Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
The Mormon Church and its continued fight against Civil Unions that do not fit Mormon Dogma. The Mormon "Proclamation Of The Family" states that marriage is between "one man and one woman".
| This will make the Mormons sigh a breath of relief. From Mormon Owned Deseret News:
SAN FRANCISCO A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional - a legal milestone that, if
upheld on appeal, would open the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
The ruling has no effect on Utah, with the recent passage of Amendment 3. It is, however, a moral victory for gay-rights
advocates across the country, said Michael Mitchell, executive director for Equality Utah.
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in
schools and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.
The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the
California Supreme Court halted four weeks of same-sex marriage started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.
| || Gay Man Faces Lds Excommunication Over Marriage |
Thursday, Mar 16, 2006, at 07:06 AM
Original Author(s): Jennifer Dobner Associated Press
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| From the Mormon owned Deseret News:
SALT LAKE CITY – A gay man who is a lifetime member of the LDS Church could be facing disciplinary action and excommunication after legally marrying his partner in Canada.
Buckley Jeppson, 57, said he's been informed verbally that his life is incompatible with the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that a disciplinary council will address the matter.
"If the person later decides to reject these core principles, they have the right and freedom to do so," she said. "However, they cannot reasonably expect to reject the most fundamental teachings of the church and still wrap themselves in the cloak of church membership. Of course, they would be welcome to continue to attend church services."
"The church's position has been that they really didn't have anything against gays, although everyone had to obey church rules to not have sex outside of marriage. But now many countries are allowing legal same-sex marriage. What are they going to do in all of those countries where they are sending missionaries?"
Remember: There are no Gay Mormons, there are only Gays pretending to be Mormons.
From the LDS Church Gay And Lesbian Support Hotline: "Welcome to the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Gay and Lesbian Support Hotline. Press 1 to be excommunicated now. Press 2 to repeat these options."
| || LDS Church Warns Against Satan's Evil Threat To God's Marriage System |
Tuesday, May 30, 2006, at 07:45 AM
Original Author(s): Deconstructor
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| We've all heard current and recent Mormon leaders blaming the decline of civilization on Homosexuality. Here's just a sampling of Mormon leaders making this claim:
"This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39
"Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family."
- Apostle James E. Faust, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Liahona, Nov. 1995, Page 3.
But this is the very SAME argument that Mormon Prophets have used against good-old heterosexual monogamy!
See here other inspired teachings from the Mormon Church:
"It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome...was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her."
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202
"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."
- Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128
"... the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people."
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227
"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire....Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.... Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practised it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' it is the only popular religion there,..."
- Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862
"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,..."
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195
"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations."
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291
"Some quietly listen to those who speak against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose the doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 203
"Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262
"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22
"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.
As you can see, the LDS Church has a terrible track record on knowing what is right for marriage.
Does the LDS Church have any moral authority to speak on the virtues of marriage?
| Today, I had a very heated (though surprisingly, unangry) discussion over homosexuality. It was apt. The recent failure of the gay marriage ban signaled something rather cheerful for me (as a heterosexual who found it rather silly). I was quite pleased that the honouralbe Sen. Reid from Nevada opposed it. I watched his speech. He opposed the bill in direct contrast to what was read in Sacrament. Although he disapproved of homosexual marriage, he stood up to the ban and to the church in some respect.
I voiced approval of the outcome and that homosexuality marriage should be legal. I’m living in Provo mind you.
The single unified criticism I heard from my two friends was that homosexuality would lead to an inevitable decline in the family and threatened my roommate’s family because it affect the moral climate they’d live in. Some of the complaints I addressed as mere slippery slope argumentations (x leads to y without any correlation).
I was transported back three years.
My freshman year at BYU, we had the debate over homosexuality in American Heritage. The TA made his opinion know – and how! He went on and on about issues like monogamy, homosexual adoptions, and other popular critiques of homosexual marriage. I hated that class for such a spiteful, one-sided tirade.
Now, transport back three years later.
These roommates would not ban Jehovah’s Witness from knocking on their door, or prohibit Jews from attending temple, or prohibit Atheists from testifying in court trials.
All these people might say something to damage the faith of my roommate’s children. They have conflicting values that are not compatible with his.
In fact, a conflicting religion could damage the faith of his future brood far worse than homosexuals tying the knot. Their eternal soul is at stake every time they greet that JW at the door or listen to their atheist friends at school.
Yet, he does not protest.
