At West Hollywood's 'Wedding Park' in June (more photos here) | Photo by Tom Andrews/LAist
After LAist learned that Los Angeles County was suspending marriage licenses for gay couples, we asked Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan for some more detail on why and what next, especially in light of the millions of uncounted ballots. Here's what he said:
The decision to suspend was made based on the directive in the California State Constitution, which states that amendments passed by a majority of the voters takes effect the day after the election unless the effective date is addressed separately in the proposal. In the case of Proposition 8, the measure did not address an effective date. Along with the other counties throughout the state, we received verbal directives from the State Office of Vital Records to discontinue issuing licenses and performing ceremonies for same-sex couples. Additionally, the state election code does call for the Secretary of State to determine a Semi-Official Canvass of the election returns once all of the counties report their election night totals, which we used as the basis for determining the majority of the votes cast on the measure as of the day after the election.We anticipated that there would be litigation on the outcome of this measure and how it is to the administered and, indeed, several lawsuits were filed late yesterday afternoon. As noted in my statement, the "suspension" is based on the Constitutional provisions, but we will act in accordance with any judicial or state regulatory directive on this matter. This is a complicated matter and one in which the counties have, despite efforts to do so, been unable to get the state Office of Vital Records, which has oversight and regulatory authority on the matter, to formally address. Again, we are monitoring closely the lawsuits that have been filed and we are prepared to act in accordance with any directive or clarification as soon as one is issued.
Hope this is helpful.
At least three lawsuits are reported to have been submitted so far.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Exit polls in California found that 70 percent of black voters backed the ban. Slightly more than half of Latino voters, who made up almost 20 percent of voters, favored the ban, while 53 percent of whites opposed it.
Oh dear. Let's start throwing the blame on the black/latino communities now. Fuck you lahipster. Not all black/latino folks are for prop 8!
Oh dear. Let's start throwing the blame on the black/latino communities now. Fuck you lahipster. Not all black/latino folks are for prop 8!
get a life will never again will the gay mafia in san francisco west hollywood pusch your viewsl the rest of in california how to live
The gay mafia? Really? You can't be serious. What, do they have drive-by redecoratings? Do they make people dance with the fishes? do they sing "we are (5) families"?
Also, lahipster, you clearly aren't what your name implies. Real hipsters generally aren't as bigoted or as fucking stupid as you are.
You should change your name to LAfetalalcoholsyndrome.
"get a life will never again will the gay mafia in san francisco west hollywood pusch your viewsl the rest of in california how to live"
First of all, lahipster, please get a copy of Strunk & White, or at least take a community college course in English Composition. I'm so tired of you bigots and your inability to communicate properly.
Second of all, the gay community will DEFINITELY be pushing their "views" on the rest of California again -- they're going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing until they get the equality they deserve. So get ready lahipster, there's a lot more activism to come!!
(Also, nobody has yet explained to me, using reason, logic, and concrete evidence, why equal rights for gays is anathema to a correct reading of the Constitution, or a correct reading of the Bible, for that matter. Can you enlighten me, lahipster?)
Carrie: To be fair, the bible is pretty explicit about hating on the gays. It calls for the death of any men who engage in the ghey secks. (curiously silent on the subject of gay women but the old testatment doesn't consider women to be human, so...)
However, it's also explicit about how women on their periods are disgusting and should be shunned, on how disobedient children deserve the death penalty, and how ethnic cleansing is A-OK.
I've noticed in my life that modern day bible enthusiasts don't seem to think disobedient chldren should be killed, don't seem to believe that menstrating women should be exiled for the duration of their period, and generally oppose stealing someone else's land and killing everyone who lives on it, even if their minister or king claims it's what god wants.
Yet they still keep it real for the part about hating gays, and they consider themselves strict adherents of the bible.
Hey all you, maybe lahipster is only reporting what he read out there.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081124/kim
from the article
"Other numbers paint an even grimmer picture. If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin. Los Angeles County, heavily minority, went 50-50 on Prop 8. These results have shocked gay activists, who knew from earlier polls that black voters favored Prop 8, but they were seeing much smaller margins, closer to 50 percent."
