the most prominent Mormon in Palo Alto says "No on 8" Around Town, posted by Steve, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Nov 1, 2008 at 8:11 am
Steven Young is the great-great-great-grandson of Brigham Young and also a graduate of BYU and BYU Law School. Several "No on 8" signs are prominently posted on his lawn and inside the windows of his Palo Alto home. His family has reportedly donated $50,000 to the "No on 8" campaign.
Posted by Shelley, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:38 pm
The voices of tolerance in California are concluding their campaign against Prop 8 with this TV ad Web Link, which engages in a level of blatant religious hatred I've never seen in American politics. Ever.
I don't think its been seen in American politics since the late 19th Century attacks on Catholics, which may be why the Catholic Conference in California was so quick to denounce the ad.
It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings.
Posted by anti-mormon, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The Mormon religion, to some is ugly in the extreme, and not just due to their pouring money into this Prop 8 campaign.
Do you know that Mormon's believe that only they go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell? Did you know that until very recently African-american mormons were excluded from Priesthood ordination--until 1978 when church President Spencer W. Kimball, acting in his office as Living Prophet (!!!!) declared that in early June 1978 he had received a revelation from God to extend the priesthood and temple ordinances to all worthy male members (in other words it was making the mormons look like racists, so they had to save face and change their rules).
Did you know that Mormon's routinely go into Jewish cemeteries and take down the names of the people buried their and then have ceremonies where they convert them to be mormons (since only a mormon can enter heaven)--this is an insulting and demeaning display that is totally disgusting.
So, Please, Shelley, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Posted by anti-mormon, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The Catholic church is another organized religion to talk--the cases of child molestation all over the world that the church hierarchy knew about, but did nothing to stop it. Going into third world countries and telling people not to use birth control. Not to mention they were Hitler's silent partners during WWII. The Catholic Church has a sad track record as well when it comes human rights.
Posted by Plea, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:33 am
What I would truly like to see the No on 8 people do now is to put their energy into getting whatever legislation they feel is necessary to give all the rights to gay people that they don't already have and not worry about the marriage label. If they feel that they have a legitimate area where they are prevented from getting legal fairness in their lives, be it hospital visitation, immigration of non-US partners, or anything else, let's work together to get these laws enacted. Gay people are part of our community and do deserve to be able to live their lives the way they want with the people they choose, and do it legally. We can give the gay community the celebrations of domestic partnership with pomp and ceremony, the heartbreak of partnership disolvement, and the rings on their fingers. But, the word marriage shall remain as a definition between a union between a man and a woman. Apart from that, all things will become equal and our kids will not become confused.
Posted by No on 8--no to Mormon influence, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 9:56 am
It's not over yest. Lawsuits will be filed to prevent implementation of this measure, if it indeed ends up passing.
The Mormon Church and Catholic Church should be ashamed of themselves for promoting discrimination. I think this may be one of the first times, recently, that rights have been taken away from individuals.
Shame on the Mormons and Catholic hierarchy and the people who voted for porp 8
Posted by No on 8--no to Mormon influence, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:18 am
Anne--you are a bigot--how will gay couples being married really affect you? I am shocked that you actually believe the propoganda spread by the yes on 8 people (they would have made Leni Riefenstahl proud). And i am disgusted that you claim the no on 8 people were bigoted.
The mormons and catholics will have plenty to answer for before they make their trip down below.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:35 am
This is about the kids. You try telling my 10 year old son who was crying on Monday because he was scared that he might grow up to marry a boy. He doesn't understand about sexual orientation. He doesn't understand about equality. He just understands that he doesn't want to marry a boy and is afraid that society may make him.
This long conversation with my son brought me to tears.
Posted by Just Don't Call Yourselves "Married", a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:38 am
I had a male best friend who is gay. I have known gays. They are oftentimes intelligent and successful people. I am not comfortable seeing their affection in public, but those are usually the extremists who really do not help their cause for acceptance.
I believe they should have the same rights as married couples but do not believe they should be able to state themselves as married. Call me a bigot with gay friends if you wish, but they should still have all the rights of married couples, just call themselves unionized or something else!
Perhaps if they asked for the same rights as married people but not call themselves "married" it will pass next time.
Posted by No on 8--no to Mormon influence, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:44 am
Parent--nice story--but is it true--your son, who is the product of a marriage of a man and a woman is suddenly afraid that he will be forced to marry another boy. where did he get that notion in to his head?? No where in this campaign was there any mention of people being "forced" to marry. What way out church do you go to?? Did you explain to him that no one in the US is forced to marry anyone else (unless they belong to one of those wacky mormon offshoots).
So, Just Don't Call Yourselves "Married, let me understand you--you are saying that you will grant gay couple ALL the rights that married couple have--without any exception as long as they do not say they are married. But what is the big deal about "marriage"? It is on successful 50% of the time for heterosexuals and honestly how will Bob and Bill or Jane and Jill being married affect your day to day existence.
Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:47 am
I believe, and I've said this before on these threads, that the prop 8 folks had the wrong effort on the ballot.
I believe that the constitution of the US and of California really needs to protect separation of church and state. And therefore the constitution ammendment REALLY needed is to strike the word 'marriage' from the constitution for EVERYONE, all cases. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony. Its defined by religions and belongs in 'church' (or whatever house of worship you prefer). The STATE's business on the other hand is CONTRACTS, and the ONLY thing that should occur under the constitution is civil union contracts. And civil union rights should be equal. ITs really pretty simple.
Does anyone have any ideas how one would get something like that going? I'm going to contact the No on 8 campaign, perhaps Simitian, and whoever else I can think of.
Posted by Just Don't Call Yourselves "Married", a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:37 am
No on 8,
No, it won't affect my everyday existence if they are called "married." I just don't like it. You can talk till you are blue in the face and it is not going to change people's opinions on this. That's why "Yes to Marriage" won.
Posted by No on 8--no to Mormon influence, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:47 am
TJ--you state--"2% trying to enforce their values on 98% of the population cannot be achieved by such tactics.It will only brings a backlash."--since when are basic civil right decided by majority vote? But I guess that is why we had slavery and legalized discrimination against minorities for years.
Just Don't Call Yourselves "Married"--it is too bad that you and others determine whether a person should enjoy the same civil rights as others by how a term sounds to you
Posted by ??, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:47 pm
And yet, isn't that why most of the African Americans on the street that I have seen interviewed on tv voted for Obama, because it felt good to them to have a black president. I haven't heard one person in that category interviewed saying that it was for his policies, but they do say it is his race.
Feelings are the reason why people vote, a large number, not all, but certainly that is what democracy is about. You have the right to vote for who you want, for whatever reason you want, even if it is only because it feels right.