11/17/2008
Mormons Have Embedded Police Officials Watching Out for Them?
A reader pointed me to this article in the Sacramento Bee about stepped-up security around Mormon churches as a result of the recent protests. One would hope that law enforcement is there to serve and protect all citizens on an equal basis but according to one LDS official they have embedded officers watching out for them:
"They are hiring extra security to watch over the Folsom temple, and asking members to drive by church buildings late at night. Mormons in law enforcement are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held. 'Our members in law enforcement know where to look for this kind of stuff,' said Lisa West, spokeswoman for the church in the Sacramento region. She added that they are doing this on their own time. 'There's a lot of volatility in the air, so we're asking people to keep their eyes and ears open.'"
Our reader writes: "I think this is newsworthy. The Mormon church openly admits that it's embedding members into police departments then using them to advance their agenda... They're not saying that they're working with police like everyone else does, they're admitting that they're engaged in a conspiracy to advance their agenda using their police officer members in a possible circumvention of the law, and a definite violation of basic police ethics."
Here are a couple more related updates:
The NYT published a major article on Friday, highlighting the Mormon church's significant role in the passage of Proposition 8.
The L.A. Times also noted in a major weekend article that the LDS church is feeling the heat.
It was also revealed over the weekend that the main cinema used by the Sundance Film Festival is a Cinemark cinema. The CEO of Cinemark, Alan Stock, gave $9,999 to 'Yes on 8'. Cinemark operates the 'Century', 'CinéArts', and 'Tinseltown' theater chains. Sundance won't pull out of the anti-gay cinema. While Sundance is one issue, Cinemark also stands to profit from showing the Gus van Sant film Milk in its theatres. A group has sprung up online boycotting Cinemark theatres and encouraging viewers to see Milk at an alternative theatre chain.
Utah gay rights advocates oppose a boycott of the state. State senator Scott McCoy: "Now is no time to boycott Utah. Now is the time to stand up in solidarity ... We need to show Utahns that we are not going to go away and that we need to be paid attention to. We need rights for our families."
Tiny but visible counter-protest seen in Salt Lake City over the weekend.
The Mormon church blamed white powder it received in envelopes on gay activists, calling it domestic terrorism: "'We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few,' church President Thomas S. Monson said in a statement. The Utah Pride Center, a gay rights group, put out its own statement calling the powder hoaxes and acts of vandalism 'deplorable.' However, the group said, 'It is false to conclude that yesterday's suspicious package came from gay protesters. Overwhelmingly, gay and allied Utahns have expressed their pain, frustration and commitment to securing rights through peaceful demonstrations and marches.' The coalition that ran the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 also issued a condemnation Friday. 'The NO on 8 campaign was about civil rights and seeking equality for all Californians. We have said time and again that the Mormon church deserves the same respect as any other religion,' said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group. The FBI is still investigating both cases, spokesman Juan T. Becerra said, noting that it's a crime to release a substance to threaten harm and stoke public fear."
Posted 3:32 PM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, Mormon, News, Religion, Sacramento, Salt Lake City | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The Queen is as always, full of shit, but got one sentence correct:
when you start attacking religious people, their churches, etc. you are only giving them the greatest ammunition of all -- a chance at "martyrdom."
That is absolutely correct. And it does absolutely NO good to alienate anyone who considers themselves part of any of the following groups (African-Americans, Bible-Readers, Religious, Christians, Conservatives, etc.)
What we need is more votes next time this comes around. We need to increase support. Gain friends. Ignore the enemies. Fight hate with compassion. Turn their lies and fear-mongering back on them without attacking their beliefs, culture, or identity.
I actually think we could learn a lesson from the Mormons here. They've perfected double-speak to seem non-threatening.
Posted by: Alan D | Nov 17, 2008 5:54:58 PM
Far more serious than the fact that we are paying his salary is the fact that he is not JUST an employee. Senior level executives set the atmosphere of the workplace and their personal behavior necessarily reflects back on the company, because if they didn't personally represent the company, they wouldn't be senior leadership.