If you deny who is against this, you will never know who you have to reach out to for support. lahipster never said anything but these numbers
thegodofthor, surely you're not such a blistering fucking idiot that you don't see the objection we have to Lahipster's constant, obsessive repostings: Lahipster isn't interested in facts, he's trying to provoke someone on LAist into expressing intemperate emotions about those populations. You know, catch the people accusing bigots of being bigots being bigoted themselves. A cunning stunt, attempted by a stunning cunt.
His attemptsd are clumsy and shallow. Yours is a little more subtle. But it's still stupid. But if it will make you happy, yes yes, we know large numbers of blacks and latinos apparently have a problem with the ghey. Happy? whooo, scary blacks and latinos vote! RUN RUN RUN!
Butseriously, we don't really know for certain what it means. Certainly, many members of these communties are bigoted against gays. Sad to know, but something we'll have to work to change. However, it's also a fact that like all conservative Christians, the pro-prop 8 advocates lied through their fucking teech about literally every aspect of that horrible bill. And those lies were in large part part of what contributed to the increase in support for the bill.
So who's not to say that a lot of these people voted yes due to the lies and obfuscations told by the pro-prop 8 people? Surely the confusion sowed by these lies contributed in no small part to Prop 8's victory. It's a question we'll have to sort out as we challenge the bill and try to repeal it, or get it stricken down.
In the meantime, stop reposting these facts. And stop acting like a chode.
Yeah, WE KNOW THE FREAKING NUMBERS ALREADY, yeesh, we've discussed them and there are probably solid reasons why blacks, etc voted to support Prop 8. I've been talking about them all day with friends and co-workers.
Many of these "Yes on 8" voters probably voted that way because of: 1) a midunderstanding of the actual text of the proposition (thanks to terrible, manipulative commercials, and 2) their religious beliefs. The African-American community in Los Angeles is very tied to their religious community, ergo, votes to restrict gay rights.
What about this: President-Elect Obama is on record as saying that despite his belief that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, he believes Prop 8 is "unnecessary". He also voted NO on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage in June 2006.
Anyway, you can quote numbers all day long too, but it doesn't mean that people who voted to support Prop 8 are not voting against civil rights and equality for all citizens.
and Ross, don't forget about it being "an abomination" to eat pork or shrimp, and also the ban against wearing mixed-fabric textiles!
Hipster has said plenty elsewhere.
My question is, who refers to themselves as a "hipster"? I've never seen that level of douchery.
excuse my typos. Clearly I am 50% LOLcat.
The bible is also pretty explicit about not eating pork. Because you know, back then there were health issues and god was a good way to scare people into not doing it.
We've come a few millennium from that and somehow pork is once ok but being gay is not. Ever heard the term 'pick and choose'? These religious groups probably haven't had people donate and rally around anything in years. Its a shame it is grassroots bigotry they find as the best way to bring people together again. Economics.
I'm going to have to concur with the statistics.
I live in the San Gabriel Valley and just from my day to day activities and talking to people I can safely see that voting pattern.
There is a large base of Latinos and Asians that are intolerant of gay issues. I am assuming it stems from their views of religion as well as "traditional" family values.
I'm Latino, I'm college educated, live above the poverty line, and am not religous, don't attend church, and I voted against it. If most Latino's had the exact same socio-economic benefits I've been lucky enough to have, I'm sure they would have done the same. and
I'm also pretty sure LAhipster has no idea how minority demographics work. Then again, why are we arguing with a guy who self-describes as a hipster. Isn't that a direct violation of rule #1 of being a hipster. Are you good at anything?
PS I'm Asian and voted no on 8.
I'm Latino and my girlfriend is black and we both voted "No". Before you start spouting off percentages of who voted what way, remember ther are only two sides to this vote, those who voted "no" and ignorant, fear ridden idiots.
