Martyr McGehee

November 22, 2008

This post comes from Liz, originally posted here

Fresno, Calif — There is, in the world of communication, a specific style of unhealthy conversation, aptly named “one-upping,” in which the speaker embarks on an emotional telling of his tragic story and, instead of validating it (or in this case, even acknowledging it), the listener tries to trump it. This is the case with Lesbian mom, Robin McGehee, who is being raised up as a martyr for the No on 8 campaign.

Robin, whose 5-year-old son, Sebastian, was enrolled in St. Helen’s Catholic School in Fresno, attended a publicized “No on 8” candlelight vigil, on Nov. 6th, following the vote that reestablished marriage as a union between one man and one woman. She is also the Central Valley program coordinator for the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and has been interviewed several times on television. And while she never walked around campus sporting a “No on 8” pin, McGehee was, nonetheless, open about her sexuality.

After her appearance on television and her “No on 8” rally attendance, she was approached by Father Salvador Gonzalez, Jr., of the Fresno diocese, and asked to resign from her volunteer post as president of the PTO (Parent Teacher Organization). Her visibility as an opponent of traditional marriage was seen to be in direct conflict with the Catholic Church’s teachings that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That’s it. That’s the story folks. However, if you read it here, you will get an earful of sentimental background fluff, building up and lauding McGehee for her participation in school projects, her donations to fund-raisers, and her various volunteer efforts with walk-a-thons and holiday-themed parties – efforts that many mothers in this state make on a regular basis for the enhancement of their child’s education. We get it, we do; she is a great mom. But this blatant immortalization effort is a transparent attempt to build up a martyr for future, inaccurate claims of victimization. Oh, and let’s not forget where the story conveniently breezes over the fact that darling little Sebastian has two mommies AND two daddies:

“[McGehee and her recent bride Kathy Adams] have two children 5-year-old Sebastian and 2-year-old Jackson. Also, two fathers, William ‘Aj’ Kruth and Aaron Olson, are a part of the family.”

Homosexuality or Polyamory? Honestly, I don’t know. But it’s obviously a hugely altered definition of a family. And this is what we have to look forward to with legalized same-sex marriage. Suddenly we live in an “anything goes” society. I think even those in favor of gay marriage might take issue with this. But, setting random and unsettling redefinitions of family aside, let’s forge onward with McGehee the Martyr.

Contrary to popular gay belief, McGehee’s story does not compare to the intolerant and bigoted targeting of Scott Eckern which lead to his resignation as artistic director for the California Musical Theater over a $1000 personal donation to the Yes on 8 campaign. Let’s take a look at these two cases in a side-by-side comparison, shall we?
Scott Eckern

25 years at the California Musical Theater.

Robin McGehee

Six months as president of the PTO.

Scott Eckern

Forced to resign from his paid position, his job, his livelihood.

Robin McGehee

Asked to resign from her volunteer position.

Scott Eckern

Publicly targeted and forced to resign for the personal, legal donation he made to a cause he believed in.

Robin McGehee

Privately asked to resign from a leadership post for not only living, but championing a lifestyle that is in direct opposition to the teachings of the church she was volunteering for.

Scott Eckern

Vilified for participating in a democratic process and having an opinion.

Robin McGehee

Has not been vilified.
Has not received hate mail or slanderous accusations aimed at her.
Is still free to live her homosexual lifestyle and be involved in her child’s education, just like any other parent…just not in an authoritative, leadership role. The church even asked her to keep her son in school, but she and her partner made the decision to pull him.

This is a case in point for the “six consequences” which caution that, following legalization of same-sex marriage, churches will be accused of hate speech and discrimination simply for standing behind their beliefs that homosexuality is immoral. It is already happening even with Proposition 8’s success. Robin McGehee was not asked to resign for being homosexual, she was asked to resign for being a vocal opponent of Proposition 8 and a highly visible proponent of the No on 8 Campaign. The Catholic Church is well within its rights to monitor the teaching and volunteer activity and leadership of the children attending its private schools. Thus, the real victim here is the falsely vilified, unjustly slandered Catholic Church, not Ms. McGehee.
And yet….

