8: The Mormon Proposition

Watch the trailer for this new movie and try not to get angry:

The movie is “8: The Mormon Proposition” and it’s playing in select cities over the next few weeks. Looks like one worth checking out if you get a chance.

(Thanks to Katie for the link!)

  • ckitching

    For those not in the U.S., you can stream the trailer from the site itself.

  • Hannah C

    Tried…. and failed.
    Prop 8 made me ashamed of my own state.

  • Fritz

    We spend our childhoods in school being indoctrinated to a mindset in which America is the greatest country in the world, the free-est place anyone can live. This worldview is quite resistant to change, provided that you remain insular.

    Travel a bit, talk to locals in other first world countries, and you learn that while we pioneered the ideas of liberty when the US was established, we proceeded to drop the ball, and let freedom languish. Other countries took up the charge over time, and we are now less free than pretty much any other English-speaking country. Not to mention that other countries have recognized that if any of their citizens are denied rights, all citizens are less free.
    America will come around to accepting that human rights trumps everything, but it will take time. And it’s painful to watch.

  • sarah

    Such disgusting ignorance and hatred.

  • Trace

    Fritz: “we are now less free than pretty much any other English-speaking country”

    Canada has hate speech laws….

  • bigjohn756

    I am more than angry. I am disgusted by the arrogance of these people who think it is OK to rip the rights from other people. WWJD? Jesus would vomit if he saw his followers behaving this way.

    You can bet that if anyone tried to strip these pious Christians of their rights then they would be furious. It is hubris only that makes them think that they have the right to control the lives of others. I am waiting for the day when we have enough educated voters to overturn the myriad rules that have been imposed upon us by the narrow-minded, shortsighted, bigoted Christians.

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    I’m surprised and dissapointed that it’s not showing in Ann Arbor, MI, “The Berkley of the Midwest”.
    @Fritz,

    Travel a bit, talk to locals in other first world countries, and you learn that while we pioneered the ideas of liberty when the US was established, we proceeded to drop the ball, and let freedom languish.

    Sadly, this is so true.

  • Kyle

    Why the hell is this not playing in Seattle?! It’s playing in fecking Spokane, for chrissakes!

    I guess they figure they don’t need to preach to the choir… >:(

  • Carol B

    Here’s a copy of a letter I sent to a bunch of newspapers after Prop 8 was passed. It wasn’t published anywhere. I am still angry over this state’s bigotry and intolerance. What happened to progressive, open, tolerant California?!

    Dear Editor:

    California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, is wrong. It is wrong like denying the right of women to vote was wrong. Like denying the right of black people to marry white people was wrong. Like forcing black people to drink at separate drinking fountains was wrong.

    A majority of Californians may have voted for it, but that does not make it right. A majority of people once thought the world was flat, thought of black people as property, thought women should not be educated or hold jobs or own property. Majorities can be wrong. Like in Proposition 8.

    A strongly-held American value is our belief in freedom. We cherish our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom from discrimination. Yet we have just restricted, Jim Crow-style, an entire group’s freedom, based solely on sexual orientation. It is simply wrong.

    Some may have voted to ban same-sex marriage because of religious convictions, but we are a democracy, not a theocracy. One person’s religious beliefs, no matter how fiercely held, should never restrict someone else’s right to freedom. It is just wrong.

    What if someone voted away YOUR right to buy a home, to educate your daughters, to marry the person you love? That would be wrong. Just like Proposition 8.

  • http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com Sharmin

    I tried not to get angry but was not successful. Really, the whole situation and the way that some people are opposing marriage equality really upsets me.

  • http://eternalbookshelf.wordpress.com Sharmin

    @Carol:

    I like your letter. It’s too bad it was not published. I was also very surprised that prop 8 passed in a state like CA where one would not expect it.

