Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Lawrence vs. Hexes: The eye-opening spiritual war behind NOM’s new Maryland poll

Right-wing

Fantastic digging by Jeremy. Follow-up coming later -Adam

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

This is the work of Mormon writer and pollster Gary Lawrence:

(*forgive the unsightly presentation — it’s an archived copy with dead images)

This was also the work of Gary Lawrence (though it was originally printed anonymously):

Six Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

This in from Gary Lawrence: Consequences of Do Nothing [Yes on Prop 8 Blog]

We learned about Lawrence’s connections to these two docs thanks to the tireless work of Chino Blanco, who brought us this video of Lawrence proudly touting his work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPVsB_8lgSs&feature=player_embedded]

And

And this video of Lawrence talking about how much he loves the gay protests that his work might incite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J7t–UfyVw&feature=player_embedded]

Right, so why do we bring all of this up again now? Today? While we’re facing potentially forthcoming Prop 8-like battles in states like Maryland?

Oh. Well, because this too is the work of Gary Lawrence:

A mere poll on civil marriage? Right, NOM. Just like Mr. Lawrence’s multiple Lucifer mentions are merely measured reads of the 14th Amendment? And just like it’s purely coincidental that your MD polling firm has such comments and connections on record? Mmm hmm.

***

*UPDATE: For an actual poll, based in credible research, see here.

***

*UPDATE 2: It’s not just the researcher’s motivation, either. The Capital‘s Eric Hartley calls out NOM’s flawed methodology

51 Comments

  • 1. Felyx  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:10 am

    A Hex on NOM!!!

  • 2. Kevyn  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:12 am

    And a Pox on their donors!

  • 3. Wicca'd  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:14 am

    So Mote It Be!

  • 4. Peterplumber  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:14 am

    ♂♂

  • 5. Alan E.  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Speaking of Lawrence vs. Texas, check out this article about a Louisiana state law that should be unconstitutional because of this ruling:
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/devastating-sex-

  • 6. Ronnie  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:17 am

    NOM (National Organization for Mountebank) = FAIL…. <3…Ronnie

  • 7. Rhie  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Curses!

  • 8. Felyx&Kevyn  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:38 am

    FYI, I think the NOM poll is for Maryland and the actual poll in the update seems to be for New Hampshire.

    For what it is worth here is another poll for Maryland.

  • 9. cybernoelie  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:38 am

    More readable version from: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=29421054694

    “There was a war in heaven,“ my dad said as he taught me about our pre-earthly existence and the purpose of life. It had only been a few years since he had returned from service as a Marine in World War II, so it was natural that his 10-year-old son immediately imagined a great battle with planes, tanks, and bazookas. What a war it must have been, I thought.

    How disappointed I was when he told me the implements of that special conflict were … words.

    Words? How exciting could that have been? I liked my version better.

    But I soon grasped the importance of this hinge event in our existence and the “weapons” we used to defend the principle of agency and God's plan for the happiness of His children. And I grew to understand that this war has not ended, that only the battlefield has changed.

    That battlefield is now California and the parallels between that pre-mortal conflict and the battle over the definition of marriage are striking.

    The scriptures tell us the beginning (“Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man” 1) and the end of the heavenly phase of that war (“he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” 2), but they do not reveal the details of the conflict itself. We can deduce, however, that Lucifer and his followers must have used very effective arguments to turn a third of the hosts of heaven away from the Father despite pure knowledge of God's will.

    From 35 years of studying arguments in political campaigns, and a bit of reverse engineering, here is my stab at what these arguments might have been.

    Argument 1: Equality. Lucifer sets the foundation by appealing to fairness and the equal worth of every spirit child.

    We are all children of the Father. It's only fair that all of us be together forever and enjoy the same things the Father has.

    Argument 2: Sympathy. Having set the logic, Lucifer turns to emotion.

    Under the Father's plan, some of your friends will never return. Look at Brother Jones here, or Sister Smith over there. How are you going to feel when you find out that people such as they — good, deserving people — may not make it back?

    Argument 3: Hate. After playing on the victim angle, Lucifer gradually steers emotions to the negative. Knowing that rebellion against righteousness can never be sustained without hate, he sows doubt about the Father Himself and leads the gullible step by step to that absolutely necessary ingredient if he is to win.

    Father doesn't really love you as much as you think He does. He has already prepared three kingdoms for us — a first-class kingdom, a second-class kingdom, and a third-class kingdom. None of us should be second-class citizens. This is unfair. This is discrimination. This is bigotry. This is hatred. … And it's okay to hate in return.

    Argument 4: Change. Now Lucifer returns to logic.