As for the Bible, according to some of it's passages, polygamy and public execution were both okay, as was keeping slaves and not letting women have rights. I'm a Christian and even I know that the Bible is a highly flawed piece of work that has been subject to change thousands of times by kings and zealots alike. If people are going to be a bigots, they should have the balls to not hide behind their faith. Peoples views are your own, born of their own insecurity and sentiment. They should show their faces and own it, not cower in the polls and vote away peoples rights.
The last organized group of "citizens" in this nation to hide their faces and plot against people's rights were the Klan. All of you who voted "yes", do you like that comparison? Take the hood off and throw it in the trash where it belongs.
Avoid all you want but at some point, you will have to address those black and hispanic voters. And "pushing" them will only enhance their resolve...trust me.
Also, the gay community might want to avoid further comparing gay rights struggles to the civil rights movement.
Believe it or not, many blacks find that highly insulting.
If my candidate had just won the most historic presidential election in our nation's history, I'd be celebrating instead of being Debbie Downers.
Blacks Americans have endured centuries of inequality before reaching this moment. You might do well to remember that by expressing a bit more appreciation for how far we've come rather than what we didn't get.
Ugly American, I'm confused.
So are you saying that Blacks and other ethnic minorities should essentially sit in the bleachers and say "we got ours, go and get yours on your own"?
I would like to think that minorities as a whole would band together on this issue because, now that we can celebrate that the office of the president has finally transcended color lines, so do these issues that we are talking about.
It is not okay for bigotry to go unchecked in any form and I think it is an insult to the decades of struggle by all minorities to suggest that this doesn't have the same merit as others.
Now is not the time to regress and baby step our way back to equality. Gay marriage and many other discriminatory issues should be fought for with just as much fervor and enthusiasm as any other, and if we continue to divide ourselves by color lines or class, that just leaves the window open for more agents of fear and hatred to take advantage of all of us.
BTW - I am not trying to not acknowledge these exit polls. Homophobia exist in the black and latino community in CA and all around the US. It frustrates the hell out of me, being queer chicana grrl that i am.
But lahipster comment was not being productive and only placing blame on black/latinos. along with all of his/her comments on laist.com are douche bag like.
Considering 62% of African American households in California are headed by single parents... uh huh. Family values.
So are you saying that Blacks and other ethnic minorities should essentially sit in the bleachers and say "we got ours, go and get yours on your own"?
Not.at.all.
Just that, at the moment, you're raining on their parade.
Time and place.
It's sad that as we try and have a discussion here about the latest discriminatory injustice, people continue to want to point fingers across racial lines.
What the fuck does family values have to do with the color of one's skin or the number of parents a child has? How dysfunctional a family is completely transcends color lines because anyone here can probably list off dozens of examples of a two-parent families of all ethnicities that have completely screwed up their kids via spousal abuse, sexual abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, and countless other ways.
People, stop generalizing and start taking notice of individual accountability.
Ugly,
Point taken, but if someone just took one of your rights away, I don't think you'd want to stop for a few days to allow a parade to pass you by before you start feeling or saying something about it.
It's that kind of apathy that allowed this country to get itself into the mess it's been in for the last 8 years.
Bravo for electing a new president to bring about change. But if you notice, not even he is stopping to celebrate. Back to business.
I just wrote out a blog post on my experience among the rally and protests last night.
The Rally & Spontaneous March Against Proposition 8, The Elimination of Same Sex Marriage.
As far as I know the only passage that "addresses" if you want to call it that, gay men is the one that says "a man should not lie with a man the way that they lie with a woman."
Now if someone can tell me how that is an exact prohibition against homosexual behavior I'd love to hear it. What I see instead is that a man may lie with a man, but not as a man would like with a women.
What does that mean? Certainly one, and only one of many interpretations, might be a prohibition against homosexual activity. But there are many other possible interpretations. Including that should a man lie with a man he must treat the relationship differently.
As far as I can tell, and I've looked extensively, there is no prohibitions or statements regarding how women are to lie with women.
FYI: The "prohibition" referenced above is from Leviticus 18:22. Note the following.