  • Jim

    Cults like the Mormons and evangelicals are really growing more and more Taliban-like every year. For example, both believe war and violence are acceptable means of pushing political agendas, both think it’s okay to deny rights to those they don’t approve, both want to force religion into laws, courts, and schools. It’s no wonder Christian fundies and Islamic extremists hate each other so much – they are too much alike!

  • Max

    California is not and never has been a paragon of liberalism. The San Francisco Bay Area and LA do not constitute a majority of the state. California is under no greater burden to vote intelligently than the other 49 states, and believe me — they don’t.

  • http://knowledgeisnotveryfar.blogspot.com/ Jake

    I liked this review of it.
    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/10/30/boo-hoo-gays-lachrymose-last-resort-in-the-war-against-mormons/#more-251290

    “A bulldyke (I’m guessing) stares out at the viewer, her despondent face sopping wet.

    And one of the stars of the film, a pretty gay boy (and ex-Mormon) named Tyler Barrick – who seems have been inspired by Barbra Streisand in A Star Is Born – clings to his husband and bawls, “I can’t believe that people could hate us this much!” Really? I can.

    Judging from these nuggets, 8MP signals a new tactic (and new low) in the gay crusade to redefine the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”: frantic blubbering.”

  • gwen

    Jake, you just a friggin’ ignorant homophobe. It is shameful that we should pass a law to deny the rights of lawful citizens of our state.

  • http://knowledgeisnotveryfar.blogspot.com/ Jake

    Lol, I love watching the bigotry of the posters here. The irony is mind boggling.

  • Hannah C

    We’re bigots because we’re angry at seeing rights taken away from our loved ones?

  • Sarah

    @ Jake

    Bigotry…

    I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  • Mak

    Seriously, this is righteous anger in response to bigotry.

    Also, I had a hard time getting too mad because I was distracted by george Takei. George!

  • Korinthian

    So Hulu or Quicktime? It’s like the mormons don’t want me to see this trailer!

  • http://www.frommormontoatheist.blogspot.com Leilani

    I remember how ashamed I felt on November 4th, 2008. I was ashamed of being Mormon and I was ashamed of being Californian. I was so torn… I was filled with joy that Obama won the presidential election, but when I saw that Prop 8 passed… I sobbed.

    I don’t understand how people could hate others that they don’t even know. To quote Mother Teresa, “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” The inequality in my country makes me sick. :(

  • Matt

    Their point is essentially

    1) We assume we’re not full of crap in our beliefs, our beliefs say homosexuals are wrong, therefore they couldn’t be born that way because God wouldn’t do that.

    2) We contribute more money than anyone else so obviously we should get our way.

  • Fritz

    @Trace: Where are you going with that?

    As I understand it, individual Canadians have less free speech than us, so that the entire country has more strongly defended human rights. Stormfront and the KKK can’t gain a foothold in Canada. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. would probably still be alive if they lived in Canada. Ann Coulter was warned off from speaking at Canadian universities because stuff that she often says on Fox News could have gotten her arrested if said “up north”.
    Interestingly, a common reason that has been cited by my “gay friends” for wanting to marry, beyond the obvious, was to get insurance coverage for their partners. In Canada, everyone gets coverage from the federal system, so there was no need, but the Canadian government agreed that same-sex couples had the right to marry anyway, because it was the human thing to do. We have a lot to learn from our neighbors to the north.

  • ckitching

    Jake, something that is true is not bigotry. It is well documented that the vast majority of the money spent on promoting Prop8 in California was from parties outside the state, and that most came from those associated with the Mormon church. Do you have some evidence that this is false?

    Furthermore, the traditional meaning of a lot of important words have changed. The traditional meaning of “legal person” once only meant those of Western European descent. The traditional meaning of citizen changed from landowners to any individual over the age of majority. The traditional meaning of “marriage” has changed repeatedly throughout history as polygyny, arranged marriages and dowries have been entirely eliminated. Perhaps all of these should be rolled back to their traditional definitions, as well?

