heavily on small contributions from some 60,000 individual donors via an extensive direct mail operation, and an extraordinarily effective online fundraising campaign.…

Schubert-Flint sum up their winning plan like this:

Prop 8 didn’t win because of the Mormons. It won because we created superior advertising that denied the issues on our terms; because we built a diverse coalition; and, most importantly, because we activated that coalition at the grassroots level in a way that had never before been done.

The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter.

Sounds about right. While some ‘No on 8’ leaders still complain that the only reason they didn’t have enough cash, the fact remains that neither did the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign when it started. Certainly, big donations from churches helped, but by activating and empowering their base, they were able to raise millions of small donations, Obama-style. With that money, they focused on making a reasoned moral argument for banning gay marriage through advertising, one-on-one canvassing across the whole state and employing a massive grassroots get-out-the-vote effort.” (“Masterminds Behind ‘Yes on 8’ Reveal How They Did It,” www.queerty.com, February 24, 2009)

1991:

“We decided to withhold criticism of the same-sex couples who were getting married (after all, they were simply taking advantage of the rights the Court had granted them), and urged all our supporters to refrain from demonstrations, protests or rallies opposing the marriages. This initial strategic positioning, later validated in qualitative and quantitative research, recognized that passing Proposition 8 would depend on our ability to convince voters that same-sex marriage had broader implications for Californians and was not only about the two individuals involved in a committed gay relationship.…

Our message was calm and low-key: Our fight was not with the gay couples getting married, our fight was with the flawed reasoning of a narrow majority of the California Supreme Court.…

A survey released by the Field Institute in mid-September showed that fully 55 percent of likely voters were opposed to Prop 8, with just 38 percent in favor.…

One of the most important aspects of our behind-the-scenes work during this critical early period was to develop messages that would result in voters casting a Yes vote for traditional marriage. To do so, we had to have messages that appealed to a much broader audience than the 40 percent or so of voters who made up our base.…

The dynamics of the Proposition 8 campaign were unique. We were asking voters for a Yes vote to ban same-sex marriage and restore traditional marriage. We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail. We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply ‘live and let live’–that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a ‘No’ campaign–raising doubts and pointing to potential problems–in seeking a ‘Yes’ vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign.…

They would entertain allowing gay marriage, but not if doing so had significant implications for the rest of society.

We probed long and hard in countless focus groups and surveys to explore reactions to a variety of consequences our issue experts identified. The California Supreme Court ruling put gay couples in a protected legal class on the basis of sexual orientation, and then found that gay couples had a fundamental constitutional right to marriage. This decision significantly changed the legal landscape. No longer would it be enough for Californians to tolerate gay relationships, they would have to accept gay marriage as being equivalent to traditional marriage. Tolerance is one thing; forced acceptance of something you personally oppose is a very different matter.

Whenever a conflict occurred between the rights of a gay couple and other rights, the rights of the gay couple would prevail because of their ‘protected class’ legal status. We settled on three broad areas where this conflict of rights was most likely to occur: in the area of religious freedom, in the area of individual freedom of expression, and in how this new ‘fundamental right’ would be inculcated in young children through the public schools. And we made sure that we had very concrete examples we could share with voters of things that had actually occurred.

Of equal importance to developing ‘consequence’ messages was assembling a massive grassroots campaign. In most ballot measure campaigns, volunteers and activists are generally not as inspired as they are in candidate campaigns, where they feel a personal connection to the cause. This is particularly true in California, a state with 40 million residents, 17 million registered voters and well over 20,000 voting precincts. But we knew from the petition phase, where we gathered more than 500,000 signatures, that this campaign could very well prove to be the exception.

Our ability to organize a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations gave us a huge advantage, and we set ambitious goals: to conduct a statewide Voter ID canvass of every voter; to distribute 1.25 million yard signs and an equal number of bumper strips; to have our volunteers re-contact every undecided, soft yes and soft no voter; and to have 100,000 volunteers, five per voting precinct, working on Election Day to make sure every identified Yes on 8 voter would vote. All of these goals, and more, were achieved.

We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools.…

The final phase of the volunteer campaign, GOTV, was really a month-long operation. California allows early voting, starting 29 days ahead of Election Day. From Day 1 of this period, we tracked voters who either appeared on the permanent absentee voter list, or had applied for a vote-by-mail ballot. Those who were identified as persuadable received additional volunteer and direct mail contacts. Definite Yes on 8 voters were reminded to return their ballots as early as possible. The effort paid off, as the early returns reported on Election Night–which consisted of votes cast before Election Day–showed us with a commanding 57 percent to 43 percent lead.…

Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts. Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church.…

Our initial television ad began airing on Sept. 29, a week after the other side began its campaign ads, and six weeks after its issue advocacy spot began airing. We knew that this initial ad needed to be a home run–and boy was it! Our campaign’s general counsel had alerted us to a press conference San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom held following the Supreme Court’s marriage decision in May. Like Howard Dean once did, Newsom got increasingly excited the longer he addressed the crowd until, with a smirk on his face and his arms fully extended, he exclaimed, ‘This door’s wide open now. It’s gonna happen–whether you like it or not.’ That 7-second sound bite perfectly summarized for California voters why this issue was before them, reminding voters that four judges had overruled four million voters by imposing same-sex marriage on California. We then segued into potential consequences by featuring a prominent law school professor warning about implications for religious freedom and freedom of expression, and letting voters know that as a result of the court’s decision, gay marriage would be taught in the public schools.

The ‘Whether You Like It or Not’ television ad immediately solidified (and excited) our base and captured the attention of voters across the state. We invested heavily in airing this television ad and a companion radio spot. We had a lot of ground to make up (our internal polls had us behind by 6 points), but more importantly, it was critical for us to define Prop 8 on our terms. In a little over a week of advertising, we went from being significantly behind, to taking the lead in two published polls.

The gay community sounded the alarm by releasing to the gay media an internal poll showing them behind and telling their supporters they would lose unless more money was raised. This emergency cry for contributions was incredibly effective. Whereas they had raised $15 million in the previous nine months, they raised another $25 million in the ensuing seven weeks of the campaign.

But their failure to respond to the ‘consequences’ messages (especially the education message) in a timely fashion ultimately led to their downfall. After blanketing the state with ‘Whether You Like It or Not,’ we focused our message on education. We ran an ad featuring a young Hispanic girl coming home from school, explaining how she had learned in class that a prince could marry another prince, and she could marry a princess! This ad was based on the actual experience in Massachusetts, the only state in the nation where gay marriage had been legalized long enough to see how it would be handled by the public school system. This was followed by another education ad, this one featuring a Massachusetts couple whose son had been introduced to gay marriage in second grade. The launch of that ad included a press conference with the Massachusetts couple and corresponded with the kick-off of a statewide bus tour designed to rally our supporters before the final push on Election Day.

The response to our ads from the No on 8 campaign was slow and ineffectual. They enlisted their allies in the education system to claim that we were lying. They held press conferences with education leaders to dismiss our claims. They got newspaper editorial boards to condemn the ads as false. What they never did do, because they couldn’t do, was contest the accuracy of what had happened in Massachusetts.

