![\"8:](\"https:\/\/motleyvision.org\/ldscinema\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/fullsize8.jpg\")
<\/a>8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em> is described as being \u201can indictment of the Mormon Church\u2019s historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California\u2019s Proposition 8\u201d. Directors Reed Cowan and Steven Greenstreet (This Divided State<\/a><\/em>) \u2013 both former Mormons<\/a> \u2014 have spent the year and a half since the November 2008 election researching and compiling this documentary.<\/p>\nOne basic question, before we dive into the details: what\u2019s the purpose of this documentary?<\/p>\n
You might consider that a dumb question \u2013 obviously, its purpose is to tell the public how the LDS Church<\/a> was heavily involved in the Prop 8 campaign.<\/p>\n Yes\u2026but we knew<\/em> that already. \u00a0After all, we\u2019ve only been \u2013 you know \u2013 talking about it constantly<\/em> the last year and a half?\u00a0 What\u2019s the purpose<\/em> of this documentary?<\/p>\n It would be one thing if LDS involvement was a secret, or if Cowan and company were informing the public that \u2013 guess what? \u2013 it was actually the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses<\/em> driving the Prop 8 campaign, not the Mormons.<\/p>\n But LDS Church involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign has been common knowledge since the very beginning, especially<\/em> among gay marriage supporters.<\/p>\n Andrew Sullivan \u2013 as you might expect \u2013 was on top of the issue from day one, writing about Mormon involvement in Prop 8 here<\/a>.\u00a0 And here<\/a>.\u00a0 And here<\/a> and here<\/a>..<\/p>\n Daily Kos posted about it<\/a> at the time also. (See also here<\/a>)<\/p>\n As did the Huffington Post. <\/a><\/p>\n All of those linked articles are from late 2008 \/ early 2009, and share the same financial figures and \u201csecret\u201d internal Church memos that 8: A Mormon Proposition<\/em> does. In fact, 8<\/em> itself contains scenes from protests against the LDS Church that arose immediately after the 2008 election \u2014 showing that most gay marriage supporters already had a good idea who to \u201cblame.\u201d<\/p>\n If so, then what\u2019s the point of this documentary?\u00a0 8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em> has set as its focus an election issue that has already passed, sharing information that the people who care about the issue already know.<\/p>\n Now, of course, even though Prop 8 is past history, the debate over gay marriage still rages on. Perhaps you might assume a larger purpose of 8<\/em> the documentary is to encourage support of gay marriage in California or elsewhere?<\/p>\n In this you\u2019d be wrong. 8<\/em> is long on appeals to emotion (and the details of LDS Church participation in the Prop 8 campaign) but short on actual substance in terms of why, specifically, gay marriage should be legal.<\/p>\n If you are opposed to gay marriage (or even on the fence) there\u2019s nothing in 8<\/em> that\u2019s going to make you reevaluate your position.\u00a0 No specific arguments in support of legalized gay marriage are presented (other than \u201cgays want it\u201d), and the few mentioned arguments from the opposition against<\/em> gay marriage are presented without rebuttal.<\/p>\n It\u2019s as if the documentary assumes<\/em> the audience should know already that gay marriage should be legal, and no further discussion of that point is necessary.\u00a0 In debate terms, this is called \u2018begging the question\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n If this is the case \u2014 if the documentary has no interest in convincing skeptics that gay marriage should be legal \u2014 then 8<\/em> has no real audience.\u00a0\u00a0 It is aimed only at those people who already support gay marriage\u2026the people who presumably need to see it the least.<\/p>\n 8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em> is the epitome of \u201cpreaching to the choir\u201d \u2013 its only conceivable appeal is to a target audience who already accept every point the documentary is trying to make.