Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Mormons, Fundamentalists, Islamists Back Prop H(8) with Big Bucks

no on 8

Daniel Eran Dilger

Despite the sagging economy, record numbers of families being evicted from foreclosed homes, and an uptick in unemployment, a coalition of religious extremists has pooled together at least $67 million to push Proposition 8 as a symbolic demonstration of the intolerance and hatred their faith moves them to open their wallets to fund.

Mormons of the LDS church, orthodox Jews, Catholics and the Knights of Columbus, as well as megachurch evangelicals such as Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church have joined radical Islamicists in pouring their resources into funding social ostracism of their fellow citizens under a new Sharia-like fusion of religious discrimination into secular American government.
.
Somewhat ironically, while the Prop 8 campaign is touting the measure as necessary to prevent children from being exposed to the existence of gays and lesbians, their multimillion dollar ad TV and radio campaigns are themselves exposing more children the existence of gay marriage than actual gay marriage in California has in the months since since the courts ruled to uphold them.

Religions are also funding Prop 8 in the hope that a victory in California, along with a similar efforts being waged in Arizona and Florida, will help move them towards a nationwide ban. California courts struck down a similar effort in 2000 to define marriage as unconstitutional, so Prop 8 proponents are now working to alter the state constitution itself.

Big money from churches will not only codify religion into the state constitution, but will also harm the state’s ability to attract employees in competitive industries. That has Republicans against 8, including state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ronald Reagan similar opposed a measure targeting gays in 1978 when he was California’s governor.

Both Apple and Google have also opposed the measure as a civil rights issue on behalf of their employees, and California’s biotech interests have warned of potential damage to the state’s developing $73 billion new industry, citing Massachusetts as a top competitor for employees.

Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban

A series of messages on YouTube compare Prop 8 with home invasion by Mormon missionaries and California’s ugly past involving the internment of Asia Americans, Jim Crow laws, and laws against interracial marriage. Other spots portray the struggle of the mayor of San Diego in coming out against the measure, and attack the campaign of lies being forwarded by the religious groups, including exploitive ads that portray children in their attack ads, when in reality those children’s parents oppose the measure.

Mormons vs lipstick lesbians.

Discrimination was a sorry time in our history.

San Diego Mayor changes perspective.

Shut down the lies.

Proposition 8 would be a terrible mistake for California.

Other articles on current events:

Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt: Issues the next president faces in technology
McCain vs. Obama Presidential Pop Quiz: Socialism
McCain, Palin Push Ashley Todd into Limelight. Oops.
Apple gives $100,000 to fight California gay marriage ban
Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates
Obama-Biden, McCain-Palin: Scandals by the Numbers
Terrorist Criminal Links to the Presidential Candidates
The Big Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Attack
Osama Bin Laden’s Dream of US Economic Collapse
You Know the Drill?
Ten Striking Parallels Between Microsoft and John McCain
Obama’s Apple, McCain’s Microsoft: the Politics of Tech

Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It’s also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

  • http://www.markalanthomas.com marsviolet

    All forms of intolerance and discrimination are evil.

  • thebob

    @swinn “There are basic truths that everyone should be able to agree one no matter what side they take on this issue. . .

    1) Most law is based on the public perception of what is moral.
    2) Homosexuality is a moral issue.
    3) Religions teach morality.

    Morality is not a set of rules in a dusty old book.
    Homosexuality should be of no concern to people not engaged in it.
    Religions constrain the pursuit of truth by an arbitrary set of rules proposed by a mythical deity.

    @swinn”Using highly charged emotional language, ridicule, or insinuations of conspiracy to make an argument does not speak well for the rationality of the case you are making.”

    Your circular logic may work on young minds in faith schools, but here your a posteriori assertions are open to the ridicule they deserve.

  • http://sites.google.com/site/transchristians/ Ephilei

    @Daniel
    Your site. Do what you want. Those who don’t like it can (and may) leave.

    Thanks for sticking up for us. If I marry, it will be same-sex. Maybe next time, do it a few days earlier.

  • hmciv

    There is a correlation between supporting gay marriage and civil rights. A state which halts gay marriage is no better for gays than a state which denies gay marriage from the start. In either state, Senators McCain and Hillary are just as likely to NOT back gay marriage. Civll unions with equal treatment, sure, but they don’t like gay marriage. Maybe the politicians are being savvy about their views rather than honest.