Collateral Damage: Tolerance vs. Collateral Damage: A young casualty of Prop 8

…notice the “bleeding heart” title of the latter?
The Catholic Church is misrepresented, and yet the gay community cries foul and promptly writes a heartrending, fervor producing, purely sentimentalist story that is conspicuously lacking in thoughtful reasoning. But that is, and always has been, their platform; “It feels good, we feel good, help us to feel good and you’ll feel good too. Forget thinking, it’s not important. Just feel (*imagine lulling, hypnotic music and the pungent smell of incense*). What we do in our lives won’t hurt you in yours.” Mm hmmm. Zzzzzz.

Wake up, people of America! Wake up and step away from your collective Id for a moment. Give your Super-ego the chance to sound that warning bell that’s saying: “ERRR. Wrong! Wrong! Warning! Warning! Don’t try to fix something that’s not broken. Don’t tamper with marriage!” Marriage between a man and a woman works. The traditional family unit is what society relies on to exist and survive and thrive. Evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be dangerous and destructive. Now is not the time to be Id-driven, allowing our feelings to govern and control us. We must give research it’s day in our cranial courts. We must allow logic and self-restraint to temper passion and emotion. We must protect marriage to protect our little ones, our innocents, and to ensure the continuation of our society and government.


Homosexual Behavior/Relationships and Health

November 20, 2008

One time I was discussing with my brother, who is a doctor, and he mentioned that there are host of diseases and medical problems among homosexual men that are extremely rare among heterosexual people.

We were discussing the prop 8 argument that homosexuality isn’t harmful to society.

I finally had a chance to look up some information:

A list of diseases which occur with significantly higher frequency in homosexual men:

Anal Cancer (1998 study showed homosexual men 10 times more likely than heterosexual men) 0.
Chlamydia trachomatis
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis (1)

Some of these are almost never seen among heterosexual people. Some of these are found among heterosexual people, but occur in much higher percentages among homosexual populations.

0–James Goedert, et al., for the AIDS-Cancer Match Study Group, “Spectrum of AIDS-associated malignant disorders,” The Lancet, 351: 1833-1839, p. 1836 (June 20, 1998).

Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1633-1645 (November 1990);

“Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/analhealth/; “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel, http://www.gayhealthchannel.com/stdmsm/.

There are also some medical issues, some very serious & some just annoying, which are virtually non existent among heterosexual populations (except for in developing countries where there isn’t proper waste management), with high incidence rates among homosexual populations:

Hepatitis A, 2
Giardia lamblia, Entamoeba histolytica, 3
Epstein-Barr virus, 4
Neisseria meningitides, 5
Shigellosis, Salmonellosis, Pediculosis, scabies and Campylobacter. 6

“Hepatitis A among Homosexual Men — United States, Canada, and Australia,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, 41(09): 155, 161-164 (March 06, 1992).

Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74(6): 1640.

H. Naher, B. Lenhard, et al., “Detection of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in anal scrapings from HIV-positive homosexual men,” Archives of Dermatological Research, 287(6): 608- 611, Abstract (1995).

B. L. Carlson, N. J. Fiumara, et al., “Isolation of Neisseria meningitidis from anogenital specimens from homosexual men,” Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 7(2): 71-73 (April 1980).

P. Paulet and G. Stoffels, “Maladies anorectales sexuellement transmissibles” [“Sexually-Transmissible Anorectal Diseases”], Revue Medicale Bruxelles, 10(8): 327-334, Abstract (October 10, 1989).

This doesn’t prove that homosexuality is harmful to society. We can say people can risk whatever they want. However many of these problems aren’t necessarily helped by having “safe sex,” unless by that you mean not engaging in certain kinds of sex. (for example, anal sex commonly causes tearing, and the intestine walls are very thin and subject to damage (thus leaving the participants vulnerable to spreading/infection to HIV) (but there are many other problems too).

The high rate of STD’s (including the rare diseases) is also do to the high rate of sexual partners among homosexual men. Even among “committed” relationships, it’s a common expectation that there will be multiple partners per year.

I would just hope that if same-gender marriage is ever accepted by society that the special health considerations of homosexual behavior will be taught in health education classes.