<\/span> Unless Cowan and Greenstreet are supposing there are a large number of Americans who don\u2019t support gay marriage but also don\u2019t like Mormons, and will think, \u201cMormons oppose<\/span> gay marriage? Well, I\u2019d better start supporting it, then!\u201d<\/em>, this documentary will have zero impact in the gay marriage debate.<\/p>\n The irony is \u2014 buried beneath all the Prop 8 minutia \u2014 8<\/em> the documentary actually contains some valuable material related to homosexuality in the U.S. today, particularly within the LDS Church.\u00a0 Important (and moving) material, in fact, that could<\/em> have formed the basis of a documentary with a positive impact on gay relations today \u2014 with Mormons or anyone.\u00a0 (More on this later\u2026)\u00a0\u00a0 Unfortunately, it is surrounded by pointless (and intellectually dishonest) material that will only serve to alienate any members of the audience who aren\u2019t already in the \u201cchoir\u201d.<\/p>\n Now let\u2019s delve into the details.\u00a0 And we\u2019ll ask those same fundamental questions: who is the film talking to, and what message is it trying to convey?<\/p>\n Did you know the LDS Church doesn\u2019t support gay marriage?\u00a0\u00a0 You did?\u00a0 Oh.<\/strong><\/p>\n 8<\/em> spends a fair amount of time outlining the Prop 8 campaign \u2014 how it was organized, and how it was funded.\u00a0 The Church took the lead in organizing interested parties (Catholics, Evangelicals), supplied most of the money (71% of the total contributions on \u201cYes on 8\u201d came from Mormons), and most of the volunteers.\u00a0 The talking heads in 8 use characterizations like \u201cunderhanded\u201d and \u201cdirty politics\u201d to describe the process without elaboration, even though the \u201cunderhandedness\u201d of the campaign from their perspective seems only to be they were opposing gay marriage at all.<\/p>\n The only thing interesting about the tactics and methods used during the campaign is that\u2026they aren\u2019t very interesting.\u00a0 To an outsider who don\u2019t have a horse in the gay marriage race, the methods used by the Church \u2014 enlisting a coalition of other interesting parties, creating an non-religious front organization to handle the actual campaign details \u2014 seem like common sense \u2026 and common across all political activity in the US today.<\/p>\n (8 provides no context to judge LDS activity in any other way \u2014 I\u2019m not sure how the filmmakers would even answer the question, \u201cHow *should* the LDS Church have run their campaign against gay marriage instead?\u201d<\/em>.\u00a0 The objection was that they were running the campaign at all\u2026) <\/p>\n One gay marriage supporter interviewed in 8 says she read some of the material from the \u201cYes on 8\u201d side as to why gay marriage should not be legal and says, \u201cI couldn\u2019t believe it.\u00a0 They were all lies.\u201d<\/em> Strangely, no examples are given, nor does she elaborate as to why they are \u201clies\u201d.\u00a0 Statements that the opposition believes are true, even if she does not, are not, by definition, \u201clies\u201d.<\/p>\n Another interview says that \u201ccritics\u201d of the \u2018Yes on 8\u2019 campaign material \u201csay they are full of dishonest and misleading material.\u201d \u2014 again without elaboration.\u00a0 (Naturally, \u201ccritics\u201d of the \u2018Yes on 8\u2019 publications criticize them \u2014 by definition, that\u2019s what \u201ccritic\u201d means.\u00a0 What do the \u201cnon-critics\u201d of the \u2018Yes on 8\u2019 campaign have to say?\u00a0 Why not share the details of what the publications are saying and let us judge whether they are \u201cmisleading\u201d or not?)<\/p>\n 8<\/em> mentions the \u201cYes on 8\u201d side using \u201cprofessional signature gatherers\u201d several times, as if to imply that\u2019s inherently less honest than the standard way of gathering signatures, rather than that *is* the \u2018standard way\u2019 for any political activity across all parties and ideologies.