COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

As a Democrat who enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama I believe it would be a huge mistake to misread the election results as a mandate to take the country liberal. The United States clearly is a moderate, middle of the road country in terms of its politics and if the new administration pushes too far to the left there will be a backlash which will cause the Democrats to lose big time in the next Congressional elections.

This election was a vote against Bush/Cheney, the Iraq War, torture, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and Sarah Palin. If John McCain had ran a better campaign and chosen a qualified running mate the results would have been much, much closer, and that is not a mandate to take the country liberal.

When a liberal State like California that votes 70% for Obama also votes to overturn gay marriage this should give the left wing pause as to how far they can push the country. What Americans want from Obama is the economy restored, the healthcare system restructured to benefit everyone fairly, the environment a priority, etc. The American people are middle of the road on social issues and misreading the election will cost the Democrats dearly next time.

Comment by Mark Jeffery Koch on 11/08/08 at 9:30 am

Brad:
    Serious question from a non Californian. ( although I really do like the beaches and the weather ) I understand that it was black and hispanic voters that put this over the top. Why are they pissed off at the mormons. Why not demonstrate at the major black church in LA. Or is that not allowed.

Comment by Bill Pearlman on 11/08/08 at 3:14 pm

Good question, Bill. The reason is that though Mormon voters weren’t a major factor in California, Proposition 8 drew tons of money, for and against, from across the country. About $14 million of that came from Mormon organizations and individuals, like Dodger Jeff Kent.

Comment by Brad A. Greenberg on 11/08/08 at 3:31 pm

Still though, don’t you think that for gay marriage advocates there was more than a little hypocrisy involved here. If you were for this and you want to blame somebody you have to blame blacks and hispanics. You can’t deny that.

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/08/08 at 3:46 pm

I find it ironic that the LDS—chased into exile in Utah because of belief in polygamy—now has joined the ranks of those who would impose their religious beliefs on others who only want equality under the law.

And blacks and Latinos—denied equality in marriage for years by so-called ‘miscegnation’ laws—who voted for this odious measure have apparently forgotten history.  If your church dislikes gay marriage, fine, don’t let gay marriage in your church.

But lots of synagogues and churches do sanctify these unions.  Government needs to get out of the ‘morality’ business

This measure will be overturned by the California Supremes on procedural grounds.  A Constitutional amendment like this needs 2/3 approval in Sacramento as well as a majority popular vote.

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/08/08 at 4:20 pm

Ok, let me ask you this then. I was for McCain. He lost. That’s life. That’s the way we do things in America. This measure won. The people have spoken. Why is that not good enough?

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/08/08 at 5:26 pm

Bill: We recognize that Americans have the right to vote for the office of President.  We recognize similarly that Americans have the right to vote in certain changes of policy.  However, when we elect a President, it is impossible to make a choice that is unjust.

Recall that there have been laws in our country prohibiting women from owning property.  Prohibiting blacks from marrying whites.  These laws were unjust, and it was the burden of those who identified them as unjust to speak loudly until they were listened to.

When we see injustice, we are morally obligated to speak out against it.  That’s what these people are doing.

Web Guy: Yes to the overturning on procedural grounds.  Also, if that were not the case, those who oppose the ban would have a strong case in the courts because California has a law that states that no amendment to its constitution may restrict anyone’s rights.  Many people consider marriage to be a basic right for consenting adults.

Comment by Kat on 11/08/08 at 6:49 pm

wow, hate leads to killing, look what Hitler did. Here’s some history of the mormon church, the mountain meadow massacre:
Professor Gene Sessions, a Mormon, historian and authority on the massacre has concluded:

“... some 50 Mormons taking orders from local ecclesiastical leaders actually went out and tricked these 120 people out of their encampment with a white flag and then proceeded to murder them in cold blood with the exception of 17 small children. ...

“It’s an awful story, you can’t put a smilie face on it. This was cold-blooded murder of innocent people. Occasionally someone will come up to me and say, ‘Well don’t you think they deserved it?’ And, no I don’t think they deserved it. I don’t care how many of the stories you believe about whatever the immigrants did to get killed, nothing they did came anywhere close to justifying the murder of little children and the oldest child saved was six-years and 11 months old. Everyone older than that was murdered. In fact most of the murdered people were women and children. So there’s no justification. Even if you wanted to make some justification for killing the men, it breaks down pretty fast. It’s just- there’s no justification for the murder of these people. ...”