Welcome to Wonderland

November 19, 2008

The Queen of Hearts campaign for gay marriage rights: compiled by the beetle blogger (see original post here)

In Chapter 12 of “Alice in Wonderland, the Queen of Hearts memorably declares, “sentence first, verdict afterwards!”

Queen of Hearts: Now then, are you ready for your sentence?
Alice: But there has to be a verdict first.
Queen of Hearts: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.
Alice: But that just isn’t the way.
Queen of Hearts: [shouting] All ways are…!
Alice: …your ways, your Majesty.

Borrowing a page from Lewis Carroll’s foolishly imperious monarch, gay rights activists have adopted a “vote first, campaign afterward” approach to trying to win marriage rights for same-sex couples.

You may have seen them–thousands of gay marriage advocates took to the nation’s streets in many cities in many states on Saturday, hoping to galvanize support” for same-sex marriage. It was a demonstration aimed at Proposition 8, the anti gay-marriage ballot referendum here in California.

In the last 12 days or so, protesters have been picketing Mormon churches and other religious institutions that have supported Proposition 8 and launching a legal effort to have the referendum itself declared unconstitutional.

“If I lose my temper, you lose your head. Understand?”

Anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website “JoeMyGod,” are common across the left-wing blogosphere: “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.”

Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting “Mormon scum.” The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religion-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the “hate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper’s car was keyed with the slogans “Gay sex is love” and “SEX.” Another car’s antenna and windshield wipers were broken.

In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, Calif., a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.

“Off with their heads!”

Corporate honchos, church leaders and small donors alike are in the same-sex marriage mob’s crosshairs, all unfairly demonized as hate-filled bigots by bona fide hate-filled bigots who have abandoned decency in pursuit of “equal rights.”

Painting the Roses Red

Painting the Roses Red–All ways here you see, are the QUEEN’S WAYS!

Painting the Roses Red

We’re painting the roses red,
We’re painting the roses red!
We dare not stop or waste a drop,
So let the paint be spread!

We’re painting the roses red,
We’re painting the roses red!!
We’re full of dread, And many a tear we shed…
Because we know…They’ll cease to grow…
In fact they’ll soon be dead!

Businesses have been painted into a corner, trying to appease gay rights activists while maintaining their principles.

Businesses have been painting the roses red, trying to appease gay rights activists to avoid boycotts while still maintaining their principles.

And yet we go ahead…
Painting the roses red!
We’re painting the roses red,
We’re painting the roses red!

Yes, painting the roses red!
Not pink…
Not green…
Not aquamarine!

We’re painting the roses red!

In case you missed it, Election Day is over. The vote was Nov. 4. Traditionally, the time for demonstrations, rallies, protests, pre-emptory lawsuits and so on is before the election.

That’s when moving public opinion can do you the most good.

Proposition 8 was no secret, particularly not in California. Nor was it a secret that it was doing well in the polls and that various religious institutions were putting big money into the campaign for passage. Where were all these protesters then? Why weren’t they out on the street corners waving flags then?

Who's been painting my roses red?  Gay rights activists have been naming names of p8 supporters for punishment.
“Who has been painting my roses red?!” Gay activists have been ruthless in identifying donors from the donor rolls for punitive action

Gay rights advocates did not, for instance, make much of an effort to win support in minority communities, where homosexuality remains a greater taboo than it is non-minority communities — even though Barack Obama’s name on the presidential ballot was sure to spark a heavy turnout in those communities.

White Rabbit: Your Majesty, members of the jury, loyal subjects… and the King… the prisoner at the bar stands accused of enticing Her Majesty, the Queen of Hearts, into a game of croquet, thereby and with malice of forethought, molesting, tormenting, and otherwise annoying our beloved…
Queen of Hearts: Never mind all that! Get to the part where I lose my temper.
White Rabbit: …thereby causing the Queen to lose her temper.

“All ways here you see, are the QUEEN’S WAYS!”

Gay rights advocates’ legal claim now is that the people don’t have the right to make the rules. It sounds eerily familiar–doesn’t it Alice? Prop. 8 represents too great a change to the California Constitution to be approved by a simple majority vote.

With the Supreme Court we have in this state, who knows what the outcome of that legal decision will be. The point is, the time for that argument was before the election; before asking for nullification of the result looked so much like the complaint of sore losers.