\u00a0 That\u2019s why \u201cprofessional signature gatherers\u201d exist and stay in business.<\/p>\n 8<\/em> tries to get mileage from the Church attempts to stay \u201chidden\u201d and not become the public face of gay marriage opposition through coalitions with Catholics and Evangelicals.\u00a0 (\u201cDon\u2019t want to risk the PR hit\u2026\u201d<\/em>)\u00a0 This is \u2018evidence\u2019 they were up to no good, according to 8 \u2014 although you would think the PR aftermath of Proposition 8 becoming \u201cThe Mormon Proposition\u201d would have proven this concern correct.<\/p>\n (Catholics and Evangelicals are insulted in 8, just as much as the Mormons:\u00a0 they are portrayed as insincere in their opposition to gay marriage, only jumping into the fray when their LDS overlords showed up with money and resources and told them what to do.\u00a0 Obviously, 8 was not designed to change the minds of the non-Mormons opposed to gay marriage.\u00a0 Of course, they ended up getting what they wanted as well as letting the Mormons take the brunt of the PR hit, so you could say they come out ahead, anyway.)<\/p>\n 8<\/em> also outlines previous LDS efforts to oppose gay marriage in other states, specifically Hawaii in 1998.\u00a0 Unlike the more public Prop 8 controversy, LDS efforts in Hawaii may not be widely known and will be new information for many.\u00a0 However, we ask the same question:\u00a0 what\u2019s the point?<\/p>\n The only thing these Hawaii segments show is that the LDS Church has been consistent<\/em> through the years in opposing legalized gay marriage.\u00a0 Isn\u2019t being consistent with one\u2019s principles\u2026good?\u00a0 (If the facts revealed that the Church, say, had actually supported gay marriage in the past under Pres. Hinckley before flip-flopping and opposing it in California under Pres. Monson \u2013 that<\/em> would be an interesting story.)<\/p>\n It\u2019s obvious that gay marriage supporters disagree with those principles, but the fact that the Church acts the same way from decade to decade isn\u2019t really a story, is it?<\/p>\n If you support gay marriage, hearing about previous campaigns against gay marriage gives you no new information other than LDS Church leaders apparently aren\u2019t hypocrites.\u00a0 If you don\u2019t support gay marriage, isn\u2019t it good to hear that the LDS Church has been a consistent ally from decade to decade?\u00a0 Is this segment supposed to convince you to support gay marriage instead?\u00a0 Again, who is the film talking to?<\/p>\n Money is another key theme in 8<\/em> \u2014 specifically, the money spent by the LDS Church both officially as an organization, and from individual members.\u00a0 The best arrow in 8\u2019s quiver related to money is that the Church originally claimed just $2,000 in \u201cofficial\u201d expenditures, but later admitted the real total to be around $190,000.\u00a0 (Not surprisingly, the Church has been ordered to pay a fine<\/a> from the court for its inaccurate reporting.)<\/p>\n The dishonesty in reporting \u2014 whether truly deliberate or accidental \u2014 is disturbing\u2026to Mormons, perhaps.\u00a0 Certainly the Church should have been more transparent in monies spent, especially if it intended to be \u2018above reproach\u2019 through the ugly political process \u2014 after all, being honest is a temple recommend question, and part of the 13th Article of Faith.\u00a0 Being dishonest simply hurts credibility and (deservedly) creates a PR problem.<\/p>\n But the Church\u2019s failure to report funds accurately is still tangential to the question of gay marriage or whether Prop 8 should have passed in the first place.\u00a0 Supposing the first report had been accurate at the beginning, does it matter whether the Church spent $2,000, or $20,000, or $200,000?<\/p>\n In terms of \u201cpolitical lobbying\u201d \u2014 where money is measured in the billions \u2014 spending 190k on a political cause isn\u2019t going to turn heads.\u00a0 (This is why the discussion of whether the Church\u2019s contributions violate their tax-free status is a non-starter.\u00a0 No one\u2019s going to consider $190k to be \u201csignificant\u201d spending).