18:19 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
18:20 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
18:21 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
18:22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
18:23 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
In all but one of the cases above besides 18:22 the prohibition is sexual. Yet 18:22 the prohibition is "to lie with" not "do not have sex with."
For me, at least, this casts doubt on a sexual meaning to the prohibition.
@msmerymac my thoughts exactly.
Though now I'm laughing because Sarah Silverman's Jesus is magic comes to mind - "Everyone knows the best time to get pregnant is when you're a black teenager."
Yes, wrong, but kind of funny - especially in terms of family values.
Yesterday I was driving through Echo Park stuck in traffic behind this 1980s shitty beat up white toyota - driven by of course, a Latino, but what surprised me (well, at least until I read hipster's 4 exact posts of the same text on blacks/latino) was that he had a brand new "No on prop 8" sticker. I switched lanes to catch up and he was definitely a guy that looked like he would be hanging out at a home depot waiting for work - and someone unable to vote. I wish I knew what was the reasoning behind it - was he just anti-gay, or did he hear about the teaching gays in school? Is it all just a misunderstanding?
If any one wished to quote from the Bible, it might be wise to read it through and study its meaning.
God specifically says that homosexuality is an abomination to him. The people of Sodom and Gomarrah were warned tro turn from this sin, then were consumed in fire for their sin. If any wished to sin, then they are free to do so, but the wages of sin is death or eternal Hell.
For the likely 14, gay, and naive person who professes that they just had a right taken away, don't believe th elie.
Gays never had the right to marry.
In 2000, California voted that marriage shall be between a man and a woman, following the law of the land from the beginning of time.
In May 2008, 4 gay California supreme court justices TOOK AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD VOTED.
On Nov. 4, 2008, the people took back their right.
This reminds me of the lesbian girl, who said that she wished to have her girlfriends egg implanted in her egg, so that they could have a baby with their shared DNA. It is sad, because some one told her this lie, so I had to explain to her that she could never have a child which shard her girlfriend's DNA and hers.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.
Homosexuals claim they want the "right" to get married and live normal lives just like heterosexual married couples.
The truth is, however, that the drive to gain legalization of so-called "gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."
Their ultimate goal is to abolish all prohibitions against sex with multiple partners.The effort to abolish "age of consent" laws has been a long-time goal of homosexual activists. The 1972 Gay Rights Platform, for example, called for the abolition of all laws prohibiting sex with children. The platform demands: "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."
LOUD NOISES
truthspeaker23, how did you have YOUR rights taken away when gay marriage became legal? There's a new argument! Your church wasn't forced to perform marriage ceremonies between gay couples and your marriage wasn't abolished or diminished.
Did you ever stop to consider that our culture is DIFFERENT from that of the Israelites 5,000 years ago? That perhaps procreation was extremely important to them, but in a world of 6 billion people who are polluting and straining the world's resources, it's not that important anymore? Have you noticed that women are now considered to be people, not property, and that we know a lot about proper food preparation (and Cholera) so that pork and shellfish can be eaten safely? I mean, really, has He ever heard of authors revising their own books and publishing new editions? (Of course, the real writers of the bible have been dead for a long time...) I really think it's time for an update, here!
Also, point out specifically where God says, "Don't let the queers become legally bound to each other."
Granted, these are all moot points because we DON'T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY. It's a republic, dammit. We elect people to make laws on our behalf.
Oh, yeah, and sex with kids was a big thing during the sexual revolution. People thought kids should be able to celebrate the joys in life, uh, sexually. No one thinks that anymore. That was 36 years ago. I could point out many things in the Democratic and Republican platforms that have changed since 1972.
> God specifically says that homosexuality is an abomination to him.
Wrong. The literal translation of the Hewbrew is "a man should not lie with a man the way that they lie with a woman." You are doing what many so-called christians do. You are applying your own interpretation.
If this is a prohibition against homosexuality why does it not say "a man will not have sex with a man." All of the other Leviticus prohibitions are quite specific in regard to sex. This one does not mention sex; only not to do X as one does Y.