Contributing Sources:

The Queen of Hearts campaign for gay marriage rights–by Eric Zorn

The Insane Rage of the Same Sex Marriage Mobs–Michelle Malkin

Alice in Wonderland–By Lewis Carroll

original post: http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/queen-of-hearts-campaign/


The Truth and Discussion and Intolerance and Lies.

November 19, 2008

I apologize in advance for the messy post. It’s a transcript of an online conversation I’ve been having with a fellow blogger today. The reason I’m posting its contents is because it reveals the intolerance and refusal of the opposition to consider the other side.

My first comment is in response to a claim that it’s not okay for religious people to force their beliefs on other people.

She responds very politely, but as I continue to present valid arguments for consideration, she becomes more and more impatient. Cussing, swearing, and eventually making completely false claims against the mormon church. It’s interesting to read…so if you can stand it– hang in there.

(skim the beginning and middle (though she does make the claim that single people are less of a citizen)– and pay attention to the end of the conversation–this is where she starts cussing and lying about the mormon church (out of lack of knowledge).

I’m also posting this frankly because many people back up their “mormons are intolerant” claim because they didn’t allow blacks in their churches/to have the priesthood/etc. The websites linked might be helpful in discussing these issues.

(but for the record, in case you don’t read any more– LDS churches have never been segregated, and the first black member was baptized in 1832. The church was organized in 1830)

Go here for a timeline of african americans and the LDS church: some of the early church persecution was because of its belief that black people were equal to white.

Go here and here for information on blacks and the priesthood and charges of racism.

The conversation:

prop8discussionNovember 17, 2008 at 2:18 pm

  • aren’t gays and lesbians trying to turn their beliefs into laws?

  • christiolsonNovember 17, 2008 at 7:27 pm

  • No, not so much actually. It has nothing to do with beliefs, and everything to do with rights. Regardless of that, I meant beliefs in a religious sense. Marriage isn’t necessarily a religious sacrement, which is why religion shouldn’t play a part in who should be allowed to partake.

  • prop8discussion – November 18, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  • i agree civil marriage is not about any kind of religious sacrament.
    government regulates marriage because it encourages children having at least a chance at a mom and a dad.

  • so if you “believe” that marriage is about love, commitment, sexual attraction, does that make me bigoted for believing it’s about providing the best environment for children? for thinking gender matters in parenting?

  • marriage is a civil privilege (siblings can’t marry, cousins can’t marry, a man or a woman can’t marry more than one person, no one can marry a 12 year old, in some states people with certain diseases can’t get married).

  • however, it’s open to all (as long as you don’t fall into the above category). Any person can marry any person of the opposite sex.

  • I know this may sound mean, but the government doesn’t care if the people are sexually attracted to each other or even if they love each other or if they are nice to each other or if they hate each other.

  • The government recognizes marriage with incentives to encourage a stable and good environment for children. (not that same-gender couples can’t provide safe and loving environments, but children need the gender differences of a mom and a dad– the current studies simply don’t have enough evidence to prove otherwise (and are flawed in major ways))

    If you remove the gender requirement in the name of “equality” you:
    a. enshrine sexual attraction as the main requirement for commitment and marriage
    b. automatically include sibling couples, etc. (to the argument of “this won’t happen, this is ridiculous”
    read this post:

    also to say, it doesn’t affect straight people or the institution of marriage, read this article:

    and…is a single person less of a citizen or less valuable because they aren’t married?

    prop8discussion – November 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  • another good post about why mormons care about prop 8 and why it’s completely appropriate for them to participate in the conversation/election:


    christiolsonNovember 18, 2008 at 5:18 pm

  • Actually people are considered less of a citizen if they aren’t married- if two people have a child but aren’t married, often the father isn’t allowed paternity leave. Not to mention they may not be allowed hospital visits, they can’t always claim life insurance benefits, etc. it’s more than just a “we love each other and want to get married” thing.

    And in terms of gay marriage having an effect on straight marriage, I don’t need to read any articles. I’m straight. Gay marriage is legal here. I am in no way effected. No one I know was in any way effected. I had 13 years of Catholic school, if anyone was effected, I promise you I would have heard about it.