    The old ways have not worked. On the worlds without number the Father has created, too many were left behind and never returned to the Father's presence. It's time to do things differently. It's time for change.

    Argument 5: Guarantee. Amid the arguments about the consequences of each choice, Lucifer administers his clincher.

    Follow me and do what I say and I will guarantee that we will all return and live in celestial glory. And when I have the glory and power of the Father, I will make you my leaders and we will rule over those who did not follow us.

    It's the familiar guarantee of happiness and power that every tyrant in history has promised his followers. If he had been asked the details of his plan, Lucifer never would have admitted that he did not know how to create physical bodies for his followers to inhabit, and would not have revealed his plan to take over the bodies the Father would create. Lucifer would have couched his guarantee in amorphous language that appealed to those looking for an easier way without work. He's not called the father of lies for nothing.

    Now turn to the present battle. Whereas the principle under fire in the war in heaven was agency — the right to choose — the target in 2008 in California is marriage, both a principle and an institution. Just as agency is essential to our progress and happiness, so is marriage “central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” 3And the arguments of those supporting same-sex marriage are eerily familiar:

    Equality. Together with its ally fairness, equality of outcome will always be the beginning point for those opposed to any part of God's plan.

    Gays and lesbians are people, too. They have the same emotions as anyone else. It is only fair that they be given equal rights. They should not be second-class citizens.

    Sympathy. Emotion is evoked by specific situations, in this case having two women in their 80s be the first same-sex marriage in California.

    Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have the same loving and caring feelings for each other that any man and wife in a traditional marriage experience, and have been true to those feelings for five decades. Why can't society allow them a simple measure of happiness?

    Hate. The opposition must be shamed, vilified, and demonized. These descriptors of defenders of traditional marriage can already be found in anti-Prop 8 literature and blogs, and the list will grow:

    Christian extremists, anti-gay, right-wing radicals, old-fashioned, hung-up, homophobes, bigots, stupid, intolerant, mean-spirited, knuckle-draggers.

    Change. With emotions high and the opposition villainized, a bow to fairness makes the proposed solution look reasonable.

    It's time to change, to break free of oppression. There are many types of families, and marriage should be broadened to include all of them. It's only fair, and if it will make them happy, why not?

    Guarantee. This time the guarantee is not what someone will get, but a reassurance of what will not change.

    Same-sex marriage will not harm anyone. Heterosexual marriage will not be hurt. Nothing will change except all people will have every right that anyone else has.

    In short, if the arguments used in the war in heaven were persuasive enough to draw billions of God's spirit children away from Him, why should we not expect them to be used on the present battlefield? The same minions cast out from the Father's presence still remember what worked up there.

    The stakes are critical. If same-sex marriage advocates can dilute and hollow out the central part of the Creator's plan, the whole structure collapses — the family, the nation, and in time civilization itself. The time has come for those of us who believe that God, not man, created marriage (fortunately still a majority) to take a stand and defend it.

    Proposition 8 is a defining moment, a tipping point, a critical battle in our existence, melodramatic as that might sound. This is not a political sideshow. Long after the world only vaguely remembers a President McCain or a President Obama, people will continue to be affected by what happened in the California battle to protect marriage in the fall of 2008.

  • 10. Kathleen  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Louisiana weighs in again – on the wrong side of history.

  • 11. Ronnie  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:50 am

    ummmmmmmmm…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 12. Bennett  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Hmm, rent a mob if necessary. I wonder if the rental agreement would temper feigned outrage at being "besieged" and "intimidated" for only trying to, oh, I dont know, live as they choose?

  • 13. Bennett  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:56 am

    So, basically, all "us" protesters can have a sally fields moment. Afterall, we thought they didn't like us.

  • 14. Carpool Cookie  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:59 am

    In the second clip, Gary Lawrence is asked why the LDS got involved with the fight against Prop H8, and he goes into a rambling answer that culminates in the idea that he does not want 2nd graders taught about same-sex marriage, because then later same-sex-sex will be discussed in Sex Ed classes.

    If that's really his concern, isn't his argument with the state school board, or Superintendent of Education, or something?

  • 15. Ann S.  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:01 am

    §

  • 16. Carpool Cookie  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Ooops….BREAKING NEWS: the LDS wasn't fighting AGAINST Prop H8, as I typod (typoed?) (typo-ed?) they were fighting FOR it.

    In case anyone missed that….

  • 17. nightshayde  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:18 am

    Hmmm. Wonder what would happen if they forced those who solicit prostitutes for plain ol' vaginal sex to register as sex offenders, too…

  • 18. nightshayde  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Oooh – does that mean I can be a minion?