<\/p>\n Since we know gay marriage supporters would still be offended if the LDS Church donated twenty bucks and whatever change President Monson found between the cushions of his apartment sofa to Prop 8, and those opposed certainly aren\u2019t going to care that the Church supported a cause they agree with through direct contributions \u2014 they may have wished the Church spent more than 190k, in fact \u2014 does the actual amount spent by the Church matter?\u00a0 Again, what does 8<\/em> expect the reaction of the viewers of this segment to be?\u00a0 Why should they care? <\/p>\n (Dirty secret of the Prop 8 campaign #1<\/strong> \u2013 not discussed by 8<\/em> the documentary:\u00a0 despite the attention LDS spending has received, the \u201cNo on 8\u201d side actually raised and spent more money<\/a> than the \u201cYes on 8\u201d side. It would be a fascinating study \u2013 and more productive for the pro-gay marriage side going forward if they wish to learn something from the Prop 8 experience \u2013 to analyze in detail the incompetent campaign that the \u201cNo on Prop 8\u201d side ran in California in 2008, despite having the advantage in money. The \u201cNo\u201d side showed a lethal mix of apathy and overconfidence early on, had no public spokesperson to provide an emotional and human connection to their side, and allowed the \u201cYes\u201d side to completely define the terms of the debate from the beginning.)<\/p>\n Intellectual Dishonesty <\/strong><\/p>\n Contrary to popular belief, it is not necessary for a documentary to be objective and unbiased, only that it be accurate. You can argue, in fact, creating a purely objective documentary is impossible. (A relevant quote from co-director Steven Greenstreet\u2019s 2006 documentary This Divided State<\/a><\/em> says, \u201cThere is no such thing as an objective viewpoint \u2013 we all see things through filters.\u201d<\/em>)<\/p>\n It\u2019s acceptable that the co-directors of 8<\/em> have a \u2018bias\u2019 \u2014 a specific opinion on the question of legalized gay marriage \u2014 that becomes obvious to viewers during the film.\u00a0 Only accuracy matters.<\/p>\n However, there\u2019s \u201caccurate\u201d and there\u2019s accurate<\/em>.\u00a0 There are a number of areas where 8<\/em> conveniently skips facts that are directly relevant to the film\u2019s topic (but not the film\u2019s thesis), and deliberately misleads viewers by implying things that aren\u2019t true.\u00a0 Scenes are designed such that viewers ignorant of the facts will receive a mistaken impression, even though the filmmakers will still have \u201cplausible deniability\u201d to say they didn\u2019t directly say anything that was untrue.\u00a0 Ironic, since the makers of 8 accuse the \u201cYes on Prop 8\u201d campaign of doing the exact same things.<\/p>\n To understand 8<\/em> in its proper context, let\u2019s review the timeline of events in California related to gay marriage.<\/p>\n 1999:<\/strong> California passes a basic \u201cdomestic partnership\u201d law for same-sex couples with a package of benefits that include hospital visitation and inheritance privileges between partners.<\/p>\n 2003:<\/strong> California passes the Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, to take effect January 1st, 2005.\u00a0 This law greatly expanded the benefits for same-sex couples, filling in the gaps between \u201cdomestic partnerships\u201d and \u201cmarriages\u201d, and is still in force today.<\/p>\n Now, domestic partnerships in California are still not strictly equivalent to marriage.\u00a0 There are two primary differences:<\/p>\n Other than how the paperwork is filed, those are the only major differences between domestic partnerships and marriages in California\u2026other than the name.<\/p>\n For couples over 18 who live together, the benefits and privileges \u2014 health care, power of attorney, adoption, hospital visitation, inheritance, state income tax, etc \u2014 are the same between same-sex couples and opposite sex couples.\u00a0 (Even the minor differences are arbitrary.