As most of us know, Proposition 8, the California state Constitutional amendment that clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, PASSED today with the strong support of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members of the Church gave up thousands of hours of their time to help "get out the vote" for the passing amendment. This is the 2nd time the state has upheld traditional marriage, after unelected judges of the state court illegally overturned the last vote in which Californians spoke up for what they believed. Arizona and Florida also passed traditional marriage amendments, bringing the total number of states supporting The Family up to 30, a strong majority in the country. Could a national constitutional amendment be in store for the future?
The religious coalition that supported Prop 8 gave their thanks today to the LDS Church, and especially its members who were attacked for their religious beliefs during the course of this voting period. It's clear that bigots and hate-mongers run the "No on 8" pro-gay marriage groups, but they did not succeed this time, and our fellow Christians and friends wanted to show us their appreciation for all the cheap attacks we had to suffer in the process.
Today is International Mormon Appreciation Day
http://jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com/2008/11/today-is-international-mormon.html
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Prop 8 Passes; Mormon Appreciation Day!
Thrown out by Mars @ 1:55 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 Thoughts:
I know there's been a lot of debate about this, but here's an actual serious question about this subject (without trying to start a debate on the actual proposition):
Do you think this will help or hurt the missionary effort and the Church's image among non-members?
It's sure not going to help among the gay community.
But it just might help the missionary effort among people looking for a firm stand on family values.
Do you think it'd be accurate to say that most people looking for a "firm stand on family values" are looking for that because they already belong to a church that has that stand?
And I guess I'm assuming that by a "firm stand on family values" we really mean a "firm stand on homosexuality".
Sorry this is taking me three comments to get out, but I just keep realizing that my previous comment missed the mark so I'm trying to clarify. We'll see if I get it right this time or if I'll need to post a fourth comment.
Anyway, I can definitely see that there are people who are looking for a "firm stand on family values" (literally, this time) who might not be strongly committed to an existing religion, but I kind of doubt that they'd equate "family values" and the banning of gay marriage unless that particular value was already taught to them by their current religious leader.
And I'm not suggesting that our Church can't/doesn't/shouldn't proselyte to those that belong to existing churches, but rather that the people that are looking for that particular thing from our Church have already found it elsewhere, so that stance isn't going to be a big factor in the missionary effort to them.
I guess if I'm to play devil's advocate with myself then the positive outcome for the Church's image that I can see out of all of this is just that we've supported a cause from the community of Christian churches, so maybe we'll be more accepted among them now. Maybe they won't be so eager to kick us out of their Christian club.
Based on what's going on since the election, it doesn't look like this is helping our image among non-members.
You can't be serious Bryant. The only image and reputation tarnished since the election is that of the gay community, who are "coming out" as intolerant hate-mongers. And yet Catholics and other churches are coming out to defend us, as well as blacks and hispanics. Looks like this has been a huge PR boost for the Church. Though in the end, that doesn't matter at all.
You're right: in the end our decisions shouldn't be about how the community views us.
Post a Comment