    As for your flawed gender role argument, what about single parents? What about straight transgendered parents? What about people who in no way fit the traditional gender roles? And alternately, what about couples who choose to not have children? Should they not be allowed to get married because the institution of marriage is in place just to provide children with a traditional upbringing?

    If you’re concerned with the protecting marriage, work towards banning divorce. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on the effects of divorce on children, and not so many have had positive results. So why not worry about an issue pertaining to marriage that is proven to be negative for kids, instead of trying to ban something that you said yourself hasn’t had any conclusive studies done (and the few studies that have been done have shown that it generally turns out positively).[my note: these studies are seriously flawed for many reasons the biggest being that the sample size isn’t big enough and they compare lesbian single mothers to single heterosexual mothers. go here for more on this topic]

    Also, while I think the Mormon church has every right to get involved in the conversation, they should have been better prepared for the consequences of their actions. They’re free to campaign for whatever cause they would like, but that’s not going to stop me or other people from calling them assholes.

    prop8discussion – November 19, 2008 at 2:48 am

  • A. i disagree that people are less of a person if they aren’t married.

  • i’m not married. i feel like a full citizen. Not getting tax deductions doesn’t mean i’m not a citizen. Having paternity leave has nothing to do with being a person.

  • also, i don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed so that people can visit each other in the hospital. that’s not why people get married. or for life insurance. that’s not why people get married.

  • and as i understand it, these things can be procured by a lawyer.

    b. since you don’t want to read the article (why are you hesitant to see this issue from other angles?), i will summarize:

  • it goes through three examples of social/legal changes, tax law, welfare law, divorce law. In all three of these examples, supporters said: there is no way this will affect society for ill. And now we see that the laws have changed our society with destructive results (we have super high taxes, it’s normal to have children out of wedlock, it’s normal to have a divorce).

  • Jane Galt says towards the end:

  • “My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes.

  • The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can’t imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant.

  • It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff.

  • And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining.

  • If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that’s either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform.

  • If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I’m a little leery of letting you muck around with it.”

    c. How exactly is my “Gender theory” flawed?

  • This isn’t just my own personal idea (although it is common sense). Children raised by a mom and a dad do better. The courts realize this (after too many years of thinking kids only need a mom). Social scientists realize this. France realized this. They decided “no” on same gender marriage because of childrens’ right to a mom and a dad. France studied the issue for a year. France decided that gender matters.

  • Couples who choose not to have children or can’t have children, still qualify under the definition. To say, well there’s a flaw in your argument, is like saying: if a kidney doesn’t work then we can’t call it a kidney.

    d. I do care about the divorce rate. Society should do everything it can to encourage commitment in marriage. Making marriage about rights, hospitalization, life insurance, sexual identity acceptance, etc, does not strengthen the institution.

    e. thank you for your tolerance and respect. it really reflects well on your whole argument.

  • it’s normal for churches to be involved in social policy. maybe martin luther king jr. should have stayed home (he was a preacher and he directly told congregations (even other than his own) to be involved in the civil rights movement). maybe anti-slavery people should have stayed home since they were motivated with religious principles.

  • f. there are more important issues at stake here than just hospital visitation rights, tax incentives, and life insurance. your unwillingness to see the other side, exposes a huge hole in the oppositions’ movement. they aren’t considering what is best for society.

    christiolsonNovember 19, 2008 at 5:24 am

  • Yeah, I was willing to listen to your argument right up until you compared mormons to MLK and eliminating slavery. You officially have no idea what you’re talking about. You can f*** right off now.

    prop8discussion – November 19, 2008 at 7:27 am

  • Again with the delightful language that exposes your unwillingness to really discuss.

    You invalidate the comparison because you think mormons are bigots. That is your opinion.

    Your opinion, however, doesn’t make it any less valid for churches to be involved with public policy. Your opinion doesn’t deny the fact that both movements are and were based on fundamental issues of christian morality and society.

    The fact remains that religions have always participated in social/political issues.

    The coalition consisted of many religions (including catholics). The mormon church was actually asked to join the coalition last.