    Homosexuality was a relevant topic in Jesus’ time. Jesus preached to more people than just straight laced Jews. (Now that I think about it, most of Jesus’ apostles were scum bags.) Some whom Jesus tried to recruit (Greeks/Romans) engaged in homosexual activity. But we do not have any comments from Jesus on the matter so we can only wonder what he thought about the subject or how he likes being used as a crutch in a charged social/political discourse.

    [Yeah: Jesus didn't "try to recruit" Greeks and Romans. He exclusively addressed Jews and Samaritans (who were mixed Hebrews). Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" John 4:22 "Salvation is of the Jews". This isn't a matter of conjecture or opinion. It's a basic concept of the Bible. Nobody that Jesus addressed tolerated homosexuality. Christians didn't begin evangelizing non-Jews until Paul in Acts, at which time Jesus was dead. Literally, for Christ's sake, don't make shit up to impress us with your capacity for supposition.]

    Next, you lost me with “If it were [a nation being led by Jesus], there’d be as much blood running from the public squares as there is in Iran.” Jesus was not a proponent of Mosaic punishment. (“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”) And what does the democratic process in a country which separates church and state have to do with Iran’s theocratic republic anyway?

    [Proponents of replacing the Constitution with the Bible don't follow Jesus, they prefer a return to the stoning of Leviticus, the place where the Bible advocates throwing rocks at gays until they die. Proponents of what Jesus talked about don't advocate setting up a human-run theocracy in the first place, because Jesus never advocated that.]

    Crying Nazi is a neat trick. It implies opponents of gay marriage hope to round up and exterminate people. And I don’t think the Nazi Party was big on Christianity, unless you count Hitler’s “Positives Christentum” which uprooted Jesus’s Jewish origins and minimized a very important part to the story… that He died.

    [No it implies you have fascist ideals of pushing your ideology on the populace and scapegoating people you hate. And the Nazi party very effectively used religion, both Protestant churches and in forming a concordat with the Pope.]

    So tomato, tomato… potato, potato… gay marriage, civil union. If the poles are right and many of the religious conservatives would be FINE with same sex civil unions, why not call it that for now and let couples unite, get the financial benefits and raise families. THEN start calling it whatever the heck you want to call it. Or is a single word so important, it’s worth disrupting families and preventing adoptions to prove a point?

    [Problem is that California doesn't have same sex civil unions. Only VT, CN, NJ, and NH do. Further, a significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

    According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

    Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts and California, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

    So even the status quo is grossly unfair on legal standing. Your religious ideas would strip gays of further benefits in the name of "protecting" you. That's the issue you don't seem to have the ability to comprehend.]

    Please someone pitch an idea polarized Californians can agree on so we can move on to important things like mortgage payments and clean energy.

    [How about religious fanatics not bring $70 million in beneficiary-free wars to California to advance their own religious views? I'd much rather have written about Prop 1A, CA High Speed Rail, than why religions are pushing their hate with Prop 8.]

  • hodari

    What is the defintion of Islamicst? I have never heard of this word before. I have heard of Mulsims, Islam etc but not Islamicst.

  • Pingback: What Prop 8 Means to America — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • Pingback: What an Obama Presidency Means for Technology — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()

  • http://coderad.net StrictNon-Conformist

    Dan,

    Before you even have a chance of being convincing about some topic and being taken seriously, first you need to start with facts, which you have not done a good job in these related postings.

    For information I’m using, see here:

    http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

    The fact of the matter is this: your numbers are close to the total numbers for both sides, and yet, you purposely paint it as being for exactly one side: this is not going to remotely help your case, because this information isn’t a matter of opinion, but of verifiable fact, for those that do just a little effective use of a search engine.

    There is so much more you go out of your way and get wrong, but there’s no point in continuing to try to point that out: evidence is that you’ve gone out of your way to censor anything you don’t agree with, regardless of what the reality is, so I would only expect more of the same, logically.

    Stick to the technology realm, if you want to have a chance of being taken seriously: going into this realm with all your own bigotry and presumption of facts that just aren’t so, is not going to achieve anything good or valid, and if you truly had no fear of being wrong, you wouldn’t censor those you feel are not right in their replies, as long as they didn’t do something stupid like make death threats against you or some other group (I can’t see that happening, at least not without the inflammatory comments you’ve made about at least one group which has extremists that might do it: I’ll leave that one up to your imagination) because it doesn’t put you in any position that makes you look reasonable.