Finally, three weeks after the Yes on 8 campaign had introduced education as a message, the No on 8 campaign responded with what would be their best ad of the campaign. It featured State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell chiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with education and that our use of children in our ads was ‘shameful.’ This in-your-face response, much delayed but very effective, foretold the final period of the campaign–it would be largely about education.

Even though our campaign clearly had the better ads and grassroots operation, the success of the No side’s fundraising effort threatened to undo all our work. Voters were seeing their commercials at least twice as often as ours as the campaign headed into its final 12 days.…

Our strategy had anticipated that the No on 8 campaign would label as ‘shameful lies’ any claim that gay marriage had anything to do with schools, so we went to great lengths to document our ads. We were prepared to play this scenario out to the finish, trading our ads of what happened in Massachusetts, with the No side’s ads saying it wouldn’t happen in California. But then we got the break of the election. In what may prove to be the most ill-considered publicity stunt ever mounted in an initiative campaign, a public school in San Francisco took a class of first graders to City Hall to witness the wedding of their lesbian teacher. And they brought along the media.

Now we not only had an example of something that had happened in California (as opposed to might happen), we had video footage to prove it. Within 24 hours of the No side airing their best ad, the one featuring O’Connell claiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with schools, we were on statewide TV showing bewildered six-year-olds at a lesbian wedding courtesy of their local public school.…

After several days of dueling ads featuring Jack O’Connell and kids at the lesbian wedding, the No side effectively conceded they had lost the education debate. They pulled the O’Connell ad and went in a new direction in the final few days–attempting to equate a Yes vote with racial discrimination.…

We decided to not respond to this line of attack, confident that it would backfire. The basic message that supporters of traditional marriage are bigots, guilty of discrimination, had never worked in focus groups. For liberal whites like Feinstein to lecture black Californians about discrimination was not a winning message.…

As the campaign headed into the final days, we launched a ‘Google surge.’ We spent more than a half-million dollars to place ads on every single website that had advertising controlled by Google. Whenever anyone in California went online, they saw one of our ads in the final two days of the election.…

Members of the Mormon faith played an important part of the Yes on 8 coalition, but were only a part of our winning coalition. We had the support of virtually the entire faith community in California. Prop 8 didn’t win because of the Mormons. It won because we created superior advertising that defined the issues on our terms; because we built a diverse coalition; and, most importantly, because we activated that coalition at the grassroots level in a way that had never before been done.

The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter.” (Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint, “Passing Prop 8: Smart Timing and Messaging Convinced California Voters to Support Traditional Marriage,” Politics, February 2009)

2135:

“Opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 pumped a total of $85 million into November’s measure to ban same-sex marriage in California, the most money ever raised for a social-issue campaign in the nation.…

The election wasn’t the most expensive ballot campaign ever in California, a distinction held by Proposition 87 in 2006, in which the two sides spent more than $150 million in the unsuccessful effort to put a tax on oil pumped in California.…” (John Wildermuth, “Prop. 8 among costliest measures in history,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 3, 2009)

1998:

“Without the Ashton-Bastian donations, Utahns kicked in $1.7 million to back Prop 8 and nearly $87,000 to buck it.…” (Tony Semerad, “Utahns, LDS Church spent more on Prop. 8 than previously known,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 9, 2009) 

1138:

“The record amount of money contributed by Mormon Church members as a result of a directive issued by LDS leaders was ‘unprecedented in any anti-LGBT campaign – not just here in California, but in the history of our entire nation,’ Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and an executive committee member of the No on 8 campaign, told the Bay Area Reporter in an e-mail.

No on 8 campaign manager Steve Smith agreed.

‘I am not aware of any church that has engaged in that kind of political action ever before. Churches all the time go to their membership and ask them to vote one way or another, but never to ask for this level of involvement or contribution,’ said Smith.…

‘The Mormon Church’s involvement in California politics is not altogether new, but this degree of involvement of any church in a constitutional amendment in this state is unprecedented, especially in the mobilization of a grassroots army,’ Marriage Equality USA media director Molly McKay told the B.A.R. ‘I think it’s fair to say that the Mormon Church pulled out all the stops this time and was not going to be content until its religious doctrine was enshrined in our state constitution.’…

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the No on 8 executive committee, grew up Mormon in Utah and was the first female staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah. Her history has led some in the LGBT community to ask why the No on 8 campaign didn’t better anticipate her former church’s actions.

‘I knew the church would be involved and told Steve that they would be a significant force – especially after the [LDS] president’s letter in June that made it clear they were going to pull out all the stops,’ Kendell said. ‘They put in likely 70 percent of the Prop 22 money and very likely the same percentage with Prop 8.’

While Kendell’s comments appear to indicate the LDS involvement in Prop 8 was proportionately comparable to its support of Prop 22, she claimed church members’ overall financial contribution to Prop 8 surprised the campaign.

‘I think we all were stunned at just how muscular the church’s role was,’ Kendell said. ‘I would not have imagined that they could have raised $20-$25 million.’ Kendell qualified her comment, referring to the recent unearthing of documents detailing nearly two decades of Mormon involvement in the issue. ‘Keep in mind we did not know at the time just how deep and strategic and all-encompassing they had been on this issue for over a decade. If we had known that, it would have had some impact perhaps – but most of the yes votes were from folks who were all too happy to have the church take the lead.’

No on 8’s Smith admits that he became aware of the Mormon factor late.

‘We began only to understand in mid-summer how heavily involved the Mormons were – not until the October 5 financial report – and that was very late,’ he said.…

What Smith said the No on 8 campaign learned October 5 was that the vast majority of Mormon contributions were in the amount of ‘$750 to just under $1,000, so a lot of these contributions weren’t being reported, because they didn’t have to, and it wasn’t until October 5 that we learned the extent’ of the influx of money from Mormons.…

‘With Prop 22 they bussed in thousands and thousands and thousands of volunteers,’ he noted. ‘In this case the Mormons chose to hide their involvement. What you can attribute that to is either they thought it would be more effective, or they were embarrassed about what they were doing.’…

Kendell confirmed the No on 8 campaign did poll on the Mormon issue.

‘I do remember we asked that question and the results were pretty underwhelming in terms of the percentage of voters for whom it was an issue,’ Kendell wrote in an e-mail. ‘I do not remember the figure, however, and I would need full executive committee authorization to permit Steve to release the data.’

Evidence of the Mormon Church’s tactics was hiding in plain sight. In addition to the homosexual legalized marriage strategy memo and the Richley Crapo documents that the B.A.R. previously reported on, the B.A.R. has uncovered the transcript of the PBS religion and ethics documentary, episode 326, produced by the late Art Lord, who was NBC News’ Burbank bureau chief, in which San Francisco reporter Vic Lee states that, ‘To gather the 700,000 signatures to get Prop 22 before the voters, [Pete] Knight’s organization reportedly received $5 million from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and $350,000 from the Catholic Bishops of California.’