This puzzles me: if homosexual marriage really threatens his children, why not go after the religions that are incompatible –and therefore- teach that Mormonism is incorrect. After all, Joseph cannot be and be not a prophet. It is logically impossible!
So, why not address this threat?
Is it merely a hole in the logic of an individual whose opinions are formulated by geriatric, middle-class conservatives (well, Bednar is hardly geriatric)?
How can one form of personal liberty be so destructive while he is willing to be friends with the very people who could rob his yet-to-be-born children of their testimonies?
It just worsens when I think of the debates I had with my mother. She is more open to the matter but only defends the same cause as my roommate through pragmatic means. She says that homosexuality will drive up the cost of health care as benefits extend to homosexual partners (who I assume must have many STDs in her mind).
I, of course, found it inadequate. How many minority groups in the U.S. have higher rates of drug use or STDs, etc.? Do we punish the whole group for the actions of the few? Who do we treat or not treat in a doctor’s office (my mom is a nurse and I reminded her of the Hippocratic Oath)?
Anyways, I wanted to just lay those ideas out there in the midst of gay marriage ban failing and the LDS church’s political meanderings.
| || Mormon Machine Cranking Up Against Illinois Civil Unions Bill |
Friday, Mar 6, 2009, at 09:22 AM
Original Author(s): Jim Burroway
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| The Illinois House will begin considering another Civil Unions bill this week. Introduced by Rep. Greg Harris on February 20, HB 2234 has been assigned to the Youth and Family Committee, which will hold a hearing on Thursday. We've received word that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has engaged its private communications network to bombard state legislators with phone calls in opposition to the bill.
The Mormon Church maintains a private internet social-networking and website service in lieu of individual churches having their own individual Internet web sites. This allows the church to oversee the information that is made available to members and nonmembers. It also allows the church to maintain private information that is only made available to church members.
Among the many capabilities the web site has for members who are authorized to log in is the ability to send private email to other church members in the same ward. It also allows a ward bishop to send a blanket email to all members of his ward, and it allows a stake president to send a blanket email to all members of his stake.
But this is key: no individual member can send a blanket email to all members of his ward without it first going through his or her bishop. The same is true at the stake level, where the stake president would have to first authorize the message. So when a church member receives a broadcast message, he or she can be assured that it has the blessing, so to speak, of the bishop or stake president.
In a private email sent out to LDS members of at least one ward in Illinois, church members are being encouraged to call their representative to voice their opposition to the bill, which would provide same-sex couples with recognition and limited protections under Illinois law. But the official LDS-sanctioned email to members is loaded with much of the same misinformation that was present in the campaign against California's Proposition 8.
A trusted source sent me a copy of that email, authorized by Bishop Chris Church, of the Nauvoo, Illinois 3rd Ward, which was sent out by that web site's ward administrator:
Update: Bishop Church has sent another message to his ward this afternoon:
From: Kristy Combs
Date: March 3, 2009 12:27:59 PM CST
Subject: Civil Union bill scheduled for a hearing Thursday - calls needed
This message has been authorized for sending by Bishop Church.
The Civil Union Bill (HB 2234) has been scheduled for a hearing in the Youth and Family Committee this week on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives. This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage. As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another's bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.
To help defeat this bill, please call your state representative and state senator and ask that they support traditional marriage and vote against the civil unions bill. If you are unsure who your legislators are, please see the link at the end of this email.
Also, please take a moment and call the following members of the Youth and Family Committee to encourage them to vote no on this bill. We need 4 votes to keep it from passing out of the committee. And - as always, please pass this on to all who believe in protecting our families and our children. If you are interested in attending the hearing, it will be held on Thursday, March 5th at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield in Room 122B of the Capitol Building (I can give you directions to the Capitol Building if needed).
Members of the Youth and Family Committee:
Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) (Greg Harris is also the sponsor of this bill, but he needs to hear your opposition to this bill)
Rep. LaShawn K. Ford (D-Chicago)
Rep. Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago)
Rep. William D. Burns (D-Chicago)
Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe (R-Chicago)
Rep. Al Riley (D-Matteson)
Rep. Dave Winters (R-Rockford)
Directions for identifying your legislators:
You can use the following link to identify your state legislators and their contact information: http://www.elections.il.gov/ DistrictLocator/ SelectSearchType.aspx? NavLink=1 (and enter your 9 digit zip code). If this link doesn't work, you can use the general link www.ilga.gov and then click on " legislator lookup" near the bottom of the page, then click on "by zip+4?. Type in your zip code, and you'll see a list of your legislators. You want your state senator and state representative as they will be the ones voting on the bill.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sister Combs.