Comment by professor david on 11/09/08 at 2:04 am

You can give this any anti-mormon spin that you want but you can’t change the numbers. If you are a proponent of gay marriage in California it was the blacks and hispanics, “people of color” in the popular vernacular. That sank you. that is what happened. But there is something in the liberal mind that just can’t seem to accept that.

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/09/08 at 7:44 am

Bill:  I accept that.  I fully and readily accept that.  The mormons, however, contributed to the problem.

Comment by Kat on 11/09/08 at 4:24 pm

The anti prop 8 people won’t protest the black churches because there would be too much of a backlash, and they would be called racist.  Mormons are an easy target for them to pick on. 
  Oh yeah, “the web guy” don’t you ever compare what the mormon church did with this prop 8 thing to the atrocities that were committed against the Mormons in the 1800’s.  Mormons were killed, raped, tarred and feathered because of their beliefs.  What the Mormon church has done with prop 8 has been totally legal and has only been part of the democratic process.  Its easy to get upset when you lose I know, but try not to be so hateful of people because of what they believe. 
  I also don’t see why “professor david” felt it necessary to bring up the mountain meadows massacre.  Yes, it was awful.  Yes, it was commited by Mormons. But it was not ordered by the head of the church.  There will be members of any group, religion, etc. that commit some kind of crime.  I’m sure there have been homosexual serial killers before, but that doesn’t mean that most homosexuals are serial killers.

Comment by carson on 11/14/08 at 3:00 am

Well, protesting black churches would actually do no good.  It would, in fact, be counterproductive.  Unless, that is, you found a black church which had organized itself and its resources to contribute as an organization in favor of the passage of prop 8.  If it were possible to get all the individuals (regardless of race or creed) who supported prop 8 in the same place, THAT would be the place I would protest.  Not possible.  But it is unfair to protest outside an organization that didn’t have anything to do with the policy as an organization.  The Mormon church, as a group, contributed as a group in a widely publicized way.  You see, carson, you are not comparing apples to apples here.

Comment by Kat on 11/15/08 at 1:46 pm

Kat, you have a good point that the black churches did not organize into a ‘yes on prop 8 group’, and therefore they would not be protested. I agree with you on that.  The problem is that if they had organized that way they would not be persecuted like the LDS church is being currently.  I know you probably dont advocate all of the things that are going on such as church buildings being vandalized, but can you imagine if people tried doing this to another church? it just wouldnt happen.  There is a double standard.  The LDS church legally went about what it did in the democratic process.  There was a debate, a vote, and a decision.  The LDS church told no lies to anyone about it and over 50% of the california voters voted yes.  So shouldnt over 50% of these voters be punished for their point of view also?  God forbid that people have different view points on something and have the audacity to vote that way! I understand the gay and lesbian population’s disappointment at the decision made by the people of california, but don’t go try and intimidate groups for exercising their right to vote!

Comment by carson on 11/15/08 at 4:40 pm

carson, I’m not entirely sure that it’s fair to judge what would or would not happen given circumstances that do not exist.  This decision is so important to so many people that I honestly don’t know what would happen in those prescribed circumstances.

You’re right, I don’t support the vandalism and intimidation tactics that are being used.  You’re also right that they participated legally in the process.  And, as I said, if there was a way to get those voters all in one place and protest them at once, I believe people would.  I would.  I would love to sit down with every one of them and try to show them our side of the situation.  Unfortunately, that’s not possible.

But—after laws were passed across the country making abortion legal, abortion clinics saw the same backlash from that decision that the mormon church is experiencing from this one.  Protestors, vandalism, etc., even to the point of bombings and the murders of doctors, when those clinics and the people who worked there had done nothing wrong or illegal.  When emotions run high about the nature of certain laws—when people are emotionally and personally invested in them—this sort of thing tends to occur.  If prop 8 is not overturned, these things will die down just like the protests at women’s care clinics have.

Intimidation tactics are never OK.  Protests OK.  Intimidation/threats of violence/vandalism not OK.

Comment by Kat on 11/15/08 at 7:16 pm

Carson:
          Here is the thing. Gay’s. liberals, whatever, can’t assimilate the fact that it was the blacks, the hispanics, and the asians that sank them on this. “People of color"Secondly, if you stage big violent protests outside of a mosque, a black church, a church in east LA., you run the risk of personal injury. You can camp outside of a mormon church for the next year. There is no risk.