The late state Senator William ‘Pete’ Knight (R-Palmdale) was the driving force behind Prop 22 nine years ago.

Lee, who was a contributing correspondent for the show, said in an interview last month that he was not responsible for gathering the information used in the documentary.

‘The research was his research,’ Lee said, adding that Lord ‘had an absolutely sterling reputation.’…

Farah, the LDS spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail to the B.A.R. that the PBS claim was ‘false,’ but did not respond to a request for any evidence that the Mormon Church disputed the charge when it aired in 2000. 

Kendell, who was on the No on 22 executive committee, said ‘the Knight folks had raised around $6 million total.’ Regarding Lord’s claim that $5 million had come from the LDS, Kendell said, ‘I had not heard this information, but it would not surprise me.’

No on 8 campaign manager Smith, however, doubted the figure. ‘It wouldn’t have taken that much to qualify the initiative. If that’s true it’s a huge surprise because it was not known at the time.’ The B.A.R. could not find corroborating evidence in reports filed with the secretary of state’s office, but, according to an archives official, California does not require such reporting before an initiative qualifies for the ballot.

Susan Lord, Art’s widow, told of the $5 million figure mentioned in her husband’s program, said, ‘he was always about accuracy.’…

Joseph ‘Robb’ Wirthlin and his wife Robin Wirthlin were among the LDS members the church recruited to aide the Prop 8 campaign in California, including a weeklong bus tour through the state to drive home the misleading claim that children would be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools if Prop 8 was defeated.

The story of the Wirthlins became suspect at the end of the campaign when it was learned that Robb was the grandson of LDS Apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin and the nephew of LDS elder and Prop 22 internal pollster Richard ‘Dick’ Wirthlin.  

Both Robb and Robin Wirthlin had moved into a Massachusetts school district already embroiled in a fight over same-sex marriage curriculum and, and along with another prominent LDS family, the Gals, who had moved into the district as well, joined the district’s anti-bias committee. Then within a matter of weeks the Wirthlins brought a lawsuit against the school district. The federal suit was thrown out, but the Wirthlins became stars within the conservative religious communities opposed to marriage equality. 

Schubert, the Yes on 8 campaign manager, told the B.A.R., that like other Mormon volunteers, ‘The Wirthlins were not compensated for their time.’ Only their airfare and hotel expenses were covered by the campaign. The new finance reports from the secretary of state’s office showed the Wirthlins were paid $768 for ‘staff/spouse travel, lodging and meals’ by the Yes on 8 campaign.…

The discovery of Crapo’s documents confirm Farah’s statement that the LDS position is a ‘highly consistent’ and persistent Mormon strategy that has been present in every same-sex marriage battle, judicial, legislative, or political, since 1988.

‘It’s like we’ve been showing up on the field and not knowing the team we’re going to be playing against,’ said McKay, who said people now know ‘it’s been the same team. It’s a strategic disadvantage. They have the same playbook and they keep using it.’

No future campaign can justify surprise by the tenacity of the Mormon leaders in their quest to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples, or underestimate their level of commitment to the issue, believes McKay.…” (Dan Aiello, “Prop 8 foes slow to pick up on Mormon involvement,” Bay Area Reporter, February 12, 2009)

917:

“Many smile benignly at a young man and woman embracing on a park bench but frown when they catch sight of a gay couple unguardedly holding hands. People resist perceiving the latter as natural as the former because that would question, and make problematic, their understanding of the world–it would mean that they would live with uncertainty. Living with uncertainty, however, is very disquieting: it is a source of fears and anxieties. Proposition 8 represented a way of coping with those fears and anxieties, since it promised to restore the disturbed natural order.…” (Murray Hausknecht, “Proposition 8: Uncertainties and Ambiguities,” Dissent: A Quarterly of Politics and Culture, February 25, 2009)

2017:

“The Yes on 8 coalition promoted a staggering misinformation campaign. Multiple advertisements told voters that without Proposition 8, their churches would be forced to perform same sex unions and be stripped of their tax-exempt status; that schools would teach children to practice homosexuality; and that even President-elect (then candidate) Barack Obama had stated during his campaign that he did not favor gay marriage (although Obama did come out in opposition to Proposition 8).…

Perhaps understanding that public perception had shifted significantly in support of LGBTQ people and marriage equality since Proposition 22 in 2000 when 61 percent of voters voted to ban same sex marriage in California, the campaign did not put out a message of overt hate against lesbian and gay people. Instead their messaging centered on not taking away rights for gays and lesbians. ‘Gay couples in domestic partnerships have and will continue to have the same legal rights as married spouses. We’re not here to stop anyone from expressing their commitment or responsibility to another. We’re simply here to protect the definition of marriage to what the majority of California voters (and all of history) have decided it should be – a union between a man and a woman.’ This strategy allowed the Christian Right to attract a moderate base that may not have taken a hardline position against LGBTQ people, positioning themselves as being compassionate towards gays and lesbians while trying to hold onto the ‘sanctity of traditional marriage.’

The Campaign’s messaging centered on children and the harm that would come to them if same sex marriage passed. This framing was a compelling one for their base, especially when coupled with the message that no rights would be taken away from gays and lesbians if Proposition 8 passed. The campaign insisted on the falsehood that if Proposition 8 did not pass, children would be forced to learn about gay marriage in schools. ‘If the same sex marriage ruling is not overturned, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.’…

Mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle countered these falsehoods as did the No on 8 Campaign, but with little impact. The misinformation messaging had taken root, in churches across the state, in rural, mostly white, communities and in many communities of color.…

On election day Yes on 8 had 100,000 people — five per precinct — checking voter rolls and contacting supporters who hadn’t shown up to vote.…” (Surina Khan, “How the Right Succeeded in Passing Proposition 8,” The Public Eye Magazine, Spring 2009)

2166:

“The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, the controversial ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in the state of California.

At the same time, the ruling allows about 18,000 same-sex couples who’d already married to retain the rights they attained during the brief six-month period that gay marriage was legal in the state.…” (Susan Donaldson James, “California Upholds Gay Marriage Ban,” ABCNews.go.com, May 26, 2009)

2131:

“On Tuesday, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints praised the decision by the California Supreme Court to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.…” (Jennifer Dobner, “Mormon church praises ruling on same-sex marriage,” Associated Press, May 26, 2009)

2043:

“In a meeting with gay-rights activists last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized the LDS Church for backing a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage in California, saying the leaders of his faith should have stayed out of the contentious political fight.

Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is the highest ranking elected official who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He previously has not commented on the flood of Mormon money and volunteers who helped propel Proposition 8 to victory in November.

But three organizers of the past weekend’s National Equality March said Reid brought up the topic during a conversation in his office.

‘He said that he thought it was a waste of church resources and good will,’ said Derek Washington, a Nevadan who worked as the outreach director for the march. ‘He said he didn’t think it was appropriate.’

Reid spokesman Jon Summers would not discuss the private meeting, but he didn’t deny the conversation took place.