From: Chris Church
Date: March 4, 2009 1:58:47 PM CST
Subject: Church Position on Legislation
Members of the Church may take any action they wish concerning legislation but the Church does not take any position in relation to these issues.
Church's email brought a quick reply from Utahn Bruce Bastion of the Human Rights Campaign:
It is irrefutably clear that the LDS Church is fighting an anti-gay crusade throughout the nation, targeting any form of equality for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Church leaders want nothing more than to do their hateful work in secrecy, but the time has come to shine a light on their insidious efforts. If the LDS Church won't tell the truth, we will.
| From EDGE Boston:
As they were in last year’s Proposition 8 campaign that banned marriage for same-sex couples in California, two prominent religious denominations appear to be playing crucial roles in the current effort to repeal the Maine marriage law.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into Stand for Marriage Maine, the organization that has submitted more than 100,000 petition signatures. This figure is almost twice the number needed to place a referendum before voters in November that would ask them to repeal the bill lawmakers passed and Gov. John Baldacci signed into law on May 6. Maine is the fourth New England state to extend marriage to same-sex couples. New Hampshire followed suit a few weeks later, while Rhode Island remains the only state in the region that has not.
| Brought to you by the foes of marriage equality in Maine:
Didn't some other campaign from recent memory start off this way?
As predicted, it looks like Maine's Prop 1 contest has just become Prop 8 redux.
| The homophobic front group of the Mormon church, National Organization for Marriage, mysteriously comes up with 1.1 million additional funds.
"The National Organization for Marriage has donated an additional $1.1 million bring their total donations to $1.6 million."
Money laundering President Monson? Jesus would be so proud.
Here is some information on NOM and its ties to Mormonism:
| || Andrew Sullivan Comments The So-Called-Church's Anti-Discrimnation Annoucement |
Friday, Nov 13, 2009, at 08:00 AM
Original Author(s): An Observer
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| In 1969, while I was a freshman at UCLA, there was a young African-American woman staying for a time at the small residence where I lived. One evening, after I had left for a church meeting, one of my roommates told Alice that I was always going to church meeting because I was a Mormon.
“A Mormon,” said Alice. “But I thought she was a nice person.”
I was, essentially, a nice person. But as a Mormon, conditioned to obey the church leadership, I stood by, acquiescent, while the hierarchy continued to a policy of active discrimination against those of African descent. The practice of withholding the priesthood from black men and boys when all other “worthy” males over 12 received it, wasn’t just a matter of second-class personhood. It meant the denial of temple rites deemed by faithful Mormons necessary for attainment of the Celestial Kingdom, the Holy Grail toward which all Mormons are to strive. Failure to attain this degree of glory in the Mormon heaven means second- or third-class status for eternity. But, in order to participate in these rites, men must hold the priesthood. And since there was also in effect “strong counsel” against interracial marriage among Mormons, black women would also be denied the ne plus ultra of Mormon existence.
As I say, I was a “nice” person even though I remained Mormon, not protesting this policy of discrimination, despite feeling in my gut it was wrong. I knew of no way to protest against what I had been taught from childhood. Any idea of separating myself from Mormonism was nonexistent. Living outside “the Church” would be as impossible as surviving without oxygen. That’s what Mormonism trains you to be: a nice person who pushes aside doubt, introspection, emotional awareness and personal morality, one who obeys his or her leaders and “the Church” unquestioningly, all in the service of showing the World the path toward the orderly, wholesome and inspirational world of Mormonism.
Within a few years, however, I did suddenly and completely break with Mormonism. In the 33 years since, I have studied Mormon history and observed the Mormonism, its leadership and its members. Unlike you, I can not observe the statement from Salt Lake City without cynicism. Just as the leadership relented, eventually, on its discriminatory policies towards blacks for pragmatic and public relations-related reasons, I cannot believe there are not also cynical and pragmatic motives behind this decision.