    I don't have to turn yellow, do I?

  • 19. fiona64  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:24 am

    Should add that LawrenceResearch.com goes to a Verio generic "parking spot." Fascinating.

    Can you say "fake research organization," everyone?

    Sure, I knew you could.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 20. fiona64  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:26 am

    President McCain? Um, Mr. Lawrence? I think you are confused.

    Bless your heart.

  • 21. JonT  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:27 am

  • 22. fiona64  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:28 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=917Q8dbpRLE

    "The Mob Song," from "Beauty and the Beast," as performed by the multi-talented Richard White.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 23. Ray in MA  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:29 am

    It's so discouraging that there are fellow human beings who are so ignorant and sick, yet they are able to influence so many.

    As an atheist, even I am forced to say:

    God! Help Us!

  • 24. nightshayde  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:40 am

    I think it was written before the 2008 election, so "President McCain" was still a possibility.

  • 25. fiona64  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Ah. FB is blocked at work, so I was not able to see the date.

    The author is definitely on the crazy train …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 26. Ray in MA  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Fiona,

    How are the "Mormons for Marriage' percived by a the Mormon Church establishment?

    My guess is that they have no substantial worth at all to the Mormon Church at all.

    Why would any Mormon with the "Mormons for Marriage" point of view remain a Mormon?

    It's like a member of the Hell's Angels trying to convince all the members to wear white lace and ride yellow hogs.

    It just doesn't make sense!!!

    If it's a vested financial interest, then money is the root of the evil, not Gay people!

  • 27. fiona64  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Okay, I'll explain this one — since I know the owner of the site.

    She is fully aware that she has put her ecclesiastical standing at risk. Her current bishop is fine with her having this website up so that pro-equality Mormons have a safe space. However, if her ward (congregation) is redistricted (for lack of a better term) and her new bishop is not so open-minded, she could be excommunicated.

    I asked her why she stays — and her answer is that she wants to be able to stand up for GLBT people brought up in the Church of LDS. She was friends with Stuart Matis … and never wants another LDS person to feel like he did again. She has family ties to the church as well, but her main reason is much like that of Santa Barbara Mom, Sheryl and some of the other pro-equality LDS folks who post here.

    She also tells GLBT people who are thinking of converting to Mormonism that they'd be happier at a Metropolitan Community Church or a Unitarian Universalist congregation.

    I am really grateful to Laura for setting up that site, because it helped me to see that not everyone in my parents' church is a bigoted whackjob. (There. I said it.)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 28. Sagesse  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:26 am

    It feels a though the debates this year are right out in the open, and everyone can see that the anti-equality arguments are malicious and unsupported. Like someone turned on the lights.

  • 29. John B.  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:27 am

    Regardless of how good or bad the NOM poll was, the fact remains that even the best recent poll in our favor showed only the slimmest of majorities–51%–in favor of same-sex marriage in Maryland. This is probably within the margin of error of the poll and a rather tenuous position for supporters of marriage equality. As we've seen many times over, the results you get for ANY poll very strongly depend on the way the questions are worded, and the way people vote (Prop. 8) cannot necessarily be predicted by public opinion polls.

    The good news is that the numbers in favor of same-sex marriage have gone up significantly in recent years and will continue to go up–both Maryland and elsewhere–but Marylanders fighting for marriage equality can't take anything for granted and will need to sway a lot more of the undecided voters to keep marriage equality secure.

  • 30. Chris B  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:28 am

    . Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.
    The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)
    Children are already taught things their parents may not agree with (e.g. evolution). Teach your children your beliefs at home.
    2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.
    Clergy are free to not marry people or let people use their church if they see fit. A Catholic priest can't be forced to marry two Jewish people. Two Muslims can't demand to use a Jewish Temple for their marriage. I know protestant ministers who won't perform marriage ceremonies for divorced people.
    3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Do those same religious adoption agencies place children in homes with atheist parents? (Isn't atheism worse than being gay?). Do those agencies give children to single parents?
    4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits. Religious schools are free to not accept gay students. The college I went to kicked out students who were gay. It remains tax exempt.
    5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage. Abortion, getting drunk, divorce, interracial marriage, premarital sex, premarital cohabitation and being gay are all legal, yet churches are free to preach against these things. Freedom of religion is enshrined in our constitution.
    6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees. Please refer to my Freedom of Religion comment above.

  • 31. Ray in MA  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Thanx for your thoughtful response…

    She seems to feel that she is serving s purpose for others…

    …like a woman staying with an abusive husband for the benefit of the children?