‘While Senator Reid agrees with his church that marriage is between a man and a woman,’ Summers said, ‘he also believes that the resources that went into the Proposition 8 effort could have been put to better use.’…” (Matt Canham, “Reid rips LDS Church’s Prop. 8 support,” Salt Lake Tribune, October 12, 2009)

3695:

“Gay-rights activists say that in a private meeting with them, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., criticized the LDS Church for working to ban gay marriage in California.

‘The senator mentioned that he felt the church should use its resources on other good works instead of getting involved in such a divisive campaign,’ Derek Washington, who helped organize last weekend’s National Equality March, told the Deseret News.

‘It really was said pretty much in passing. I was surprised at the press it got,’ Washington said after stories about the statement appeared in press nationally after initially appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Reid currently is the highest-ranking member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the federal government as the Senate majority leader.

Reid spokesman Jon Summers told the Deseret News, ‘We don’t discuss Sen. Reid’s private meetings.’

However, Summers added, ‘While Sen. Reid agrees with his church that marriage is between a man and a woman, he also believes that the resources that went into the Proposition 8 effort could have been put to better use.’” (“Reid criticizes LDS Church’s Prop. 8 involvement,” Deseret News, October 13, 2009)

2061:

“Although Catholic bishops and evangelical groups were active in the effort, public attention focused on the involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the Mormons.

The Mormon effort drew wide attention after Peggy Fletcher Stack, the Salt Lake Tribune’s longtime religion reporter, revealed in a June 24 article that the church had slated a pro-Proposition 8 letter to be read from California pulpits on June 30.…

Although other religious bodies donated time and money to the Proposition 8 campaign, it was the LDS church’s seemingly effortless and lightning-quick ability to mobilize its members that caught the public eye. Catholics make a practice of ignoring their bishops, and evangelicals are a disparate flock, but Mormons believe that the head of their church is a prophet of God—and tend to act accordingly.…

‘If we could identify every Mormon, I think that probably 85 to 90 percent of the donors would be Mormon,’ said website proprietor Nadine Hansen, a 61-year-old, semi-retired lawyer (and non-practicing Mormon) from Cedar City, Utah.…

On September 20, Mark Schoofs of the Wall Street Journal reported that, in an August conference call, church leaders solicited $25,000 donations from 40 to 60 California Mormons, an amount likely based on their tithing receipts. LDS officials maintained a separate post-office box to handle members’ donations, which were tallied and sent to the campaign. As of mid-September, the Protect Marriage Coalition’s own figures indicated that Mormon donations would likely exceed 40 percent of total contributions to the initiative.…

Then, on October 23, Stack reported that the LDS Church had ‘released’ those who had been ‘called’ by the church to help secure passage of the initiative. Utah County Democratic Party head Richard Davis implied that church efforts might be backfiring. ‘If a caller says, ‘Hi, I’m calling from Heber City, Utah,’ that might be a turn-off to a California voter,’ Davis said. 

Indeed, before Election Day, there were picket lines at northern California LDS church buildings.…

The mainstream press, which prior to the election had steered clear of expressing an opinion on Mormon involvement in the initiative, was generally critical of the anti-Mormon protests. A November 18 editorial in the Spokane Spokesman-Review took protesters to task for their derogatory signs and blanket condemnation of Mormons simply for supporting the initiative. On November 23, San Francisco Chronicle editorial page editor John Diaz attacked ‘the ugly backlash over Proposition 8.’…

On July 6, Rebecca Rosen Lum of the Oakland Tribune noted how things had changed since Proposition 22 in 2000: ‘Some Mormons are rejecting their prophet’s call to campaign for a ban on same-sex marriage in California, suggesting the church leadership’s sway over the issue of homosexuality may be weakening.’…

On October 31, the San Francisco Chronicle’s John Wildermuth took note in his blog of ‘No on 8’ signs in the Youngs’ yard and quoted Barbara Young as saying, ‘We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8.’…

‘Steve prefers not to get involved politically on any issue no matter what the cause and therefore makes no endorsement.’…

It’s a safe guess that the church would not have pulled out all the stops for Proposition 8 had Romney been the Republican nominee. Yet inside the church, members did not forget the new opening for individual conscience.…

After the election, Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe commented on the ‘unusual level of disagreement in the ordinarily harmonious Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ caused by ‘the church’s outspoken support for Proposition 8.’…

Among the church’s most strident critics was Andrew Callaghan of Hastings, Nebraska, founder of the website signingforsomething.org. Callaghan attracted attention in late September when Jeniffer Berry of KHAS-TV reported that he had been threatened with church discipline because of the website.…

High-level church leader L. Whitney Clayton told her that Mormons who disagree with the church would not face sanctions. In the past, Mormons who publicly opposed the church have routinely been excommunicated or disfellowshipped.…

As for Andrew Callaghan, his original church court was indefinitely postponed by church authorities until after the election. Though signingforsomething.org now provides space for disenchanted Mormons to post their letters of resignation from the church, as of early January, there were no reports of action taken by the LDS church against him or other Mormon opponents of Proposition 8.” (Doe Daughtrey, “The Mormon Proposition,” Religion in the News, Winter 2009)

3726:

“Here’s an 8-second clip of LDS/GOP pollster Gary Lawrence claiming authorship of the infamous half-baked half-dozen [“Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails”]:

‘In fact, the idiot who wrote the Meridian magazine article is me. And the idiot who wrote the “Six Consequences” is me.’…”

(“Mormon pollster Gary Lawrence: I’m the idiot who wrote ‘Six Consequences,’” LatterDayMainStreet.com, February 1, 2010)

1654:

“On Wednesday, January 20, in a federal courthouse in San Francisco, plaintiffs in the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger trial challenging the legality of California’s Proposition 8 introduced two documents (over strenuous objections from the defense) indicating close but cautious coordination between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Yes on 8 campaign.

The documents, according to plaintiffs’ witness Gary Segura, a professor of political science at Stanford University, indicated a desire on the part of the Church to create ‘plausible deniability or respectable distance between the church organization per se and the actual campaign.’…

Early donations from Mormons were solicited in July, when letters read in Sunday meetings of men’s and women’s church auxiliaries conveyed a $10 million fundraising goal for July and August and instructed Church members to donate exclusively to protectmarriage.com. Donors were asked to identify their home congregation on donation forms, according to campaign observers, so that Mormon congregations could track their progress towards meeting fundraising targets set for each congregation based on their ability to pay as assessed from records of church offerings.

The Church-coordinated fundraising drive intensified in late August, when select LDS Church members identified as potential large donors were invited to participate in conference calls with members of the Quorum of the Seventy, a high-ranking Church leadership body. (Mormon Yes on 8 campaign observers believe that tithing records were used to identify call participants.) On the conference calls, high-ranking church leaders encouraged potential large donors to individually contribute $25,000 to protectmarriage.com.