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/15/08 at 10:48 pm

Dear bill, you and I have discussed this before.  Please don’t go around spreading blanket generalizations that aren’t true.  I’m a liberal.  In fact, a flaming liberal.  And I know that the vast majority of those who voted for the measure (and are therefore responsible for its passing) are the racial minorities, who (paradoxically) came out in record numbers to vote for Barack Obama.  Many of us know that.  Generalizations like “Liberals…can’t assimilate the fact that it was the blacks, the hispanics, and the asians that sank them on this,” are not fair.  Until you’ve spoken to a quorum of us who agree with this viewpoint you’re spouting, please don’t generalize about us.  Thanks.

Comment by Kat on 11/16/08 at 1:37 am

Kat:
    Fair enough. Now let me toss something else at you. The gay community is by any measure an affluent one. And at the risk of sounding stereotypical there is enough wealthy homosexuals in hollywood. ( David Geffen to cite one example ) who could certainly have matched anything the mormons threw in and in fact could up the ante.
Yet, your community chose NOT to do this. What say you.

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/16/08 at 11:16 am

Hi bill,
By “your community” do you mean the gay community or mine?  I’m not gay.    Just wanted to be clear.

I’m not sure I would agree that “the gay community is by any measure an affluent one.”  You’re right that a number of high-profile famous people are gay—Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, David Geffen, Elton John, the list goes on and on and on.  But I know a large number of gay people, and most of them are not affluent.  Most of them are more like me, working entry-level jobs and just trying to live their lives.  That being said…

Actually, members of the gay community really did step up and contribute to the cause.  The estimate is that, all together, the LDS church donated about $20 million in support of Prop 8.  Individually, at least three well-known people each donated over $1 million to the opposition (we’re talking individuals, not organizations).  Some others contributed half or a quarter of a million.  A great number contributed each $100,000.  Check it out: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/24/BAV413NQG6.DTL&tsp=1

David Geffen, coincidentally, donated three separate times—twice each $50,000 and once for an additional $100,000.

I’m not inside anybody else’s heads, but if I had to guess, I would say they assumed that if they all did their part, it would be OK.  In addition to monetary donations, SO many celebrities donated their time, doing TV spots and concerts and other appearances in California to raise awareness.

So…yeah.  There’s that.

Comment by Kat on 11/16/08 at 3:39 pm

My apologies, thought you were gay. ( any chance your a single Jewish girl late 30’s early 40’s who would go out with a Republican) Look, I’m not dumping on Geffen, I don’t know the guy. But he could have matched the 20 million without even missing it. Not to mention , ellen, rosie, and the rest of the crew.. And truthfully this isn’t anything I get worked up about one way or another. But I think that it’s actually kind of racist to think that minorities are children who if not subjected to an advertising campaign would somehow have voted the other way. And focusing on the mormons to the exclusion of all the other players is somewhat disengenuous .

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/16/08 at 6:26 pm

>>
My apologies, thought you were gay
<<

Aha.  The mask of tolerance slips.

The only reason to apologize to someone for thinking he/she is gay is because you think there is something WRONG with being gay.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. 

People are born gay, just like people are born near-sighted, or left-handed.  People are born Jewish too.

Deal with it.

Comment by The Web Guy on 11/16/08 at 9:27 pm

You got the context totally wrong web guy. I believe that people are born who they are. No question. Gay, Jew, whatever. . Or in your case, a complete and total scumbag

Comment by bill Pearlman on 11/16/08 at 9:55 pm

Hey bill,
Ha.  I’m actually a single liberal Christian girl in her mid-twenties who would date a Republican—but thanks for asking, I’m flattered. 

Yes, you’re right, they could have matched the donation amount.  I think they knew it wouldn’t do any good.  This vote wasn’t won or lost based on money.

“I think that it’s actually kind of racist to think that minorities are children who if not subjected to an advertising campaign would somehow have voted the other way.”  I absolutely think that you’re right if that was the intent.  But I think what they wanted to do was conquer some stereotypes and misconceptions by making personal appeals—giving the “term” a face.  They wanted to tell people that it’s not about “those immoral homosexuals” but about PEOPLE named Ellen and Rosie.  People who are just trying to do the best they can.  You know what I mean?

Comment by Kat on 11/16/08 at 11:56 pm

Kat,
If as you say, “this vote wasn’t won or lost based on money.” then why is everyone running around quoting and yelling about the amount of money members of the church put out willingly for this?  Everywhere I look the number I see seems to escalate like a fish tale.  As far as I have seen that money was put forth NOT by the LDS church as an organization, but collectively among private individuals who believed the fight was worth that much money.  The church encouraged members to get involved - just the same as many religious leaders encourage their own flocks.  People who had resources invest it in causes that are important to them - it is their right.  Only the people of California got to vote - regardless of who else got involved.  They voted and the voice of the people of California said yes.