    Love,
    Ray

  • 32. Ray in MA  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Fiona,

    I found web info about Stuart Matis… very touching and very very sad. It never ceases to amaze me how people react differently to horrific situations…. if that has happened to a friend of mine, I would be so enraged that I would never again associate with those responsible.

    Again, thanx for your insight, but I'm still left in a quandry…

  • 33. Ray in MA  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:19 am

    "“I’m sure that you will now be strengthened in your resolve to teach the members and the leaders regarding the true nature of homosexuality.”

    from a distance…was this an extemely self centered, pesumptuous person who left his friends to fight his battles?

  • 34. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

    -George Carlin

  • 35. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Children are already taught things their parents may not agree with (e.g. evolution). Teach your children your beliefs at home.

    Indeed. The fact is, SSM will be "okay" under the law, just as evolution is supported by the evidence, whether or not you believe that evil Darwinists are hiding the fossil of the talking snake.

  • 36. NetAmigo  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

    I didn't notice anyone mentioning it above but Lawrence's son Matthew Lawrence is gay and fairly public about it I think.

  • 37. Ray in MA  |  February 17, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    http://www.calitics.com/diary/7520/

    So there ya go!

  • 38. Joe  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    It says theres a solicitation provision, I'm guessing that means the nature of the sex act doesn't matter, just that it involved solicitation.

  • 39. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Well, we all know that NOM is rather short on the legal, ethical, moral side of things. After all, this is the group that steals music from our allies, and steals words phrases, sentences and symbols from our civil rights battle and perverts them to their own purposes, much like they have done with passages from the Torah!

  • 40. Michael  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    @cybernoelie The entire premise is wrong. Radical anti-gay activists try to turn "equality" into a dirty word. Christ commands us: "Treat others as you want to be treated." We all want to be treated the same and with respect. Those who twist Christ's words to justify discrimination are the true agents of Satan. And they are the ones who have led our nation to ruin. It's no coincidence that our nation began its decline around the time of anti-gay activist Anita Bryant in the mid-'70's. Radical conservatives from then till now are the ones destroying our nation. Not one good thing has resulted from conservatism–it could not keep our economy going, keep jobs in our nation, stop greed, or even prevent Palin's teenage daughter from fornicating.

  • 41. fiona64  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Rebuttal to ‘Six Consequences, authored by attorney Morris Thurston.

    I guess Mr. Lawrence can just put that in his pipe and smoke it …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 42. nightshayde  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    fake research organization!

    Yup – I can. *giggle*

  • 43. Tweets that mention Lawre&hellip  |  February 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Joshua Maupin, Testimony. Testimony said: Lawrence vs. Hexes: The eye-opening spiritual war behind NOM's new Maryland poll http://wp.me/pLuL9-2em [...]

  • 44. Chris B  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    It's sort of like saying: If selling liquor in grocery stores is made legal, then kids will be told that selling liquor in grocery stores is ok.

    There's no way to stop people from stating a fact. What's stopping teachers from talking about gay couples right now, even though gay marriage is not legal everywhere? Even if gay marriage is banned in all states, married gay couples still exist.

  • 45. Sagesse  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    And their kids go to school with everyone else's kids. I'm a big fan of kids, and two things about them… they notice things, and they ask questions.

  • 46. AnonyGrl  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:06 am

    OK.. I didn’t mean this to be a manifesto, but please first go up and read the doc by Gary Lawrence at the top of the page. He posits an argument by Lucifer against God, then uses that same argument structure to show how marriage equality is being defended.

    I posit THIS argument by God, and the corresponding argument against equality. But it will make more sense if you read the other one first.

    Argument 1 Inequality: God sets the foundation by appealing to the better people, the chosen ones.

    While you are all my children, it is only fair that those who follow my word and do what I say get the benefits.

    Argument 2 Disdain: Having laid out the ground rules, God turns to emotion.

    Under my plan, some special ones of you will earn the right return, and you can earn that by doing as I say, and isn’t that wonderful?

    Argument 3 Hate: After reminding them that they are privileged, God gradually stirs emotions to the negatives. Knowing that righteous superiority can never be sustained without hate, he sows seeds of disgust about others and leads the gullible step by step to that absolutely necessary ingredient if he is to keep his following.

    No one really loves you as much as I do. I have prepared three kingsdoms for you all, and my chosen ones will go to the first-class kingdom. Those who do not follow my words will not get this special treatment, and will claim this is unfair, this is discrimination, this is bigotry, this is hatred… And it is okay to hate in return. (Of course, I will disguise this as hatred of the SIN, not the SINNER… but the result is the same).