That’s when Nadine Hansen, a Mormon veteran of the campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment, initiated an effort to document the extent of Mormon funding for the Yes on 8 campaign. During the ERA campaign, Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson had shared with Hansen fundraising disclosure sheets from an anti-ERA group that had raised money in California. Using church directories, Hansen was then able to identify ‘all but one or two’ of the ERA donors as Mormon. Sensing that the Church was pressing ERA-era strategies into service once again, she prepared to undertake the same donor-identification project for Proposition 8 at the Web site mormonsfor8.com.

In early September, a surge of $25,000 donations began to appear in campaign finance records compiled by the California Secretary of State. Hansen and a crew of Mormon supporters of same-sex marriage began to comb large donor records to identify Mormon Church members. By Election Day, mormonsfor8.com volunteers had successfully identified more than 50% of the large donors as members of the LDS Church. ‘And we know that we did not identify all of the Mormon donors,’ Hansen relates. ‘You can see that in some places virtually all the money that came in came from Mormons. It’s a safe bet to say that Mormons contributed over half the money. It might be as high as 75%.’

Don’t Dress Like a Missionary

Mobilizing highly centralized and hierarchical ecclesiastical structures, Mormons also contributed as much as 80-90% of the volunteer labor for the campaign.

Implementation of a statewide grassroots volunteer structure began in late July, with volunteers coordinated through geographically-organized Mormon ecclesiastical units called ‘wards’ and ‘stakes.’ Church members received ‘callings,’ or ecclesiastical assignments understood by orthodox church members to be divinely inspired, from their local church leaders to serve as regional (or ‘stake’-level) directors and zip code (or ‘ward’-level) supervisors for grassroots campaigning. One LDS zipcode supervisor reported that the Mormon Church was ‘the only member of the Protect Marriage coalition’ to participate in the Yes on 8 ground campaign.

On August 16, the Yes on 8 ground-campaign began its voter-identification phase, with a reported 15,000–30,000 Mormon precinct walkers knocking doors each weekend in August to identify ‘yes,’ ‘soft yes,’ ‘undecided,’ ‘soft no,’ and ‘no’ voters and to commit ‘yes’ voters to display ‘Yes on 8’ lawn signs. The door-to-door voter identification campaign continued through September.

Mormon volunteers were coached to avoid disclosing their ties to the LDS Church. ‘When we went to our training meetings, they said, don’t bring up the fact that you’re Mormon. Don’t wear white shirts and ties; don’t look like missionaries. When you go out [canvassing], bring a non-member friend. When you’re calling people, don’t say I’m a Mormon,’ says Laura Compton.

On October 8, LDS Church members in California attended a special meeting broadcast from Salt Lake City by satellite to wards and stakes throughout California and to BYU students with California ties. Encouraging Church members to think of the satellite broadcast as though they were ‘sitting in [a] living room having a confidential talk,’ high-ranking LDS Church officials, members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorum of the Seventy, introduced Church members to the final voter persuasion and get-out-the-vote ‘phases’ of the campaign, asking members to use social networking technology to ‘go viral’ with their support for Proposition 8 and commit four hours each week to the ground and phone campaign.…

Still, Compton and other Mormon observers of the Proposition 8 campaign continue to wonder why the Church has been reticent to acknowledge the extent of its influence.

‘They did not want to be outed,’ Hansen relates. ‘And yet they were with ones with all the organizational skills. And whether its because [the Church] is concerned about tax-exempt status or they want to avoid bad publicity… they want to do it and not have anyone know they do it at the same time.’…” (Joanna Brooks, “When Mormons Mobilize: Anti-Gay Marriage Prop. 8 Effort ‘Outed’?” Religion Dispatches, February 2, 2010)

3732:

“[Cardinal Francis George speaking at BYU:] ‘I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see each other as trustworthy partners in defense of shared moral principles.’” (Sara Israelsen-Hartley, “LDS, Catholics must defend religious freedom, cardinal says at BYU,” Deseret News, February 24, 2010)

3769:

“Polls had shown that the initiative was likely to fail, and the fundraising records dovetailed with that—Prop 8’s supporters weren’t raising nearly as much money as their Hollywood-backed opponents.

But then, in midsummer, Karger noticed something new. Suddenly, money started pouring in to ProtectMarriage.com, and by August, the group was raising about $500,000 a day. Karger wondered where all the money was coming from. Most of the donors, he soon realized, had never made a political contribution before. Some had given to just one candidate: Mitt Romney. Quite a few were graduates of Brigham Young University. It wasn’t hard to connect the dots: This was Mormon money.

Once he knew what to look for, Karger found Mormons everywhere in the Prop 8 campaign: as actors in the TV ads, as volunteers, organizers, and political consultants. Just as intriguing, he would discover eventually, the group that had done the lion’s share of the work to get Prop 8 on the ballot to begin with, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), also had deep ties to the Mormon Church—and the church itself had been engaged in a campaign to block gay marriage across the nation for more than a decade. What he was looking at, he realized, was a stealth campaign much like the ones he’d run during his long career as a Republican political operative.…

As a political professional, Karger—who for decades worked for one of California’s premier campaign consulting firms, a shop that had helped invent modern opposition research—was grudgingly impressed with what the Mormons were doing. ‘They completely altered the landscape,’ he says. ‘They took over every aspect of the campaign.’ Karger estimates that Mormons ultimately contributed $30 million of the $42 million total raised in support of Prop 8…

So he fired up his laptop and launched Californians Against Hate, a one-man shop dedicated to publicizing the names of major Prop 8 donors. ‘I wanted to make it socially unacceptable to take away the rights of a minority,’ he explains—to, as it were, push such behavior into the closet.…

Karger filed a formal complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, a move that prompted a spokesman to claim that the church had spent ‘zero dollars’ on Prop 8. Two months later the church filed a new report saying it had given $190,000 worth of nonmonetary contributions in the few days before the election (after the filing deadline for the earlier report). California election officials are continuing to investigate.…” (Stephanie Mencimer, “Of Mormons and (Gay) Marriage,” Mother Jones, April 5, 2010)

2928:

“I attached a copy of the transcript from the Proposition 8 fireside I mentioned to you. I heard portions of this fireside was used in ‘8: The Mormon Proposition.’ This is the whole thing, complete and in context. This fireside was targeted at the appointed coordinators assigned in each ward to get prop 8 passed and all young single adults. As such, there was quite a bit of pressure for everyone in my YSA ward to attend and I did. I ended up walking out of it and had an emotional breakdown. I felt disenfranchised by the whole thing. I’ve thought about writing about my whole experience with it but doubt it would add anything useful to the conversation. Prop 8 nearly killed me. I remained active but I felt completely abandoned by the Church. They got Prop 8 passed by any means necessary, even if that meant ignoring blatant homophobic bigotry from the pulpit that had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. When I tried to go back on my mission I was required to do a local mission and though the Church is downplaying the effects of prop 8 on missionary work, I saw it firsthand. There were angry people when we tracted, people who went inactive over the issue, people who left the Church over the issue, and members who though they supported prop 8 felt like their Stake President strong armed them by questioning their temple worthiness to get money for the campaign to meet fundraising goals set by Salt Lake. It’s not as pretty or innocent as Public Affairs makes it out to be.” (John Hayes to Gregory A. Prince, June 22, 2010)

1626:

“Bill Marriott & Mormon Elders Cook, Ballard and Wickman recently threw a party for NOM’s Robert P. George.