Neither the voters or those individuals who tried to fight for what they believe (on either side) should face intimidation, hate and threats.

Exit polls (which is how people know what groups voted how) was never intended to open those people to retribution from those who disagree - if so, why much effort to vote anonymously?

Comment by ren on 11/17/08 at 7:27 pm

Hi ren,
Believe me, if a church organization contributed that kind of money in support of a measure to revoke the rights of Jews to marry, they would be protested.  They would.  It’s not REALLY about the money, it’s about the discrimination that the money represents.  At least, that’s my take on it.

I agree with you that nobody at any time should face intimidation, hate and threats.  See above my post from 3:16 on 11/15.  Intimidation and threats are never OK.  I agree completely with you.  Peaceful and nonviolent protesting, though, is something completely else.  I affirm the rights of citizens to do THAT.

You affirm the rights of people to contribute monetarily to a cause but not the right of people to peaceably assemble for the sake of a cause?

Comment by Kat on 11/17/08 at 9:16 pm

I affirm the rights of a people to peaceably assemble for the sake of a cause, even if I do not agree with the cause, but I’m saddened by the anger and resentment that I’m seeing, the tone and accusations.  If these assemblies are peaceful, why do I see people trying to scale walls and church buildings having to close?  What about the people who are trying to attend those buildings?  How are they being treated?  I see people crying for boycotts on things completely unrelated to the LDS church and for companies to stop giving money to the church.  Pickets like “I only want 1 husband/wife” and accusing Mormons of “H8” or other derogatory sayings should not be used by either side.  The Mormons have seen their share of persecutions and know what it’s like.  They do not seek to treat others so.  They are simply fighting for what they believe is right and best for the country as a whole.  According to history as they tell it, cities and civilizations that have openly accepted such have soon fallen apart.  They love America too.

As I said, I support people’s freedom to protest, but it should be done in respect.  If it had gone the other way, would there have been such an outcry?  Or would the Christians have sighed and made do?  They could learn a lesson from the Mormons who were kicked out time and again until they went and gathered themselves in one place where they became the majority and thus have the laws they want.  America, with separate states set up to govern is a wonderful thing.  It wouldn’t take much to become the voice of majority in control of one city or state instead of expecting everyone to change for them.  Unfortunately I have seen many people run around LOOKING for a fight.  That saddens me.

Comment by ren on 11/17/08 at 11:34 pm

ren:
We agree on so much.  I don’t agree with everything that is going on at these protests.  I also, though, see nothing unfair with signs like “I only want 1 husband/wife” or accusing Mormons of “H8”—I think those are completely fair.  Now, if I saw a sign that said something like “H8 U 2”, THAT would be inappropriate.

Comment by Kat on 11/18/08 at 10:12 am

I am glad we agree on such.

Personally, I’m not a fan of accusing anyone of hate, especially not over religion.  It’s not an issue of hating the people, but unable to accept their lifestyle, which I don’t believe is the same thing. The protest demonstrates as much personal animosity against those accused of it.  It’s the age old issue of trying to “love the sinner but hating the sin”.

In terms of the 1 spouse thing, the people who made those contributions are not involved in polygamy.  Most histories say that the Mormons gave up that lifestyle because it was illegal.  I find it ironic that these people choose to mock the Mormons over an issue so similar to their own situation - trying to live a lifestyle condemned by law.  The Mormons were beaten, driven out of their homes, killed and hated for it - suffering more than these protesters have.  They pleaded with the government and although the President himself said their cause was just, the government did nothing to help them.  In the end, they changed their lifestyle.  Indeed, what are they mocking?  If you take religion out of it (which they are trying to do), then what difference is there between the two issues besides that the early Mormons relented?  Without the religion issue, if they had been contemporary they might have seen each other as allies for if the law changed for one, it leaves the other only a short step away.  Of course, saying such is dangerous so I’ll leave it at that.  The truth is that most modern Mormons deplore the idea of polygamy almost as much as homosexuality possibly.  So no, I don’t see it as having anything to do with this protest - it is merely lashing out.  I see it as absurd to attack people who may or may not be decedents of those people for things that happened how long ago?  In such they judge, assume and condemn people for things that they had no part in and have no power to change.  Persuading a person to join you in supporting a cause or at least being sympathetic is rarely accomplished by accusing them, mocking them or attacking their character/history etc.  I have found that anger simply begets anger which feeds on itself and destroys.  Are they lashing out to divide? or do they actually want to appeal to Mormons?  The first is merely destructive.  The latter might be better accomplished in emphasizing the human aspect and finding common ground.