\u00a0 In Vermont<\/a>, for example, civil unions are exactly equivalent to marriage in all respects other than the name. Follow-up legislation in California in 2009 and 2010 has already started to eliminate these differences.)\u00a0 Currently, there are approximately 58,000 registered domestic partnerships in California.<\/p>\n May 2008:<\/strong> The California Supreme Court rules<\/a> that gay marriages must be allowed in California.<\/p>\n June 2008:<\/strong> Following this ruling, marriage licenses become available for gay couples starting on June 17th.\u00a0 Approximately 18,000 gay couples will receive licenses between now and November.<\/p>\n One of those couples is Tyler and Spencer, the primary focus of 8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em>.\u00a0 They are an ideal couple to be the \u2018face\u2019 of the documentary for a number of reasons: they seem like really nice guys, are commited to each other, and (most suitably for the documentary) they both come from Mormon families.\u00a0 (8<\/em> doesn\u2019t specify whether the two of them had previously registered for a domestic partnership or not.)<\/p>\n At the same time marriage licenses were being allocated, filings were made to overturn the California Supreme Court\u2019s verdict through a proposition on the ballot to be decided in the November election.\u00a0 The proposition, if passed, would amend the California Constitution to specify that \u201cOnly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n November 2008:<\/strong> Proposition 8 was voted upon and \u2013 in a somewhat surprising upset \u2013 passed with a 53% \/ 47% split.\u00a0 The results of the proposition passing were that no more new marriage licenses were issued by the state to same-sex couples, although the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages previous to the election were still considered valid. (This was confirmed in a California Supreme Court ruling in May 2009).\u00a0\u00a0 Proposition 8 had no effect on existing domestic partnerships in California, nor on the ability of future same-sex couples to register for one.<\/p>\n 2009\/2010:<\/strong> Both sides of the debate filed follow-up legal motions \u2013 the \u201cNo on 8\u201d side to have the results of the proposition overturned, and the \u201cYes on 8\u201d side to allow companies in California not to have to recognize those \u2018grandfathered\u2019 same-sex marriages in terms of spousal benefits if they don\u2019t want to. Neither side is expected to succeed.<\/p>\n That\u2019s how things stand today. Why go over the timeline of same-sex relationships in California in such detail?\u00a0 Because 8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em> doesn\u2019t.\u00a0\u00a0 Not because of time or pacing, but because the full timeline shares facts about gays\u2019 legal status in California that Cowan and Greenstreet quite obviously don\u2019t want you to know.<\/p>\n A viewer from Rhode Island unfamiliar with California law would *never* know from 8<\/em> that California has recognized same-sex domestic partnerships with the same benefits of marriage since 2005\u2026and still does today, even after Prop 8 passing.\u00a0 It\u2019s ironic that the existence of legally-recognized domestic partnerships in California seems almost to be an embarrassment<\/em> to the makers of 8<\/em> \u2014 rather than something to celebrate.\u00a0 Why go to such great lengths to avoid talking about it? <\/p>\n In a documentary specifically about gay rights in California, shouldn\u2019t a discussion of the current state of gay rights in California not just be useful, but mandatory?\u00a0 However, the reason 8 avoids this discussion should be obvious:\u00a0 the existence of domestic partnerships in California equivalent to marriage directly undercuts the necessity for gay \u201cmarriage\u201d.\u00a0 The existence of domestic partnerships means the battle over Prop 8 wasn\u2019t about allowing gays to visit their sick partners in the hospital or share in health care benefits \u2014 those privileges have been available since 2005.\u00a0\u00a0 It was about semantics \u2014 literally, about who gets to use the word \u201cmarriage\u201d.