  • Dan W

    California has a screwed-up system. Allowing every person living in a state to vote on things like Prop 8 can result in a tyranny of the majority, which was something the Founding Fathers sought to prevent. It’s why we elect representatives to vote on issues for us, instead of having a direct democracy, in which the majority can deprive the minority of equal rights they deserve. Not that this representative democracy is without problems; you can end up having districts elect bigots who’ll vote against gay marriage in the legislature.

    Of course, churches like the Mormons aren’t support to get involved in politics like they did. I think all churches that tried to influence Californians to vote one way or the other on Prop 8 should lose their tax-exempt status.

    Meanwhile, in Iowa, where I live, the Republicans running for various offices in November this year all want to overturn the legalization of gay marriage here. Fortunately, that’s not as easy to do in Iowa as it was in California.

  • Derek

    I fucking love living in Utah, let me tell ya.

  • sarah

    It will be terrible if those republicans overturn the legalization of gay marriage.

  • Dan W

    It’d be pretty difficult for them to do so in Iowa. They’d have to propose a constitutional amendment, which would then have to be approved by the state legislature, the Iowa General Assembly, the next two consecutive years, and then it would placed on the ballot and have to be voted on by all Iowans. Currently both houses of the General Assembly are controlled by the Democrats, so if they try this the whole legislature would have to approve an constitutional amendment first in 2011, then in 2012, then a third time in 2013, before the general public would vote on it. This article has more data on the situation:
    http://iowaindependent.com/24695/gronstal-no-gay-marriage-vote-in-2010

  • AxeGrrl

    Dan W wrote:

    Allowing every person living in a state to vote on things like Prop 8 can result in a tyranny of the majority, which was something the Founding Fathers sought to prevent.

    THIS is what it all comes down to.

  • revyloution

    @Fritz

    I just want to quote Benjamin Franklin.
    “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

    Canada is sacrificing long term liberty for short term security. Sure, they can keep Ann Coulter out, but those same laws can become anti-blasphemy laws in the future. The same stick you beat your enemy with can be turned on you.

    Free speech sucks sometimes, especially when you hate that speech. Yet, I will go to the plate to defend the speech rights of Fred Phelps just as quickly as I would defend the rights of Christopher Hitchens. Then only best answer to bad speech is more speech. Reason, satire, ridicule, and articulate rebuttals will always have longer lasting impact than censorship. Canada is dead wrong in their hate speech laws.

  • Aaron

    On a slight tangent, my uncle, a pretty fervent Catholic, once said to me “I support gay rights, but two men is simply not a real marriage.”
    I wanted to say “Charlie, both you and your wife have been divorced. According to the same rule book that you are using to define a gay marriage as ‘not-real’, YOUR marriage is ‘not-real’.”

  • T Ray

    Weird. The government cannot establish or infringe upon a religion but there is no barrier preventing a religion from establishing or infringing upon a government. There seems to be an inequity allowing this iniquity.

  • Trace

    Fritz: “We have a lot to learn from our neighbors to the north.”

    True, but not freedom of speech.

    I lived in Canada for over 10 years (Alberta and Ontario) before moving to the States. Mom is from Quebec and I have dual citizenship. Love the country and their universal health care system (wish ours-US-was even close).

    I also used to get quite annoyed every time they would “block” American programs on the hate speech law pretext. Plus, why should we keep Ann Coulter just to ourselves? ;)

    oh, and what revyloution (so hard to spell) says.

    Peace.

  • Centricci

    You can also watch the trailer here

  • Citizen Z

    @Trace: Where are you going with that?

    As I understand it, individual Canadians have less free speech than us, so that the entire country has more strongly defended human rights. Stormfront and the KKK can’t gain a foothold in Canada. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. would probably still be alive if they lived in Canada. Ann Coulter was warned off from speaking at Canadian universities because stuff that she often says on Fox News could have gotten her arrested if said “up north”.