I’m sure plenty of folks here will recognize the various faces from NOM, the LDS church, and The Becket Fund among the photos at the above link. The first group got Prop 8 on the ballot, the second made sure it passed, and the third paid for that full-page NY Times No Mob Veto ad that ran as a show of support for the LDS church following Prop 8s passage.

Kinda nifty how that all worked out and how these folks later found themselves all together at a Georgetown party handing out medals to each other.

Jeremy filed the first report on this soiree and has all the details. I just have one question left to ask: When do Bill Marriott and the LDS leadership intend to stop attending award ceremonies for anti-gay figures such as Orson Scott Card and Robert P. George?…” (Chino Blanco, “M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook co-chair $1,000-a-plate award night for anti-gay crusader Robby George,” Daily Kos, June 23, 2010)

3835:

“I just found out, thanks to one of your postings, that Gary [Lawrence] actually has admitted to being the author of ‘Six Consequences,’ which went viral among Mormons in California and was partly responsible for what happened with Prop 8.…” (Hugo Salinas to Jason Echols, October 27, 2011)

2371:

“[p. 162] That summer a vast and professionally orchestrated grassroots campaign grinds into action, mobilizing Mormon congregations. Mormons are asked to donate about eight hours a month to the Yes on 8 campaign…

[163] At the first statewide precinct walk on August 16, almost thirty thousand Yes on 8 volunteers fan out into neighborhoods, knocking on doors, identifying and recruiting likely voters to ‘protect marriage’ by eliminating the civil marriage rights of gays and lesbians.

The man in charge of the vast Mormon Proposition 8 grassroots operation is Grant Jensen, my childhood bishop, the professional Republican pollster and strategist. Now Grant Jensen tells the world, ‘If same-sex marriage advocates win, the whole structure collapses: the family, the nation, and in time civilization itself.’ Brother Jensen has a gay son.…

[164] In August, we learn that the Yes on 8 campaign has set fundraising goals for each Mormon congregation: higher goals are set for congregations in wealthy areas with higher monthly tithing receipts.…

[166] In September, word comes that a million plastic yellow Yes on 8 lawn signs scheduled to materialize on lawns across the state as a crucial element in the grassroots Yes on 8 visibility campaign have been inexplicably delayed at the manufacturing plant in China.…

[170] Across the United States, rank-and-file Mormons are being told that the legalization of civil gay marriage in California will require churches to sanctify gay marriages or else face massive penalties that will force them to close. They are being told that gay civil marriage rights threatens our freedom of belief and worship. Every newspaper, every legal analyst in the country has declared that this is a falsehood.  But many believe.…

[174] It is the most expensive ballot initiative fight over a social issue in California history: eighty-two million dollars. Mormon individual donors account for at least 50 percent of the money raised in support of Proposition 8.

An oral rehydration packet for a child with diarrhea costs about 10 cents.  Diarrhea is the second leading cause of death among children worldwide. Diarrhea kills five thousand children each day, almost two million children each yet. Eighty-two million dollars buys almost one billion oral rehydration packets, enough to provide live-saving treatment for every child on the glob with diarrhea for a decade to come.…

[175] I look up Grant Jensen’s son Mark. I haven’t seen him since we were both children in the same Orange County [176] congregation. We reconnect by email. How are you? I ask. Okay, he says. He is living with his boyfriend in San Bernardino. He recounts the day he stumbled upon stacks of Proposition 8 campaign materials in his father’s office and realized the magnitude of what was to come. He and his parents haven’t spoken since.…” (Joanna Brooks, The Book of Mormon Girl: A Memoir of an American Faith, 2012)

4069:

“[p. 706] LGBTQ advocates [707] continued to seek legal recognition of marriages, and in February 2004 the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. During a one-month period, approximately 4,000 same-sex couples married. In Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, the California Supreme Court invalidated those marriages but left open the question of the constitutional validity of the California marriage statutes.

The legal issue in the consolidated Marriage Cases was ‘whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a ‘marriage’ whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a ‘domestic partnership.’’

The consolidated appeal was one of the most heavily briefed cases in the court’s history, with written briefs from more than twenty counties and municipalities and more than 250 religious and civil rights leaders and organizations, and almost four hours of oral argument in court. The [708] court’s 4-3 ruling on May 15, 2008, found that the statutory scheme establishing different forms of legal recognition for same-sex and opposite-sex unions violated the state constitution by ‘potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry.’

Reactions followed swiftly. Many commentators praised the decision; for instance an editorial in the New York Times stated the decision ‘brought the United States a step closer to fulfilling its ideals of equality and justice.’ The Los Angeles Times hailed the court’s recognition that ‘rights must supersede customs, that just because marriage traditionally has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, it cannot be denied to same-sex couples by ‘tradition alone.’’ Other politicians and pundits criticized the decision. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage contended that the court ruling put same-sex marriage foes ‘in the exact position as racists under California law’…

Even before the court’s decision, groups collected signatures to place the issue on the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.…

[719] Church President Gordon B. Hinckley defended the church’s actions in

an October 1999 Conference talk, stating that

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil [720] right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.…

[725] The broadcast also reiterated themes of legal oppression and political usurpation. Elder Ballard cited Proposition 22 and that ‘the California Supreme Court ruled against the vote of the people.’ He also cited President Hinckley’s statement that Proposition 8 was not a matter of civil rights, but of morality.

Elder Cook continued with a detailed attack on same-sex marriage which echoed much of the previous Divine Institution statement. Cook, an attorney who previously practiced corporate law, stated in the broadcast that ‘the court’s decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberties, freedom of association, and free speech rights . . . The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family. People inside of institutions with beliefs that oppose same sex marriage will increasingly be labeled as intolerant and subjected to legal penalties or social ostracism.’…

[726] And third, the church’s tax status would be threatened, because ‘pressure will mount to revoke the tax exempt status of religious organizations and other charities that refuse to recognize same-sex marriages or open their facilities for the performance of such marriages.…

Elder Bednar also stated that religious speech would be threatened if Proposition 8 were not passed: ‘If your religious doctrine is such that you believe marriage between a man and a woman is the only definition of marriage, then that smacks up against free speech, because if marriage is defined in a more broad way, between members of the same gender, then you can’t talk about that.’…

Interestingly, Elder Bednar used domestic partner protections as a launching pad to argue that same-sex marriage was unnecessary: ‘in California, same-gender couples have a variety of protected rights, so they don’t lose anything if this particular proposition goes down. . . . they would lose nothing.’ And Elder Bednar repeated that Proposition 8 was not [727] intolerant. In contrast, he warned, legalization of same-sex marriage would itself lead to ‘a decreasingly tolerant environment for our own beliefs.’…

Interestingly, during the Proposition 8 campaign the church softened its prior stance on domestic partnerships. Early in the campaign, it seemed likely that the church would not support domestic partnership rights.