\u00a0 It\u2019s a battle of symbolism, nothing more.<\/p>\n What\u2019s more: all the same-sex marriages before Prop 8 passed are still valid, including Tyler and Spencer\u2019s.\u00a0\u00a0 They are still married today \u2014 literally, \u2018married\u2019, not just with a domestic partnership.\u00a0 Isn\u2019t that also a relevant fact that you would expect in a documentary about gay marriage and Prop 8?<\/p>\n 8<\/em> wants to pretend domestic partnerships don\u2019t exist in California, and that the Prop 8 battle was about actual privileges and blessings being blocked from gay couples, rather than about usage of a word.\u00a0 8<\/em> wants to pretend that Tyler and Spencer\u2019s legal status was actually in the balance in the Prop 8 election, and that its passing has altered their relationship. \u00a08<\/em> shows us the happy occasion of Tyler and Spencer\u2019s wedding in June 2008, then the narrator (Dustin Lance Black \u2014 screenwriter of Milk<\/em> and another former Mormon) solemnly intones that \u201ctheir happiness wouldn\u2019t last long.\u00a0 Already there were dark forces conspiring to take it all away\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Take \u2018what\u2019 away?\u00a0 Tyler and Spencer are still married.\u00a0 Their legal status, privileges, and benefits under California law are the same today as the day they got married.<\/p>\n Tyler describes how he and Spencer \u201cwere able to enjoy weeks and weeks of the benefits of marriage\u201d and then woke up \u201cdefeated\u201d on November 5th, after hearing the proposition passed.\u00a0 (What\u2019s stopping you from \u201cenjoying the benefits of marriage\u201d today?\u00a0 You\u2019re still married.\u00a0 Why imply otherwise?)<\/p>\n Spencer asks, in frustration, \u201cWho could have voted for this?\u00a0 Who could have done this to us?\u201d<\/em> (Done \u2018what\u2019?\u00a0 You\u2019re still married\u2026)<\/p>\n If that\u2019s not intellectual dishonesty to consistently imply that Prop 8 had actual legal ramifications for Tyler and Spencer\u2019s marriage \u2014 and others like them \u2014 when it did not, then what is?\u00a0 Why not be straight-forward about what Prop 8 meant and what it didn\u2019t so viewers can judge for themselves?<\/p>\n If we are supposed to believe that domestic partnerships in California are not good enough \u2014 only \u201cmarriage\u201d will suffice \u2014 the subject should be dealt with directly.\u00a0 8<\/em> doesn\u2019t seem to have an answer for why \u201cmarriage\u201d is needed (not just \u2018wanted\u2019), and ducks the issue entirely.<\/p>\n Tyler\u2019s mom \u2014 who has commendably been supportive of her son and son-in-law from the begining \u2014 is the only person in the entire film who acknowledges the existence of domestic partnerships in California.\u00a0 Why, according to her, should California have gay marriages instead of domestic partnerships?\u00a0 (\u201cIt\u2019s just different,\u201d<\/em> she says, \u201cMarriage took [Tyler and Spencer\u2019s] relationship to a whole new level.\u201d) <\/em> Not exactly a logically robust argument\u2026<\/p>\n Begging the Question on Civil Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n Virtually all people in the US think murder is wrong.\u00a0 Many Americans support legalized abortion without restrictions.\u00a0 To a hard-edged \u201cpro-lifer\u201d, this is an unfathomable contradiction.<\/p>\n No, it\u2019s not.\u00a0\u00a0 The explanation is simple:\u00a0 those people do not consider abortion to be \u201cmurder\u201d.\u00a0 They do not accept the basic premise behind the entire pro-life argument.<\/p>\n For a pro-lifer to have a productive dialog with someone and attempt to convince them that abortion should be illegal, they have to start from that premise and work upwards.\u00a0 They can\u2019t start by just assuming something is self-evident to the other side that (obviously) is not.\u00a0 Generally speaking, the people that believe that abortion is murder\u2026tend to oppose abortion already.<\/p>\n Virtually all Americans \u2013 including Mormons \u2014 believe that everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation, should have the same civil rights as everyone else.