    The family is a fragile institution, and our society’s most important. Decisions regarding its definition should be considered with great caution.

    christiolsonNovember 19, 2008 at 7:35 am

  • I have no interest in discussing this with someone who would make such a completely retarded comparison. For 150 years the LDS church taught that black people were cursed, and that because of their skin colour they weren’t allowed to enter their church. For you to even try to compare what the Mormons are doing now to the civil rights movement is not only ridiculous, it’s offensive. I’m not approving your comments anymore so please go preach your bullshit elsewhere.

    prop8discussion – November 19, 2008 at 7:37 am

  • Actually, you didn’t call mormons bigots, you called them assholes.

    They aren’t. Most all of them try their hardest to be as kind and non-judgemental as possible. They’d probably make you dinner if you showed up on their door, or at least give you some kind of treat.

    They knew what they were getting into. Their leadership was aware of certain backlash. Perhaps, the graffiti on temple walls surprised them– but in the end they have never been concerned with popularity, and they don’t mind cleaning things up. None of the protests will change their doctrine. They’ll continue making blankets, showing up first to help after the california fires, they will continue donating millions of dollars a year to help in different areas of the world. They’ll continue to help the poor and the sad–

    thanks for at least being willing to post my comments on your blog. you are doing a good thing– discussing this issue. so rock on.

  • prop8discussion – November 19, 2008 at 7:48 am

  • Your comment is awaiting moderation. (i believe my comment has been deleted…but we’ll see)

    “For 150 years the LDS church taught that black people were cursed, and that because of their skin colour they weren’t allowed to enter their church.”

  • actually, their congregations have never been segregated. i know you only said this because you don’t know really know their history.

    you might want to visit this site (even though I know you don’t like outside reading material). It’s done by a black mormon and he has a timeline up of the history of blacks and the church:

    the mormon church was organized in 1830. The first black person was baptized in 1832.

    this site has some quotes by joseph smith and brigham young in addition to doctrine about blacks and the priesthood:


    some quotes:

    The saints were accused of being abolitionists and a threat to the status of the state of Missouri, then a slave state. Even from the 1900s to the 1940s, when there was a general segregation of Blacks from so-called white churches, there was no Church policy of racial segregation of blacks and whites in THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints.
    D. Charles Pyle, Encyclopedia of Mormonism

    Joseph Smith:

    “…[African Americans] came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.”
    History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 217

    And in 1863 Brigham Young taught:

    “For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.”
    Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110

    prop8discussion – November 19, 2008 at 7:51 am

  • it’s okay if you don’t approve my comments, but please acknowledge your factual error in saying that the mormon church did not allow blacks into its religion or into its church buildings.

  • I’m okay if she wants to end the conversation. I wouldn’t have submitted any more comments if she hadn’t made the remark about Mormons and african americans. Frankly this is a lie. We’ll see if she approves the comment.


    CTA response to Student’s email:

    November 18, 2008

    Beetle Blogger has an amazing story on her blog. It’s the response of a the CTA/NEA coordinator to a student email. Go here for the full story. And here for all the emails.

    In a singular act of political activism last month, the California Teachers Association board, with the leadership of CTA President David Sanchez, flexed it’s political muscle during the campaign, donating over a million dollars toward defeating proposition 8.  In this highly controversial move, CTA representatives raided the teacher’s union funds for  political causes that had been earmarked for lowering class sizes.  Now that the money has been lost and Proposition 8 has won, the heat is on.

    In a letter questioning CTA choices in this matter, Folsom High School student Camilla X, wrote to CTA officials protesting their use of teacher funds and received this shockingly worded reply from CTA/NEA coordinator, Jim Rogers….and this is a direct quote:

    “Thanks, Sweetie, but it’s over for now.  And it’s really none of your business.”

    Why is the opposition to traditional marriage so unwilling to discuss or converse about the issue? or just be polite?


    A post about Margie of the El Coyote Boycott

    November 16, 2008

    Margie Christoggerson donated $100 to the Yes on prop 8 campaign. She happens to work at a restaurant named “El Coyote.” Though she did not donate in the name of her restaurant, and though she donotated her own money…she has fallen victim to the movement of “tolerance” and “equality.”

    Her name is identified as “Mormon” on the gay and lesbian  prop 8 blacklist.

    The following is a post written by one of Margie’s friends. If you are in the area, please go to the restaurant, or send the Coyote a supportive message: elcoyotecafe@hotmail.com.