For one thing, the church’s political partners at Protect Marriage had repeatedly stated their opposition to domestic partnership rights. Given [728] those very clear statements from the church’s Protect Marriage partners, it might seem likely that the church would oppose domestic partner rights. In addition, the 2006 interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman had included negative statements about domestic partner rights:

ELDER WICKMAN: … It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, ‘That is not right. That’s not appropriate.’

Given both the attitude of the church’s political allies and the church’s own prior hints, one could have expected that the church would have come out in opposition to domestic partner rights. Instead, precisely the opposite occurred. The Divine Institution of Marriage press release stated directly that: ‘The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government [729] interference.…

The church’s about-face on domestic partnership became a vital part of its ‘love the gays, hate the gayness’ message. Church leaders repeatedly built this new view into arguments favoring Proposition 8, stating that ‘same-gender couples would lose nothing’ if Proposition 8 was passed because domestic partnership would remain an option.…

[743] Some claims were made by members that absent Proposition 8, the church would be required to solemnize same-sex weddings. These claims relating to forced marriage do not appear to have a sound legal basis. Nothing in the Marriage Cases decision requires the church to perform same-sex marriages in temples or the like. In fact, the court opinion itself says exactly the opposite: ‘No religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.…

[744] Proposition 8 proponents repeatedly cited to antidiscrimination cases as ‘consequences’ that would occur if Proposition 8 did not pass. For instance, the Six Consequences memo and the Duncan article both pointed to the Benitez case. But this connection was deceptive; Benitez was based [745] on antidiscrimination law, not on marriage law, and Proposition 8 did

not affect antidiscrimination laws.…

[746] The [Los Angeles] Times continues that

The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church’s adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households. How can this be? It’s a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work and its ability to follow its religious teachings have not been altered.

A variety of claims were also made by church members and leaders regarding education, including the claim that unless Proposition 8 was passed, schools would be required to teach children about same-sex marriage. These claims were made by leaders such as Elder Cook, and were also circulated in popular sources such as the Six Consequences memo. Leaders cited the Massachusetts case of Parker v. Hurley, which was characterized as a case where a parent was arrested for disagreeing with same-sex marriage. However, that arrest was for trespassing on school property.…

[748] These conversations sometimes present the passage of Proposition 8 as a modern-day miracle and proof of God’s blessing, while contrary court rulings are viewed as a test of faith for the righteous. Some of these statements veer into the clearly excessive; in one recent law review article, Lynn Wardle compared fellow opponents of same-sex marriage to Jews courageously battling Nazi genocide.…

[749] An early statement suggesting that members were free to disagree with the church about Proposition 8 has not been repeated. Instead, Elder Whitney Clayton told the Deseret News that church members who publicly opposed Proposition 8 could potentially be subject to church discipline, noting that ‘those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved.’… Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Twelve said in a recent Conference talk that ‘in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed.’…” (Kaimipono David Wenger, ‘’The Divine Institution of Marriage’: An Overview of LDS Involvement in the Proposition 8 Campaign,’ Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 26(3):705-51, April 5, 2013)

4107:

“[p. 2117] At the Dolphin Group, Karger specialized in so-called ‘Astroturf’ campaigns—setting up supposedly ‘grassroots’ coalitions and movements that acted as unacknowledged proxies for a hidden, often corporate, financial backer with undisclosed motives. After leaving the Dolphin Group in 2004, Karger began to involve himself openly with gay causes, using the skills he had developed as a political hired gun to advance a more personal political agenda.…

[2118] While searching the SOS [California Secretary of State] Website for Proposition 8 ‘megadonors’ in the summer of 2008, Karger began to become suspicious that some unknown entity was driving and coordinating a number of contributions—a strategy reminiscent of his own former ‘Astroturf’ campaigns. Until midsummer, Proposition 8’s opponents had been substantially outraising its proponents, and public polling indicated that the initiative was likely to fail. But in July and August 2008, money in support of Proposition 8 began pouring in, reaching the rate of $500,000 per day, much of it in increments of $25,000. Karger was intrigued. From his background in California politics, he was familiar with many of the major conservative donors in the state, but he didn’t recognize any of the names in this sudden influx of Proposition 8 funds. Many of the new crop of donors, he realized, were residents of Utah. Digging deeper, using Google and other tools, he realized that many of the donors had formerly contributed to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign, and many were also graduates of Brigham Young University.…

[2120] [Nadine] Hansen argues that her interest in launching the website was ‘in tracking the extent of Mormon contributions, not in singling out particular donors.’ Indeed, she states that once a particular donor had been identified as Mormon, she would change his or her surname to an initial on the list, in order to allay concerns about potential retaliation.

Hansen’s task was daunting—eventually, there would be more than 46,000 individual contributors to the Yes on 8 campaign alone. In order to make the task more manageable, she focused her efforts on contributions of $1000 or more. As of September 17, 2008, she had determined that one-third of these donors were Mormons, and the Salt Lake Tribune reported her estimate. Eventually, she generated a list of 6585 donations in excess of $1000. She ultimately identified fifty-one percent of those (3365) as Mormon or likely [2121] Mormon. According to Hansen, those donations represented forty- eight percent of total contributions in support of Proposition 8.…

[Frank] Schubert disclosed that the campaign had been keeping an internal tally of Mormon contributions by asking Mormons to ‘bundle’ their donations to a separate post office box set up by the Church. Using this tally, Schubert confirmed that thirty-five to forty percent of total contributions to Yes on 8 were from LDS members. By the time of the election, ProtectMarriage .com estimated that as much as half of the total raised in support of the measure was contributed by Mormons.…

[2122] The picture that emerged after the election was of a highly coordinated fundraising effort in which LDS leaders had set specific fundraising targets for the Mormon community and for specific Mormon individuals. According to church documents that later emerged in the Proposition 8 constitutional litigation, LDS leadership held a teleconference with all but two of the 161 Mormon leaders in California. The leaders were instructed to encourage church members to contribute at least thirty dollars each for Proposition 8. LDS leaders followed up with specific contribution requests for individual high- net-worth Mormon donors based on church tithing records.…

Mormons made up eighty to ninety percent of early volunteers who canvassed door-to-door in election precincts and they used phone banks, direct mail, and lawn signs to sway potential supporters. In addition to the First Presidency letter, LDS leadership sent follow-up letters with titles such as [2123] ‘Thirty People in Each Ward’ and ‘More than Four Hours per Week,’ to each congregation soliciting volunteers.…

[2124] According to Steve Smith, campaign manager for the No on 8 campaign, the LDS openly bused in thousands of out-of-state volunteers for Proposition 22, a strategy it eschewed for Proposition 8.…

As Smith admitted, ‘Churches all the time go to their membership and ask them to vote one way or another.’ But the unusual feature of Mormon involvement in Proposition 8, ac- cording to Smith, was for the LDS ‘to ask for this level of involvement or contribution.’…

[2126] The $190,000 in-kind contribution did not make LDS one of Pro- position 8’s largest contributors, or even its largest religious contributor; the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, had made a direct monetary contribution of $1 million, while the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made a $200,000 monetary contribution. The National Organization for Marriage, a coalition of religious organizations including LDS, contributed $1.8 million to support the measure. 