You are casting your own interpretation upon what is said and then going to great lengths to justify your own interpretation.
The rest of your screed is mere justification for a homophobic and discriminatory attitude as is evidence by "They want same-sex marriage as a way of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy and polyamory (group sex) as "families."
You better back this assertion up with links from reputable sources or I'll call you what I suspect you are; a shameless liar. Also a prohibition in the bible.
I'd just like to point out since racial lines have started being drawn over this, there was very strong and vocal Hispanic force out in the no on 8 rally and protests last night. Sí, se puede was one of the common chants during the night.
I really, really think that *angry outrage* is not the way to go about reaching out to the sectors of the population who voted in favor of enshrining bigotry in our state's constitution. It's true that many minority populations tended to vote yes on Prop 8, but I think this is largely a function of their religion, not their seething hatred of the gay community. (And, it's not just the Mormons, you guys, though they contributed the most money.) Roman Catholics, many other fundamentalist-type evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims are doctrinally, opposed to gay marriage (among other things).
There arises a conflict for many adherents of these faiths when it comes to separating their religious views (and perceived evangelical duty) from their civic duty as Americans. The US Constitution, which is the law of the land every citizen must live under and uphold, tells us there is a separation of church and state, while (esp. Catholics & other Christians) are told to "live their faith" in the world. They aren't necessarily "hate-filled bigots," rather, they think it is their obligation to try to change the world according to what their religions tell them is "good."
Remember the big question when JFK was elected? Will he be loyal to the Constitution or the Roman Catholic Church? Technically, this is a question that impinges on *every* citizen of this country who is also a member of a church. Are you an American first (separation of church & state) or a Mormon, Baptist, Orthodox Jew, Catholic, Muslim, &c, &c first, and then an American?
When we ask people to "vote their conscience" many aren't doing so with The Bill of Rights ringning in their minds. Instead, many have their consciences formed by their pastors and other religious leaders, rather than civic theory.
I believe the state has no business performing *marriages* or issuing *marriage* licences to ANYONE, gay or straight. Using the language of religion to define a legal relationship between two consenting adults blurs the line between church and state, just as Prop 8 does. We're talking about legitimating unions between two consenting adults. Period. Remove God and the language of religion (in this case, "marriage")from the conversation when it comes to the law.
Furthermore, I really think we need to do a lot more to educate people, without being angry and belligerent. The Stonewall and Act Up days were necessary in their time, but the conversation has evolved since then and demands more nuance. To borrow a phrase from President-elect Obama, we need to cut away at the ongoing problem with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Ideally, this scalpel will ultimately be wielded by the US Supreme Court, reiterating that discrimination will not be tolerated under the law. (It's still not clear to folks, obviously.) Again, I know we're angry and hurt. It's hard to remain cool when overwhelmed by a sense of betrayal, but think of Barack Obama. We'll bring more people around to our side by being calm, cool and rational.
We need to remind members of these churches (again, not just Mormons) that this is a matter of CIVIL RIGHTS. It was once considered *morally* abhorent to marry someone of another race. Like the fears around miscengination that feuled the so-called "moral" arguments against it, legally sanctioned unions for all citizens who seek to enter this sort of legal contract with one another (often charged with spiritual and emotional ramifications in a way that other contracts ratified by the state are not), is an ETHICAL matter and a civic one. And, in this country, our civic ethos is that EVERYONE IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.
I hope all these new charter schools we passed bonds for are going to have a rigorous civics curriculum, alongside science departments that teach big bang theory and biological evolution, as well as humanities departments that teach critical thinking. Save religion for Sunday school and religion classes.
NO on PROP 8 - yesterday, today and tomorrow!!
Yesterday I was driving through Echo Park stuck in traffic behind this 1980s shitty beat up white toyota - driven by of course, a Latino, but what surprised me (well, at least until I read hipster's 4 exact posts of the same text on blacks/latino) was that he had a brand new "No on prop 8" sticker. I switched lanes to catch up and he was definitely a guy that looked like he would be hanging out at a home depot waiting for work - and someone unable to vote. I wish I knew what was the reasoning behind it - was he just anti-gay, or did he hear about the teaching gays in school? Is it all just a misunderstanding?