    Where are you going with that?

    I was all set to bring up the guilty until proven innocent HRC in Canada, the blasphemy law in Ireland, and so on, but really, arresting Ann Coulter for her speech? You don’t see the problem with that?

  • http://knowledgeisnotveryfar.blogspot.com/ Jake
  • Carol B

    Regarding civil unions vs marriage:

    Separate is not equal.

    Equal is equal.

    If one couple does not have the same choices available to them as another couple, it’s discrimination.

    Period.

  • sarah

    These people are all “children MUST be raised by a mother and a father” and “keeping the families together,” but do they fail to realize that a lot of children are raised by a single parent? I was raised by two women, my mother and grandmother. I turned out rather well. Some people that grew up with both parents didn’t turn out rather well. I think this is less about the children and more about their own rampant homophobia.

  • Hitch

    Frankly marriage should simply go and it be replaced by civil union contracting.

    Marriage is a religiously motivated concept. If folks want to “marry” they should duke it out with their church. If they want state sanctioned rights they should have ways to contract for these rights, independent of who is party to the contract.

    That way I could make a contract with my best friend to get visitation rights and rights for end of life decisions even though we are not “married” and have no other cursory legal interests or shared property.

  • Fritz

    A Canadian explained it me succinctly: hate speech is not free speech.

    I see there’s some good message discipline going on here. I find it interesting to have the Franklin quote offered regarding “free” speech, in post-9/11 America, where we have allowed our government to take so much of our liberty in exchange for the illusion of “security”.

    We treat any attack on the First Amendment as a “tip of the wedge” affront to the American way. I’m sure the root of this thinking can be found in our reaction to the footage from the liberation of the concentration camps. The idea that “unless we remain vigilant, this can happen here” became politicized by Senator McCarthy. Now, it is trotted out often to justify military expenditure, and we all nod along with our Social Studies teachers when we are young, frightened into following the American dogma. Better mindless dogmatics than Nazi mindless dogmatics, right? I’m not even gonna start on the semantics games of the right-wing pundits.

    The reason Canadians get away with hate speech legislation, without losing their freedom, is because they see that overriding individual rights is the rights of the “people”. They see themselves as a coherent group, despite the 40% immigrant population and the Parti Quebecois. It’s like Asimov’s Laws of Robotics: the robots learned that above protecting a single human, they had an even higher calling to protect humanity as a whole. This protection does not come at the expense of individual rights, but in addition to it.

    We Americans don’t think of ourselves as a group very much: when the going gets tough, we start looking around us to see who’s different. After the dust cloud settled in New York, we certainly did this with any brown folks we saw, but it’s hardly the first time. The only immigrants we like are the white ones who surrender their cultural heritage and start going to the same church as we do.
    My reference to Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. fell on deaf ears it would seem: perhaps as a homosexual man and a black man, “they should have known better”. We are starting to see hate crime legislation appear around the country: unfortunately, a serious crime has already occurred when the legislation comes into play. Hate speech legislation keeps foolish people from being indoctrinated to hate, it keeps the seed of bigotry from finding fertile ground.

  • Hitch

    I’m a near absoluteist of the free speech part of the 1st amendment (except that the regress of grievance part is under-developed). Why?

    Not because I cannot envision hate speech legislation, but because we see in our real lives right now how hate speech arguments are exactly used to stifle legitimate speech.

    Any criticism of religions for example is called hate speech. A smiling stick figure? hate speech. Saying that stoning is wrong. Hate speech. Saying that you are pro-choice. Hate speech?

    See the problem is how we define hate speech. The famous “fire” SCOTUS case about limits of free speech is case in point. It helped incarcerate someone for distributing political leaflets opposing the WWI.

    This is exactly the danger of hate speech legislation. Who do we trust to determine what is hate and what isn’t when the supreme court gets it wrong.