\u00a0 Many Americans oppose governmental recognition of same-sex relationships using the word \u201cmarriage\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 Everyone involved with 8<\/em> the documentary seems to believe this is also an unfathomable contradiction.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not, for the same reason: \u00a0 Those people do not consider legal recognition of same-sex relationships using the word \u2018marriage\u2019 to be a \u201ccivil right\u201d.\u00a0 Thus, any productive dialogue must start at that issue and work forward.\u00a0 Gay marriage supporters can\u2019t just start by assuming that it\u2019s self-evident governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as a \u2018marriage\u2019 is a \u201ccivil right\u201d, as Cowan and company seem to do.<\/p>\n \u201cCivil rights\u201d is a term used at least 20 times within 8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em>, without further discussion in any of them.\u00a0 What defines a \u201ccivil right\u201d?<\/p>\n Gay marriage supporters in the film lament that Prop 8\u2019s passing is \u201cthe first time in the history of the U.S. laws have been passed to take away rights from its citizens.\u201d<\/em> Which is patently false:\u00a0 after the Civil War, the U.S. government took away the right of Southerners to own slaves.\u00a0 You say owning slaves isn\u2019t actually a \u201ccivil right\u201d and never was?\u00a0 Well, many Southerners certainly believed it was at the time \u2014 obviously, then, just because a group of people believe something is a \u201ccivil right\u201d doesn\u2019t automatically make it so. <\/p>\n (Dirty secret of the Prop 8 campaign #2<\/strong> \u2014 also not mentioned in the documentary: around 70% of African-American voters in California \u2013 approximately 0% of which are Mormon \u2013 voted \u201cYes\u201d on Prop 8.\u00a0 If gay marriage is really a \u201ccivil rights\u201d issue, shouldn\u2019t the minority group most sensitive to civil rights issues be of greater support?\u00a0\u00a0 Or perhaps many African-Americans are offended that the real civil rights violations they endured in earlier decades is considered comparable to the civil rights \u201cviolation\u201d of the government calling officially recognized same-sex relationships \u201cdomestic partnerships\u201d rather than \u201cmarriages\u201d. \u00a0 However, I expect the Pope will convert to Mormonism before any self-respecting liberals start protesting outside a traditionally black church, right?)<\/p>\n 8: The Mormon Proposition<\/em> confuses the \u201ccivil rights\u201d issue even further by bringing up Mormon polygamy three or four times during the course of the film (Tyler himself has polygamist ancestors who were persecuted for their beliefs).\u00a0 The point 8<\/em> is trying to make (I believe) is that it\u2019s hypocritical for Mormons to persecute those with \u201calternative ideas\u201d about marriage when they were persecuted themselves for the same reason.<\/p>\n But\u2026wait a minute:\u00a0 polygamy is illegal<\/em>, today.\u00a0 Should it be?\u00a0 The government does not recognize any such \u201ccivil right\u201d to marry more than one person, even among consenting adults.\u00a0 If the lack of legalized gay marriage \u201cviolates the civil rights\u201d of gays, doesn\u2019t the lack of legalized polygamy also violate the civil rights of polygamists?\u00a0 (We should note that, unlike with gay couples, the government actually storms the homes of polygamists and literally tears husbands away from wives and children from their parents).<\/p>\n And yet, the majority of gay marriage supporters do not believe polygamy should be legal \u2014 what conclusion are we supposed to draw from that?\u00a0 What exactly is the \u201ccivil right\u201d of Americans in regard to marriage, according to gay marriage supporters?\u00a0 Is it a \u201ccivil right\u201d to be able to marry absolutely anyone you want, and have the government recognize that relationship, or not?