Instead, the LDS’s $190,000 in-kind contribution only takes on true significance when viewed in light of the nearly $20 million in individual Mormon contributions that the LDS funds were used to solicit and coordinate. The LDS’s in-kind expenditure of time, resources, and personnel generated more than a hundredfold return on the investment.…” (Monica Youn, “Proposition 8 and the Mormon Church: A Case Study in Donor Disclosure,” The George Washington Law Review 81:2108-54, November 2013)

1166:

“[Greg] Mike: There is an urban legend circulating that claims that the Church was able to get the Rome temple approved quickly as a quid pro quo for helping the Catholic Church on Prop 8.  Is there any substance to the legend?

[Mike] I know the legend and there is no substance to it. I am writing a book on the history of the church in Italy and I will address this topic.” (Mike Homer to GAP, August 21, 2014)

2868:

“Hi Carol Lynn,

Clear last year you asked me to send this for the author that is writing about Prop 8.  I hope its not too little, too late.

My story is brief.  The effect it had on me is not so brief!

Leading up to the election there was all kinds of rhetoric coming up in Relief Society.  Mostly about how the church would be forced to perform gay marriages, if it passed.  The few Sundays I was there, I would try to counter that propaganda. Leaders announced that there were bumper stickers at the door for those who wanted them.

In August, as I was preparing to teach my second year of seminary, I was called in to meet with the Bishop, who asked me if I could bear my testimony about Prop 8.  I explained why I couldn’t do it:  I thought divorce was the greatest threat to marriage.  As a mental health professional, I couldn’t promote anything that I deemed harmful to vulnerable people, given the suicide rates among gay young people, etc.  I did offer to mention the proclamation on the family, since as a marriage and family therapist, I could speak to parts of it.

That night, there was a fireside called at the Bishop’s house, in which we were encouraged to contribute money to the Prop 8 campaign.  The Bishop stated that each ward had been given a quota to aim for.

On the following Wednesday, just days before the start of seminary, I received a voicemail stating that they would not need me to teach this year.  They did not have the number of youth they expected.  Within a month, they called a new seminary teacher who happened to be my home teacher at the time.

In the months leading up to the election, wards were instructed to mention Prop 8 at least once in every Sacrament meeting.  I remember several speakers squirming and mumbling something about it.  I don’t know if this came from our Bishop, the Stake President, or beyond.  It was a very dark time for me.

I was about to be the maid of honor for a friend marrying in the L.A. Temple.  I worried that someone might try to take my temple recommend away.  Not because anyone said this.  The environment was just very tense.

At the wedding, my friend’s stake president had prayed with her that all would go well with me.  I thanked him for that great kindness, and he stated that they were told that all participation was voluntary and that there should be no retribution for anyone who did not participate.  He asked, “What stake do you live in?”  Oh well!

Let me know again, who is writing the book?  I don’t know yet about using my name.  I would need to speak with him.

I hope you are well and enjoying the tremendous progress we’ve made with all of this in the country.  Now, if the brethren could quit being such sore losers!” (Suzanne Hanna to Carol Lynn Pearson, August 26, 2015)

4173:

“I need a little help here. I understand Elder L. Whitney Clayton of the LDS church was the ‘hammer’ in getting Prop 8 passed in California. I’m now yearing Clayton worked with the World Congress of Families in Africa in having anti-gay legislation passed. Some African nations have adopted the death penalty into their anti-gay laws.…” (Roy Schmidt, Mormon Historians Facebook posting, November 3, 2015)

4441:

[121] “[Prop 8] Even before the court’s ruling, opponents of gay marriage had secured enough petition signatures to place a marriage amendment on the fall ballot.…

[122] Proposition 8 backers also argued that religious liberty would suffer from the legalization of gay marriage, as churches inevitably would be forced either to recognize such marriages or else to be vilified as bigoted. Amendment supporters were careful not to publicly denigrate homosexuality or to oppose civil unions or other legal recognition of the rights of same-sex couples. One political consultant described this strategy as putting ‘the fire eating Christians under a porch somewhere.’…

[123] Perhaps ironically, the presence of African American presidential candidate Barack Obama on the ballot facilitated the passage of Proposition 8. Blacks in California turned out in extraordinary numbers to help elect Obama area normally constituting 6% to 7% of the state electorate, African Americans were 10% of California’s voters in 2008. Studies have found that 58% to 70% of Blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8, even though Obama himself opposed the amendment.…

[124] One activist observed that it ‘took a catastrophe like this to really wake people up,’ and another credited Proposition 8 with forcing the gay community ‘out of our stupor.’ An op-ed in the Washington Post referred to Proposition 8 as ‘this generations Stonewall,’ well a gay activist in Los Angeles called the defeat ‘the greatest thing that could have happened’ to the gay rights movement.”

(Michael J. Klarman, From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013))

4441:

[135] “Another commentator called the shift in public opinion from 2004 to 2009 ‘nothing short of a political tsunami’ and predicted that Proposition 8 would quickly ‘be seen as the swan song of the old order.’”

(Michael J. Klarman, From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013))

4441:

[159] “Before Perry, few gay marriage cases had actually gone to trial; lower courts usually resolve them based solely on the legal arguments. But Judge Walker wanted testimony on factual issues such as the effect of same-sex parenting on children and the history of discrimination against gays.…

These experts testified that gay couples were as good at parenting as straight couples, that gay couples would benefit from marriage, that homosexuality was not a choice, that the definition of marriage as Yves Ault historically, the days have suffered from a history of discrimination, that gay marriage would boost the state’s economy, that gays were politically disadvantaged in California, and that civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples were stigmatizing and unequal.…

The intervenors in Perry, who defended proposition eight because California officials declined to do so, denied that [William] Tam had played in a significant role in the amendment campaign. In the end, they called only two witnesses. One was a political scientist who testified that gays had ample political power in California. The other was David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, who testified that allowing same-sex couples to marry would discourage heterosexuals from doing so and might eventually lead to the legalization of polygamy.…

[160] In August, Judge Walker struck down Proposition 8. Although he noted that aspects of the Proposition 8 campaign demonstrated animus toward gays, Walker also ruled in favor of gay marriage on broader grounds. He held that Proposition 8 interfered with the fundamental right to marry, the core of which involved two people choosing to form a committed relationship. In addition, he ruled the Proposition 8, though it warranted rigorous judicial scrutiny as discrimination based both on sex and sexual orientation, failed even to satisfy the more relaxed standard of minimum rationality review under the Equal Protection Clause.… Walker found that the other proffered state objectives of encouraging straight couples to marry and promoting an optimal environment for child rearing were not even remotely served by excluding gay couples from marriage.”

(Michael J. Klarman, From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013))