For one, any boycott of Mormon-owned businesses would take a toll. For another, Mormons and the Mormon hierarchy are extremely sensitive to public perception. In fact, that’s possibly one reason why you never met a “nasty” Mormon. They are trained to be “nice” and to present a wholesome and sincere front, sacrificing in the process self-awareness and true personal integrity. You may perceive intellectually honesty behind the decision, but a study of actual Mormon history and society – actual, authentic history, not the distorted and burnished tales told by Mormons themselves – would reveal pervasive dishonesty, disingenuousness and sociopathic behaviour. (The works of historian and former-Mormon Michael Quinn, forced out of the church for being too forthright in his histories, are an excellent place to begin.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Quinn
There is a shadow side to Mormonism. Under the veneer of niceness – the need to be liked, the insistence on hyper-normality and cheery good health – lurks damning shame, depression, sexual obsession and more. There is a reason that Utah leads the United States in depression and anti-depressant use.
There is a reason the FBI calls Utah county – the most densely Mormon-populated county in Utah – the “White Crime Capital” of America. There is a reason that Utah leads the nation in bankruptcy and, I believe, in suicide.
Having said all that, I am pleased that, for whatever reason, the Mormon leadership has thrown its support behind the anti-discrimination legislation. Having been silent about its racist position when I was Mormon, I don’t want to be silent on the urgent need for civil rights for gays. It’s likely, even, that by taking this stand, the leadership will influence Mormons to take another look at their personal homophobic attitudes. God knows, the stories of gay Mormons and former Mormons tell about their treatment at the hands of their “loving” Mormon families and communities are horrific. Particularly inhumane was the aversion therapy program carried out at BYU. Less shocking but certainly as tragic in human costs is the practice of counselling gay Mormon men to marry, leading to double lives and families where the true connection between spouses is never possible.
It may be that Mormons present a face that is not “nasty”, but based on my dealings with the sublimated shame, dishonesty, and falseness of the Mormons – and I have known many many many – I would rather deal with a straightforward, if blunt, non-Mormon than a Mormon any day. The dishonesty and emotional stuntedness of many Mormons is toxic and arises, I maintain, directly from the sociology and history of Mormonism itself.
| || Church PR Puts A Huge Spin In Denying Church Involvement In Argentina Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign |
Friday, Jul 16, 2010, at 08:41 AM
Original Author(s): Concerned Argentine
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| The article below reports the church denying any invovlement in anti-gay marriage efforts in Argentina:
Despite the LDS Church’s claim last week that it had not taken a stand on Argentina’s move to allow gay marriage, a high-ranking church official did join other religious leaders there to plan opposition to the bill.
Perhaps Church PR should re-consider its statement in light of the following:
Buenos Aires newspaper article on this two hour anti-gay marriage planning meeting with Carlos Aguero, Public Affairs Director for the LDS Church, which included pamphlet and commercials can be found at:
Carlos Aguero, LDS public-affairs director for Argentina and a former Area Authority Seventy, attended a July 7 meeting with leaders from several conservative Christian churches and traditional family organizations, according to a Buenos Aires newspaper.
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?n... (NOTE: Use Google Translate at http://translate.google.com/)
An unofficial LDS blog detailing the protests and the church's involvement, titled, "Religious Organizations March Tomorrow Towards Congress" citing that "Justo Carbajales represents the Catholic Church, while the Evangelists have as delegates Ruben Proietti, and the Mormons, Carlos Aguero."
Photos of the massive protest against gay marriage can organized by leaders at this meeting can be seen at:
If the activities of a full-time Church Public Affair Director for Argentina should not be seen as church endorsed, what does this say about any declarations made by Scott Trotter or any other church official spokesperson? Simply type in “Carlos Aguero mormones” into google and you’ll see all sorts of stories on him representing the church in Argentina, as Director of Public Affairs, mission president, area seventy, or Bishop. Here’s one as recent as 2008 as March 2008 taken in, of all places, Salt Lake City, with Carlos Aguero standing next to President Monson, President Hinckley, and President Faust along with the visting First Lady of Paraguay (They use Aguero for most of the translating and interactions with government officials, both in South America and on dignitary visits to Salt Lake). Don’t tell us that Carlos Aguero was acting alone in organizing protests with other religious leaders.