    Argument 4 Stasis quo: Now God returns to dogma

    The old ways worked for those who believed. On the worlds without end, those who turned away from me never returned to my presence. It is a system that works, that protects you, my chosen ones.

    Argument 5 Guarantee: Amid the arguments about the consequences of each choice, God administers his clincher.

    Follow me and do what I say and I will guarantee that we will all return and live in celestial glory. And while I reign in glory and power, I will make you my leaders and we will rule over those who did not follow us.

    It is the familiar guarantee of happiness and power that every tyrant in history has promised his followers.

    About Prop 8…

    Inequality: Together with its ally of superiority, inequality and its justifications based in bigotry serve as a beginning point for those who are in support of what they call “Gods Plan”.

    Gays and lesbians are not as good as us. They don’t love the same way we do, they are promiscuous, don’t care about children, are pedophiles, want to marry dogs and multiple partners. It is not fair that they should be granted the same rights we have. They DESERVE to be second class citizens.

    Disdain: Emotion evoked by specific situations, in this case, the idea that your children might become gay if they even know it is possible.

    Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have feelings that are clearly against God’s plan. They want us to accept that they are as good as we are, and they want their disgusting ways to be taught as correct in schools to our children. Imagine, your pure, innocent young son comes home one day and says “Mommy, I want to marry a man! Teacher showed me I can! And we can have sex together. Tell me about how we can do that, Mommy?” How can society allow that to happen?

    Hate: We must shame, vilify, and demonize the opposition. These descriptions of the defenders of same sex marriage can already be found in Prop 8 literature and blogs, and the list will grow with our help.

    “It is not discrimination to treat different things differently.” “If we allow gay marriage, then what is next? Why not pedophilia? Why not polygamy? Why not android marriage?” “There is a storm brewing, and I am afraid.” “If we allow same sex marriage, then people are going to call us bigots!!!” “They are going to take away our religious freedom !” “They are redefining marriage for everyone!” “Same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage!” “Marriage is about responsible procreation.” “Children need to be raised by their biological, married parents!”

    Statis quo: With emotions high and the opposition villianized, a bow to tradition makes the proposed solution look unfair.

    It is not fair that my marriage be redefined in this way. God has always said marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is how it should be. It is wrong to insist that those of us who hold these beliefs be forced to change our views. Our civil rights are being taken away. Soon they will force their way into our churches and sue us if we don’t perform their marriages! Already they have forced adoption agencies to close, churches to lose their tax benefits, doctors to lose their licenses, good people to lose their businesses. How long before they make Christianity illegal?

    Guarantee: This time the guarantee is not what someone will get, but a reassurance of what will not change.

    Traditional marriage is available to everyone. Homosexual people are not hurt by the traditional definition of marriage. Nothing needs to change because everyone has the same rights as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    Please note, I am only saying this of Gary Lawrence's God. Frankly, I don't believe that such a God exists, but it does make some of the justifications that ant-homosexual bigots use make a little more sense, don't you think? Well, sense to THEM, anyway.

  • 47. fiona64  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:33 am

    No. He was someone who could no longer live (literally) with the dichotomy of who he was and how his church was treating him (and others). This all happened during Prop 22. :-(

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 48. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 18, 2011 at 3:59 am

    Definitely an archaic law that needs changed. There is no reason for the "registering as sex offenders" just for solicitation (or accepting the offer) for sex. I would imagine that when people see that on an ID they immediately think of child molestation (I know I would). Very, very unfair. I'm surprised it has not been challenged before this. Personally, I think prostitution should be legal (grew up in the state of Nevada); If it is regulated, then you take the pimps and drugs out of the picture (for the most part) and our law enforcement officials can spend their time on real crimes not on what consenting adults do.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother (who you can tell is a very liberal Mormon)

  • 49. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 18, 2011 at 4:23 am

    While I might be of the same religion as Mr. Lawrence and, while I can see the analogy he is making, I strongly disagree with his stance on same-sex marriage. I do not believe that granting civil rights to all citizens has anything to do with religion. And, I believe the Mr. Lawrence will have a lot to answer for come the judgment day. I guess since he uses half truths and innuendos, he believes that, in this case, the end justifies the means. Wonder if his marriage or his right to marry or his right to belong to the church of his choice were under attack if he would still believe that.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 50. Rhie  |  February 18, 2011 at 8:41 am

    And don't forget pictures of children from equality programs in an article talking about how awful it is to use children in marriage campaign ads.

  • 51. LMS Learning System&hellip  |  December 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Award winner…

    That blog post was so terrific. I hereby declare you the Top Blogger Award 2011….

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!