LAist: L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center Garners $60,000 in the Name of LDS Church President

luv2bh8d

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:48:01 -0800

Fire with fire? Yeah, I think you're right. I am Mormon and I didn't heed the hierarchy’s call to donate to Yes on 8. However, the behavior demonstrated by some in the LGBT community has galvanized my resolve. At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of “Mormon scum!“ were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott—essentially Mormon blacklists—have sprung up on the Internet. And now we have mockery of the temple garment. As I said, I didn't donate to Yes on 8, but if another initiative like this comes up again in CA or any other state, I will empty my savings account to fight it. Additionally, for those who call to revoke tax exempt status, the 2001 Newsweek article "Mormon Inc." estimated the LDS church to be worth $31 billion. Current estimates put it at around $48 billion. That's more revenue than Cisco, American Express or Coca-Cola. Removing tax-exempt status means the church can enter into political lobby unencumbered by regulation, so yeah, revoke tax-exempt status and you will unleash an 800 lb. political gorilla.

thatwasrad

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:13:44 -0800

Your continual disrespect and irreverence is despicable. And it has been the name of your game since day one. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Ghandi.

damian_z

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:48:39 -0800

PantheonZeus - I completely agree with you. Tax-exemption for religious groups might have sprung from a initiative to help organizations that help others, but I personally think it is time for it to end, or at least to be seriously reconsidered and arguments heard on both sides. There is absolutely no reason for government to be involved in religion other than to protect the right to worship as one pleases and no reason for religion to be involved in politics.

damian_z

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:45:04 -0800

caliking01 - I think you are confusing the mainstream LDS church with the FLDS or "Fundamentalist" offshoot which practices polygamy, requires all of its members to wear long clothing (including, yes, women to wear long dresses in the hot sun). In the LDS or "Mormon" church (the mainstream church which is being protested in this case) members wear what amounts to a t-shirt and boxers which go down to ones knee. In fact, wearing them is totally comparable to the wearing of a yalmuke or a turban in that it is a reminder of a covenant with god. That was the case in the five or so years I wore them as part of my twenty years as a member of the LDS church, including two years as a Mormon missionary. I may be ridiculous in your eyes, caliking01, by asking for an end to name calling and religious mockery in the process of protesting bigotry. It's certainly in your right to think so. But I'm certainly not ignorant or stupid of the ways of the LDS church.

PantheonZeus

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:39:40 -0800

funny "magic" mormon undies for women along with muslim burkas are more comparable to the orthodox jew/hasidic women's wigs and long dresses and pantyhose that they must wear year round - even in 100 degree heat. ugh I am sure after a hundred years of tax-exempt governmental benefits, our brethren of the "Church" of Scientology will be targeting their own minority groups and enjoy their own brand of good ol' american governmental corruption. It all sucks big ones. Separate Church and State. Period. Civil Equality for All.

caliking01

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:39:47 -0800

Dont fucking compare wearing Yalmuke's to the horrible abuse Mormon women must endure by wearing the long under clothes. That Damien Z is IGNORANT, rediculous and just plain stupid.

damian_z

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:00:46 -0800

I'm completely happy that Monson is "donating" to the cause of marital equality for all Californians. I'm also happy the Mormon church is getting the negative publicity from this move and the protests on the national scale. I was happy to vote "No" on 8 and would gladly do so again, giving my own time and money to help make it so. That said, the "funny underwear" reference in this post is just lame. What the Mormon Chuch did as an organization is reprehensible and I'm pissed off by it. But there's a difference in mocking the institution and the members who voted and contributed money to a piece of hate-legislation for their bigotry and mocking a religion's sacred aspects. I'm frankly surprised to see it in a post on LAist. The underwear may be "funny" in that it is unusual or even ridiculous to you, but it's no more so than those "funny" little hats the Jews wear or those "funny" turbans the Sikhs do. I'd love for the Church membership to realize the error of their ways *and* the error of their religion's leadership, but the path to having this happen is not to mock things they hold sacred. That's fighting fire with fire.

polaroidgirl

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:50:36 -0800

I'm proud to say on of those postcards was from me!