    No, as long as taste defines what is hate and what isn’t. I rather be able to speak freely so I can call something hateful that really is hateful and can speak when it’s not hateful but is accused of being hateful.

    I’m happy to revert my position if anyone can show me a fail-safe mechanism to determine real hate speech vs stifling of unwelcome expression.

  • JustSayin’

    As Fritz said early on:

    America will come around to accepting that human rights trumps everything, but it will take time. And it’s painful to watch.

    Reminds me of Winston Churchill’s famous quip, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing–after they’ve tried everything else.” No truer words…

  • JustSayin’

    bigjohn756 said:

    You can bet that if anyone tried to strip these pious Christians of their rights then they would be furious.

    Well, their “argument” would be that you’re infringing on their religious liberties by preventing them from preventing us from destroying marriage. That, mind-bogglingly enough, is the crux of their argument: They should be permitted to discriminate as they see fit, and if anyone opposes that, then they’re discriminating against the religious. See how it works?

    This kind of “reasoning” has been known to bring on migraine headaches in the rational.

  • JustSayin’

    T Ray said:

    Weird. The government cannot establish or infringe upon a religion but there is no barrier preventing a religion from establishing or infringing upon a government. There seems to be an inequity allowing this iniquity.

    Funny, huh?

    One of the county commissioners here (naturally a God’s Own Party member) actually made the statement when he was campaigning, that government is to stay out of religion, but religion has every right to inject itself into government. (Cleverly enough, he even worked a cute little cross into his campaign signs.) He’s currently serving what is at least his second term.

  • AxeGrrl

    Hitch wrote:

    Marriage is a religiously motivated concept.

    Well, marriage existed long before Christianity was on the scene…….

    but if you want to go waaaaay back, before that, one could potentially argue that marriage was ‘presided over’ by shamans or whatever type of religious figure existed in the earliest groups of humans ~ but so what?

    Marriage also has its origins as a rite of property exchange ~ therefore, shouldn’t people who believe that women are property have just as much right to ‘claim’ the tradition of marriage?

    The fact of the matter is that marriage is just as much a civil/secular institution as it is a religious one now.

    Marriage doesn’t ‘belong’ to religion, it belongs to people.

  • AxeGrrl

    Citizen z wrote:

    but really, arresting Ann Coulter for her speech? You don’t see the problem with that?

    I can’t think of anything that Coulter has ever uttered that would get her arrested here in Canada.

    And just a correction: she wasn’t ‘warned off from speaking at Canadian universities’, one university administration person sent her a rather ill-advised email prior to an appearance ‘cautioning her’ re: tendency to cross lines (and I completely disagree with that university administrator) ~ she was never stopped from speaking and none of her talk events were cancelled because of her ‘dangerous speech’ ~ regarding her scheduled talk at Ottawa U, it was HER people who cancelled it! (her security peeps felt the situation ‘wasn’t safe’ for her, which makes me giggle :)

    I was annoyed by the whole debacle because it all just played into Coulter’s ookie bony hands. Protestors showed up and Coulter cancels the event. A win-win for her!

    I’m Canadian and feel that we shouldn’t even have hate speech laws ~ but Canada is just one of many countries that have such laws; others include: France, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, the UK, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland, Germany

  • Hitch

    AxeGrrl, I don’t think we have a disagreement, and if we have one it seems to me to be very minor. Perhaps my structure it slightly differently. In my proposal a secular person is free to call themselves married too. Just that the name is not linked to legal constructs anymore. With all the prenuptial agreements, people are, in practice, already converging to an explicit contract model already anyway.

    I think this is a much stronger model, because individuals and not the state can largely define what a union between people means.

  • Citizen Z

    @AxeGrrl: But you can understand the problem with the concept of arresting Coulter for speech, right?

    The reason Canadians get away with hate speech legislation, without losing their freedom, is because they see that overriding individual rights is the rights of the “people”.