You might consider that originally the right to assemble in protest was a right granted in regard to what the government did - not a group of fellow citizens who happen to disagree with you.

Comment by ren on 11/19/08 at 2:12 am

The beauty of the Bill of Rights is that you have the right to make the point that the method the protestors are using is probably ineffective to the point of being counterproductive.  The same Bill of Rights allows them to make any point they choose.  If their viewpoint is that the Mormons are motivated by hate, they have the right to express that, whether they are right or wrong.  If they believe that Mormons support polygamy and that the nation finds that more abhorrent than their own lifestyle, they have the right to peaceably react to that support, whether they are right or wrong.

I do consider the original intent of the first amendment, though thank you for bringing it up.  In a democracy, the government is the people and the people are the government, particularly in situations when the governing structure gives the people direct power over the regulations that govern themselves.

government (n): the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states

When lawmakers grant citizens the power to directly affect the regulations by which those citizens must abide, those citizens perform the functions of a government.  Therefore, if the people have the right to peaceably protest the government, they have the right to peaceably protest groups of other citizens who are affecting the laws that restrict their rights because those groups of citizens are acting as members of the structure known as government.

Sorry I’ve been slow to respond—I have been very busy.  I would love to continue this discussion, but FYI I probably won’t have more time to respond until after the weekend.

Comment by Kat on 11/21/08 at 11:43 pm

Then perhaps we have come to a sentiment I have heard of “You have a right to say what you think without thinking”.  We are so quick to react that we hasten to demonstrate without considering first.  I like to think that there has been and will again be times where the common man, and indeed the masses, may discuss differences of opinions without hate, blame and ridicule.

You allow a rather liberal view of “government”, which is to be expected I suppose.

“Right” and “Wrong” in most public arenas are subjective.  It’s not about being right or even being wrong.  As I have said, I’m not arguing against a person’s right to voice their opinions.  It is the manner they are doing it in this instance, the tone, the threat and undercurrent - the malicious and destructive feelings/thoughts/intents that are harbored and thrive in what I’m seeing.  With the issues facing the nation and individuals, we cannot afford such divisions - they only hurt.  In so many ways it’s not Prop 8, but merely an excuse to persecute and blame someone else for trouble.  People are under much stress and fear at this time - with good reasons.  Frustration is a useful too and source of energy but when that energy is wasted in destructive ends, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the forces against us.  Surely people have considered that we have just elected (by a loud voice) a president who used “unity” as a keyword in his promises and hope.  “A house divided cannot stand”.  Haven’t we learned this enough through history?  Must we test the importance of that truth in such a crucial time?

Even key leaders in the opposition against Prop 8 have spoken out against things that have happened and many things have been done in secrecy.  This vindictive nature is not freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech was created to be productive - not destructive - for the good of the people.  They brought their issue to vote, had the spotlight and had every opportunity to give their cause.  It was not the support that claimed the vote.  The people of California were free to vote how they chose.  The voice of an angry minority was never meant to rule the majority.

I too have been busy.  Yes, I enjoy discussing things and this conversation has been interesting.  However, my ‘free time’ so quickly disappears, as a mother of three young ones, a writer and my own homeschooling endeavors.  I’m not sure how much more I can or should say on here.  I’m certainly no expert and claim no authority to speak of on here besides my own fascination with people.  Perhaps I’ll relay to an article that has a lot of quotes about these events from people far more knowledgeable and oft more articulate than I.  The quotes come from both sides of the Prop 8 debate and some, in discussing some of what has been going on and why I say what I say about the tone and manner.

See Full Story

Comment by ren on 11/23/08 at 8:25 pm

It’s not about “right” or “wrong” and it’s not about religion at all. This issue is about constitutional rights of ALL citizens. Would you change your orientation just because it’s acceptable now?! So, I don’t think gay marriage can affect those who raised their children according to their faith and moral principals. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t insist on studying same-sex relationships at schools ‘imposing’ this kind of behavior, I’m just for the equal rights and mutual tolerance.

Comment by dildo on 9/28/09 at 4:04 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories