Town Square

Post a New Topic

the most prominent Mormon in Palo Alto says "No on 8"

Original post made by Steve, Downtown North, on Nov 1, 2008

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.

Web Link
Web Link

Interestingly, his "#8" jersey was recently retired by the 49ers.

Comments (32)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get it Right
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 1, 2008 at 8:26 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Woodside
on Nov 1, 2008 at 8:41 am

Steve Young did not leave town for the election. If he is comfortable posting "No on 8" signs around his yard and in his home, then the rest of us should be comfortable voting "No on 8" as well.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 1, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Yes, Joe, I never think for myself on how to vote..I count the signs and see who is supporting what, then vote accordingly. That is the responsible way to vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Walter Hays School
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:21 am

Perspective, I like your sense of humor!

My kids trick-or-treated at their house but I figured they had moved to their new house by now because the scene just didn't make sense, being that he is Mormon.

I think it is courageous of them to do this even though I do not agree with their view. Go Steve and Barbara!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by New persepctive
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:25 am

Perspective--no you vote straight down the republican ticket and for other matters listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly before you decide to vote


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Eyes Rolling
a resident of Triple El
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:30 am

New Perspective, get a grip! Perspective was being sarcastic! He isn't indicating which way he is voting! You have no sense of humor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by New persepctive
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 3, 2008 at 10:51 am

Eyes rolling--you clearly are unfamiliar with Perspective's postings on other threads. Read them and then get back with me


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 4, 2008 at 10:45 am

Good for Steve!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shelley
a resident of Old Palo Alto
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.
It's ugly in the extreme.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

"It depicts two young Mormon missionaries (they are identified as LDS) invading a home and ransacking their belongings."

This was a common occurrence in 19-th century Utah when the Mormon church had an absolute theocracy. Thank God for secular government.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by anti-mormon
a resident of Charleston Gardens
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anne
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm


I watched the bigoted No on 8 TV ad that Shelley linked to.

I found the ad despicable , it is now clear what the true agenda of these activists is.

I am glad the Catholic community has condemned the ad as vile and hateful, which it is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anti-mormon
a resident of Charleston Gardens
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joel
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 4, 2008 at 3:28 pm



The Jewish Orthodox community has also condemned the TV ad in question as bigoted, vile and hateful.

After viewing it I agree it is revolting and should not have been made or shown on TV, it belongs on a pornographic hate site


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shelley
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 4, 2008 at 8:37 pm



Florida Affirms Marriage

With 84 percent of the vote in, Florida is voting for marriage 62 percent to 38 percent.

I hope we have the sense to do the same here in CA


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Question
a resident of Stanford
on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:36 am


What is next?

What happens to those who have a license?

The last ad was a big mistake, who approved it?


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anne
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:04 am


That was fast
"The San Francisco City Attorney's office says he plans to challenge the validity of a ballot measure that would change the state constitution to ban gay marriage".

They are still in denial, the No on 8 campaign was bigoted, the ad trashing religious beliefs will cause an enormous backlash against gay activists. The black vote was decisive in this ballot

The people have spoken, they will not be blackmailed and insulted by 2% of the population anymore and our children will be safe from activists propaganda in elementary schools.
The rejection of same sex marriage in Florida, Arizona and California sends a clear message.

Enough is enough


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by harry and sally
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:21 am

Marriage Victory Thoughts

California is huge, of course. In Santa Clara county it is 48-52
It proves that when it comes to marriage, there are no blue states/red states or counties
Americans believe unions of husband and wife really are unique and deserve a unique status in our culture and law.

Florida is huge because they had to get to 60 percent — and they surpassed that with 62 percent of the vote.

Arizona is huge because Arizona was the only state ever to reject a marriage amendment in 2006.
This year, Arizonans decided to correct that anomaly, bringing to 30 the number of states that protect marriage in their state constitutions.

And also: giving marriage a perfect 30 out of 30 record of victory at the ballot box.

All victories are temporary in a fallen world.
But this one is sweet


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No on 8--no to Mormon influence
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 5, 2008 at 10:27 am

Harry and Sally-shame on you also


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tj
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 5, 2008 at 11:27 am



The bigotry and arrogance of the No on 8 activists doomed their cause
Statements such as---
" It is coming whether you like it or not"

and this ad Web Link

2% trying to enforce their values on 98% of the population cannot be achieved by such tactics.It will only brings a backlash.




 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
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


 +   Like this comment
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm


This is 30 out of 30 for pro-traditional marriage state initiatives nationwide.
I don't think the 'attitudes are changing'.
If you can't get it in California, you aren't going to get it.
Enough already, the people have spoken...thirty times!

It is time to move on to the important issues that face our families, our communities and our nation.

I was not in favor of Obama, but he won, I wish him luck and it is time to get back to business.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 5, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Sharon sounds like the people, who years ago, said the same things about equal rights for blacks---enough already, the people of the south have spoken.
Aren;t you the same Sharon who predicted on another thread that Obama would not complete his term?
Aren;t you the same Sharon who on another thread was outraged over Nader's bigoted remarks regarding Obama? But this kind of bigotry is okay??


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,578 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,524 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,411 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 578 views