In the aftermath of the passage of California Proposition 8, which enshrined the traditional definition of marriage into the California Constitution, some gay marriage advocates engaged in anti-Mormon agitation, as I documented repeatedly. There were ugly scenes of protesters carrying signs urging a boycott of all Mormon owned businesses, and other conduct which only could be termed anti-Mormon hate speech.
Now this anti-Mormon sentiment has reared its head again, as a result of the Obama Justice Department filing a brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). So what does this have to do with Mormons?
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog discovered that one of the signatories to the DOJ brief is a Mormon. Even though others also signed the brief, and the brief must have gone through a vetting process at DOJ, Aravosis chose to single out the one person who was Mormon for scorn:
No wonder the brief was so filled with hate and bigoted religious right talking points, such as comparing gay marriage to incest and pederasty. Obama let a Mormon Bush Justice Dept. employee create his public position on DOMA with the courts. This is really beyond the pale. I can’t wait until Obama let’s W. Scott Simpson write the brief in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.
This anti-Mormon angle is being taken up elsewhere on the blogosphere as a result of the AmericaBlog post.
Want to argue that DOMA is unconstitutional? Fine. Want to attack the DOJ position on the merits? Fine. Feeling betrayed by Obama? Fine.
But singling out one DOJ lawyer based on his religion is despicable. And ultimately counter-productive. You can’t make the point that people should be allowed to love by advocating hate.
UPDATE: Looks like Andrew Sullivan was the one who first played the Mormon card on this through Twitter, although the Mormon reference does not appear in the post linked in his Twitter entry:
Added: Sullivan’s original blog post did contain the Mormon reference, but he removed it after a reader complained about it (h/t The Skeptocrats). Point of blogging practice: If you remove controversial information from your post, shouldn’t the post reflect the removal, such as with a strike-through or empty bracket?
——————————————–
Related Posts:
Day Without A Gay — A Bad Idea Ends Badly
It’s Time To Speak Out Against The “Mormon Boycott”
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
It has absolutely nothing to do with hate. The church itself has a certain moral standard. Oddly enough, it keeps to that standard. It's not going to bend that moral standard or it's stance on issues to make other people happy. BUT, it also doesn't tell it's members how to vote. The church itself has set-in-stone stances on things, but the leaders have always told the members to research the issues and vote their conscience. So no, it's not about hate in any way, shape, or form no matter how much you'd like to think so.
The worst example of this is the pro-gay marriage blogger who found the DOJ position "legitimate" . . . until, that is, he found out a Mormon wrote the brief.
I just found your blog today. This post was one of the reasons I started blogging myself – against the hypocrisy I saw the gay activists use against religion after Prop. 8 passed. I'd appreciate it if you considered linking to my site as well.
http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/
Thanks and keep up the great work.
Salt Lake City has one of the biggest gay populations in the country per capita. Libs have no idea the amount of gays that hate them for the anti-Mormon, anti-Utah bullsh!t.
Leave a Comment