I'm a little confused with this paragraph. Did you mean he had a Yes on 8 bumper sticker? Or did you think he was confused on the proposition?
You are casting your own interpretation upon what is said and then going to great lengths to justify your own interpretation.
I love how people can use "religion" to justify their hatred and prejudice. You know what else God loves? Bigotry. And looking down your nose at people who are different than you. And, yes, hatred. Totally scores you getting-into-heaven points. Jesus SO wanted to kill the queers. And women. And poor people. And brown people. Yeah. That's it.
BrainyLAgirl, your comment was very beautiful. I am so angry about the lack of acceptance and understanding that I see this proposition representing, but I do agree with everything you said.
All that being said, has there ever been a division between church and state in our lifetime? For as long as I can remember, it's been "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God", but as far as I know, there is no mention of God or any other deity in our constitution.
And what about the fact that the Mormon church has a long history with persecution for their own marriage practices in the past (polygamy anyone)? Who are they to judge what constitutes "traditional marriage" or just plain judge anyone at all? That's not very Christian.
And if we truly want to give credence to those that argue to have Christian morals and values upheld in our laws and in our schools, then why don't we argue for an equal measure of all other religions to have the same influence? The idea of "freedom of religion" wasn't drafted as "freedom of religion, as long as you're Christian."
I would much rather have my children get an education in comparative religions and learn all the tenants of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. as well as the different sects of Christianity. That way they can make more informed decisions instead of a society that indoctrinates them with a myopic view of what it is to be a decent human being.
But, of course, I don't feel like religion has any place in our laws or schools because people should have the choice to practice their beliefs on their own terms, not have them force fed to them, especially not by their own government.
Any group of people using the Bible to come forth and try to hash out some political agenda not only goes against the freedoms this country was based upon, but it also perpetuates the same sort of agenda that the Nazis used Hitler's Mein Kampf for. God wanted his followers to share his teachings, not use it as a springboard for conquest. Or did he?
Take a note from the Crusades and the current climate in the Middle East, that's a truly bloody and backwards way be a good neighbor. No, there are no swords, guns or suicide bombers in this fight but the same conclusions can be drawn. "You don't believe in what I believe in, so I'm taking what I can from you until you conform."
Religion is too hypocritical and hypothetical to use as a basis for any argument about laws and equality. Why don't we make THAT a measure on the next ballot. Let's restore the traditional definition of "separation of church and state," shall we?
> For as long as I can remember, it's been "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God", but as far as I know, there is no mention of God or any other deity in our constitution.
On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to add the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. They weren't there before that.
The phrase "In God we Trust" was added to U.S. coinage during the civil war and first appeared on a two cent coin minted in 1864. The phrase was not there before even though "E Pluribus Unum" has been there almost from the beginning.
President Theodore Roosevelt objected to the slogan strongly on the grounds that it was a cheap political motto saying: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
Other_Than, you're absolutely right to point out the Mormon Church's hypocrisy and lack of sympathy with current marriage-freedom issues. Considering that Mormons themselves were (over 100 years ago) persecuted and killed for their "alternative" marriage beliefs, it seems they're being hypocritical. However, the truth is, the Mormon Church which practiced and defended polygamy back then and the Church as it is constituted today are basically two very different entities.
Personally, I believe (as a former Mormon who grew up in the Church) that this was largely a political move by a contemporary Mormon Church that very much wants to be seen as a mainstream Christian church, respected by Protestant and Catholic churches.
What makes me sad, even as a *former* member of the Church, is that in trying to rid itself of the taint of its own polygamist past and to be seen as more "Christian", the Mormon Church has done the most un-Christian thing it possibly could: to deny the happiness of others with fear and discrimination.
brainylagirl: Outstanding comment ....and perfectly stated.
Bravo.