    I’m including the video below– this where her customers ask her to deny her religious convictions. Originally posted here

    I was going to write about the persecution of my friend, Marjorie  (Margie) Christofferson, who has been targeted by the gay community for giving 100 bucks to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.  But instead of talking about their hatred which we have seen displayed so clearly I want to talk about Margie.


    Margie is a wonderful, beautiful older woman in my ward. She owns El Coyote Mexican restaurant,  a big gay hang out in Los Angeles.  Even though she doesn’t agree with their lifestyle she has never discriminated against any of them.  And I know through my church relationship with her she has been nothing but kind, thoughtful and always willing to lend a helping hand.  She is the first one to pitch in whenever we have an event.  She was even willing to lend her house for a Relief Society party that because of circumstances beyond anyone’s control had to be canceled. She participates in the Relief Society discussion always giving a fresh perspective on the Gospel.

    Margie is tall and sleek.  She has a most regal air about her.  She has a smile that lights up a room.  She is the epitome of grace and intelligence.  Until this recent event I didn’t even know she owned El Coyote-that is because she doesn’t feel the need to brag or boast about her own accomplishments. She is humble and without an ounce of pretentiousness about her.  I always liked and admired her, but these recent events have deepened that.  Every time I see her, I smile, give her a hug, maybe a chat for awhile.  But I had no idea of the true character of this remarkable woman until the other day.

    At the press conference she gave, the gay community were trying to force her to give money to the NO on Prop 8 campaign (Hello! It is over, what good would it do now? As long as we are going to give money to obsolete causes, why not pony up some cash for the Build the Titanic fund as well?  After all, that ended up sinking too!) yet she said she would not.  She would not apologize for standing by her beliefs and as upset as she was, she still stayed true to the Gospel.  So the boycott was on.  If she wasn’t going to apologize, if she wasn’t going to give money to their cause, if she was going to stand up to their bullying, well she was going to have to pay.  It would’ve been easy just to give into what they wanted and not sacrifice her livelihood.  Yet she was willing to do just that to follow her faith.

    A friend of mine told me today that he heard someone say, “Today we are all Mormons.”  That touched me, but not as much as Margie’s courage and strength in the face of personal adversity.  To know such a woman is truly an honor.  You don’t meet many great people in your life, they are a rarity.  I have pledged to do whatever I can to help her get through this. If Margie is willing to sacrifice so much for what she believes, the least I can do is support her and stand by her.  The people who are vilifying her don’t even begin to know what kind of wonderful person they are hurting.  They will never have the moral fortitude to looks such heated opposition in the eye and not blink.  They will never be as good, forgiving or loving as my good friend Margie Christofferson. May God watch over her now.  May all those who supported Prop. 8 support her now.  She given so much for us, it is time to pay her back.

    Originally posted here


    Nothing Like being trapped in the Temple

    November 15, 2008

    …before you read my post, you need to visit these sites:

    Trampled By Tolerance

    Vigilantes Strike El Coyote: make sure you watch the video

    Some wise counsel: it’s a little bit long, but skim down to the parts where it discusses what we can do to support those who supported prop 8. (and how we can write the governor)

    This afternoon I went to the SLC temple with one of my most delightful friends. It was her first time in that particular temple, so it was fun to show her around (even though it was only my second time– so I get easily lost). The stain glass is done by Tiffany’s and it is gorgeous, along with all the intricate wood work everywhere. Anyway’s, the SLC temple is beautiful and it’s fun to witness someone’s first time being there.

    As we came out of our session, a temple worker informed us that there was a “security threat” and we were to stay in the room.

    …maybe I should have been nervous, but I couldn’t think of a more lovely place to be trapped.

    My friend and I talked quietly in a sealing room (where couples get married) off of the celestial room (a place of meditation and prayer). We weren’t concerned at all about the security threat. Instead, amid the crystal chandeliers, winter light coming through the window, sitting on two-hundred year old chairs, we talked about good things: mercy, grace, love.

    I have to keep reminding myself that I stayed extra at the temple because there was some sort of threat.

    No one in the temple was panicked or nervous.

    All I remember is a beautiful memory I made with a good friend.

    go here for links to the news story


    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.