    Yes, without losing your freedom, unless you’re someone like Ann Coulter.

    This protection does not come at the expense of individual rights, but in addition to it.

    Very Orwellian.

    I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand, but she was right when she said “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

  • JustSayin’

    I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand, but she was right when she said “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

    So you can’t be a defender of minorities if you deny a business owner the right to discriminate against a particular group? This leads me to believe that she’d be in total agreement with Rand Paul’s line of thinking on the subject.

    I must admit that I find the logic beginning to get a little fuzzy here.

  • Fritz

    I propose Fritz’s corollary to Godwin’s Law: if the discussion continues after the Nazis are invoked, then someone will bring up Ayn Rand.

  • Citizen Z

    So you can’t be a defender of minorities if you deny a business owner the right to discriminate against a particular group? This leads me to believe that she’d be in total agreement with Rand Paul’s line of thinking on the subject.

    I must admit that I find the logic beginning to get a little fuzzy here.

    There is no right to discriminate. Whatever Ayn Rand or Rand Paul thinks about it, I don’t really care. (Besides being willing to allow them the freedom to say such things.)

    I suggest you reread the part you quoted.

  • JustSayin’

    @ Citizen Z:

    Whatever Ayn Rand or Rand Paul thinks about it, I don’t really care.

    Then perhaps you shouldn’t quote her approvingly.

    I suggest you reread the part you quoted.

    And I suggest you endeavor to be clearer next time. Now what, exactly, was the point you failed to make?

  • Chris

    I used to be a Mormon. They are strong and wealthy. We should be afraid of a religious organization this strong!

  • Citizen Z

    I suggest you reread the part you quoted.

    And I suggest you endeavor to be clearer next time. Now what, exactly, was the point you failed to make?

    Ugh:

    I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand, but she was right when she said “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

    How am I supposed to make that clearer? It’s right there.

    I’m sorry I didn’t realize the mere presence of the words “Ayn Rand” would cause people’s brains to short circuit. If I ever do it again maybe I’ll surround it with BOLD ALL CAPS that says it’s not an endorsement of all of Rand’s philosophy.

    Don’t blame me for your lack of reading comprehension.

  • JustSayin’

    Wow. Touchy and defensive, aren’t we?

    My point is that, if you really don’t care about what Ayn Rand would think about the issue (as you mentioned several posts back), then why quote her?

  • Citizen Z

    When I said “I suggest you reread the part you quoted”, I was trying to be polite. That should have been the end of it. The reason why I chose that quote is clear from the context. But instead, you’re trying to change the subject from individual rights to… me. About why I quoted her. You’re trying to make this personal in an “Are you, or have you ever been a member of the Objectivist party” tone. I’m not interested in an interview.

  • http://www.banalleakage.com martymankins

    Lots of comments on this post. Most are pretty spot on. Jake seems to be the voice of “hey, I didn’t see the movie but support the banning of same-sex marriage”.

    It was T Ray’s comment about how religion is infringing on government that really is eye opening. Seems that the organizations that are protected by the government are using that to their advantage.

    Majority rule is never a good thing for a democratic society.

  • http://knowledgeisnotveryfar.blogspot.com/ Jake

    martymankins,

    What makes you think I support banning of gay marriage?

  • paa

    The makers of this movie are no wiser than those on the other extreme side of this issue who preach true hatred and prejudice against homosexuals. It’s the same mindset of demonizing ones opponents by focusing on only bad examples and ignoring good examples, sometimes by outright fabrication, and in twisting the truth to make their opponents appear in the worst possible light. We need more understanding on both sides of this issue and less demonizing and misrepresentation. Unfortunately, most of what I see coming from the anti-prop 8 group is the attitude that anyone for Prop 8 must be an ignorant bigot and homophobe. They can’t seem to get it through their heads that one can still be supportive of basic human rights for all, both straight and homosexual, but still wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, while allowing a different designation for unions outside of that definition.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X