The First Presidency Letter specificaly said, “Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed legislation which would change the definition of marriage in Argentina.” The next sentence of the letter said, “The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is absolutely clear: Marriage is between a man and a woman and is ordained of God.” How is that not taking an official position? [Note: some links above are in spanish. You will need to copy and paste the content into a spanish to english translator, such as Yahoo Bable Fish]
Several Argentine media outlets, including La Nación, La Capital, El Tribuno, and Cronista, revealed that Carlos Agüero, LDS public affairs director for Argentina and a former Area Authority Seventy, attended a July 7 meeting with leaders from several conservative Christian churches and so-called “traditional family” organizations. The purpose of the meeting was to coordinate a massive anti-equality demonstration, which was held last Tuesday, led by Argentina’s Catholic hierarchy.
| || Is Iowa In Lds Anti-Gay Marriage Sights? If So, Mormon Poli-Candidate Strategically Placed |
Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010, at 08:21 AM
Original Author(s): Curious In The Heartland
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| After gay-marriage became legal in 2009 by order of the Iowa Supreme Court, conservative legislators could not come up with the votes to introduce a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But all that could change with a rising tide of conservatism and the emergence of Matt Schultz, tea-party endorsed and GOP nominated candidate for Iowa Secretary of State who happens to be faithful Latter-day Saint.
Schultz has not commented publicly on gay marriage, but has said that if elected, he plans on using the state's office as an bully pulpit to speak out on important issues, including job creation and voter fraud.
As Secretary of State with authority over elections and ballots, he would play a significant role in administering any proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The office has a potential to have enormous influence. Anyone remember Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris in the very close 2000 presidential elections?
Handpicked by the Church in a new strategy or a mere coincidence? You decide. But with a weak incumbent Governor likely to lose and a growing tide of conservatism sweeping the nation, there is a very good chance he could be elected.
Profile of the eagle scout, wrestler, returned missionary from Argentina, attorney, and father of three.
Recent article on Schultz's candidacy in the Church-owned MormonTimes:
| || Fred Karger Finds Evidence Of LDS Involvement In Hawaii Marriage Debate |
Wednesday, Sep 18, 2013, at 07:25 AM
Original Author(s): Jeremy Hooper
Topic: CIVIL UNIONS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Fred Karger finds evidence of LDS involvement in Hawaii marriage debate
by Jeremy Hooper
According to dogged activist Fred Karger, who just yesterday raised the question of whether or not the Mormon church is planning on engaging in the marriage equality fight in Hawaii, this call is making its way around the Aloha State's LDS circles:
Of course they make it sound like a conscience issue, with churchgoers free to make their own determinations. But (1) this is a legislative matter involving civil marriage, not a church issue; (2) we all know that the religious protections they are telling churchgoers to seek are often used to derail marriage equality bills. So let's be clear about what this is: yet another LDS overreach on our civil rights.
More will surely develop in the days to come. But in the mean time - nice work, Fred!
| In a remarkable letter (See: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/568...) sent to all congregations in the Honolulu Hawaii West Stake, the Stake Presidency does not instruct members whether to favor or oppose pending marriage equality legislation in Hawaii, which is soon to be considered in a special legislative session (See: http://www.wisconsingazette.com/natio...). To put it in parliamentary terms, though leadership clearly opposes the bill, they aren't willing to "whip" members and risk fracturing the "party" or triggering an embarassing public "revolt" by pro-equality members. therefore, members have been freed to take a "conscience vote".
Here's an excerpt of the letter, via the Salt Lake Tribune (my emphasis):
Members are encouraged to study this legislation prayerfully and then as private citizens contact your elected representatives in the Hawaii Legislature to express your views about the legislation. [...]
This is a stunning reversal from the massive, aggressive, coordinated push against marriage equality we saw in California just 5 years ago. The new, timid approach represented by this letter is evidence that the LDS Church's "no show" on this issue during the last election cycle (including in states where they were well positioned to affect the outcome) was not an anomoly, not a strategic retreat, and not a sacrifice for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. And keep in mind that Hawaii is a state in which the LDS Church has a significant presesnce and large number of members (more than 5% of the population), and where the Church has successfully organized against gay rights in the past.
Whether or not you favor the proposed change, we hope that you will urge your elected representatives to include in any such legislation a strong exemption for people and organizations of faith [...]
Taken together with the recent rollout of new webpages promoting the religious rights of bakers and wedding planners to discriminate against gay, divorced, and mixed-faith couples, I think it's pretty clear that the LDS Church has given up the fight (with its attendant blessings) against gay marriage, and is going to focus instead on an even less promising fight: rolling back laws against discrimination in public accommodations.
How to navigate:
- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
|Donate to help keep the MormonCurtain and Mormon Resignation websites up and running! |
Note: Dontations are done via my AvoBase, LLC. PayPal Business Account.
|Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. |
Website © 2005-2016
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119