\u00a0 If not \u2014 and the government DOES have the right to restrict the definition of marriage to exclude polygamy according to gay marriage supporters \u2014 then there\u2019s nothing wrong in principle with restricting it in other ways as well?<\/p>\n If 8 was intended to convince skeptics that gay marriage is a civil right and is a necessity, vague and contradictory ideas about what is a civil right and what isn\u2019t, aren\u2019t going to work.<\/p>\n Mormons: The Faceless, Mindless Horde <\/strong><\/p>\n It is a fact that LDS attitudes towards gays in general need some adjustments (more on this later\u2026), however 8<\/em>\u2018s treatment of Mormons is laughably biased and dishonest.\u00a0\u00a0 8 works hard to depict gays as real human beings with feelings, rather than stereotypes \u2014 which makes it ironic (and hypocritical) when it portrays all Mormons as exactly the opposite.<\/p>\n There are a total of zero (0) active, faithful Mormons depicted in 8<\/em> in a sympathetic manner.\u00a0 You would never know from 8<\/em> that a large number of faithful Mormons were conflicted on Proposition 8 from the beginning, with many of them voting (and campaigning) against it.\u00a0 You would never know from 8<\/em> that many famous Mormons \u2014 Harry Reid<\/a>, Steve Young<\/a>, Bill Marriott<\/a> \u2014 spoke out against Prop 8 publicly.\u00a0 There\u2019s no hint that many faithful Mormons created activist groups and websites<\/a> against Prop 8.\u00a0 There\u2019s no hint that many faithful Mormons even left the Church over Prop 8 \u2014 even though you would think that would be a natural fit in the film\u2019s narrative.\u00a0 In 8\u2019s view, apparently, the only good Mormon is a 8 does provide a handful of former Mormons \u2014 all directly labeled \u201cFormer Mormon\u201d \u2014 but the closest it gets to having a \u201cbelieving\u201d Mormon comment on the issue in a sympathetic manner is Carol Lynn Pearson<\/a>, author of No More Goodbyes: Circling The Wagon Around Our Gay Loved Ones<\/a>, and active in bridging gaps in the faithful Mormon community<\/a> through her writing.<\/p>\n Instead of a nuanced and complete view of LDS opinion on Prop 8, 8<\/em> portrays all Mormons as mindless drones who are blindly obedient to every commandment of their prophet.\u00a0 We get comments from talking heads like, \u201cwhen the Church speaks, it\u2019s like God speaking.\u201d<\/em>, or \u201csimple requests from the Church are taken as \u2018commands\u2019 by Mormons.\u201d<\/em> And another saying, \u201cthe \u2018request\u2019 to volunteer for Prop 8 was like code \u2014 they [the Mormons] got the message.\u201d<\/em> Not a hint that any active Mormon, let alone a LOT of them, didn\u2019t believe \u201cGod was speaking\u201d when the campaign began.<\/p>\n The idea that Mormons were unified on the matter is laughable for anyone with any amount of experience in the Church \u2014 obviously the filmmakers of 8 didn\u2019t spend any time reading any LDS group blogs between May and November 2008. \u00a0\u00a0Even Carol Lynn Pearson \u2014 who should know better \u2014 says that \u201cit takes a brave spirit to say this did not come from God.\u201d<\/em> (And yet\u2026so many of them did.\u00a0 Not that 8 acknowledges their existence\u2026)<\/p>\n It\u2019s mind-blowing that Cowen and Greenstreet felt like ignoring (and essentially insulting) the Latter-Day Saints who actually supported and were sympathetic to their cause.\u00a0 However, acknowledging their existence would have disrupted the narrative that faithful Mormons are always blindly obedient to what the prophets say and don\u2019t think for themselves.<\/p>\n 8 shares some quotes about homosexuality from past LDS prophets and apostles from previous decades \u2014 mostly statements from the \u2018usual suspects\u2019 for arch-conservative language with no shades of gray: McConkie, Lee, Kimball, etc\u2026\u00a0 Those statements aren\u2019t really defensible, but other than President Hinckley\u2019s statement that \u201cgays have a problem\u201d (meaningless out of context) they are also all out-of-date by at least 25 years.<\/p>\n\n
dead<\/del> former Mormon\u2026<\/p>\n