When a mailroom clerk contributes to Yes on 8, I can accept the VP's point; the mailroom clerk does not have authority within the firm. However, when a C?O, VP, Director or President does it, they're bringing the company with them, whether the company likes it or not.
Posted by: Dave | Nov 17, 2008 6:03:45 PM
Backatcha Seattle. If anyone wants to hear the hilarious voice of gay mormon Utah give Sister Dottie's pod cast a try www.sisterdottie.com/
Posted by: Rikard | Nov 17, 2008 6:23:28 PM
looks like half the comments on Towleroad are by Prop 8 supporters now... and they seem to be the cream of the moronic crop.
Posted by: skanks suck | Nov 17, 2008 6:31:02 PM
Het Paul C -- go ream out The Queen's decaying asshole. She'll greatly appreciate it cause no one wants to fuck her.
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 17, 2008 6:57:47 PM
A positive and constructive comment brilliantly made, David. You should have been the face of No On 8. Who wouldn't have been charmed?
Posted by: paul c | Nov 17, 2008 8:33:45 PM
"Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions do not afford gays and lesbians over 1000 rights that a marriage does."
Listen MikeinSanJose:
It appears you need an education on the Laws on Domestic Partnership in your own state...
"297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Domestic Partnerships have every Right the Hetero-Marriages do.
Go educate yourself instead of speading your hate and misinformation.
Posted by: Zak | Nov 17, 2008 8:38:42 PM
It appears that this Gay and Lesbian hissy fit is over nothing. You're giving your cause a black eye over smoke and mirros boys. :blush:
Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 17, 2008 8:47:29 PM
Zak, it wasn't Mike who said that and you're wrong. Separate but equal isn't equal, and there is currently no recognition of CUs, DPs, or same-sex marriage at the federal level, big difference. (Anyone who isn't a troll shouldn't need this explained.) If they're the same, why don't we give straight people domestic partnerships instead of marriage and see how they like it?
And, anonymous, the hissy fit is coming from the opposition who needs to start worrying about their own lives instead of obsessing over and meddling in ours.
Posted by: Ernie | Nov 17, 2008 9:40:36 PM
Queen? STFU. Seriously, You sound like someone who needs to be bent over at least twice!
The simple matter of FACT that it does not matter HOW the people voted. Just ask the losers on Prop 4. This is the THIRD TIME the people of California REJECTED their crap and yet the right-wing wackos keep putting it on the ballot.
And YES, the ignorant religious freaks in California voted for rejection of Gay Rights. Well guess what, you fools lost the first time when it came to the California Supreme Court. You will lose again.
And F*** Mormons. I have no sympathy to them or any lemmings that follow their phony religion (CULT).
Posted by: Mike | Nov 17, 2008 10:02:35 PM
F**k the Jeezus Freaks! All my freakin' life they've tried to ram their damn beliefs down my throat and the throats of my family. They don't respond to polite "no thank-yous" at all! This is a SECULAR COUNTRY. Thanks to the FIRST AMENDMENT the law is based on the constitution (the supreme law of OUR LAND) not the MUTHAFUCKIN' BIBLE! It's time to take back our secular government and drive the small, bigoted minority that has gotten a strangle hold on it OUT! They are forcing their narrow, bigoted view of Christianity on an entire country that DOES NOT WANT TO BE A MEMBER OF THEIR GODDAMN CHURCH! And it's not just agnostics like me, its Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Athiests, too! The rest of us are not members of the WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH and we don't want to live under their mean-spirited thumb!
Nice and Polite HAS NOT WORKED! IT IS TIME TO BE PROUD AND OUT LOUD!!!
Posted by: Wheezy | Nov 17, 2008 10:30:09 PM
...And we don't want to be MUTHA FUCKIN' MORMONS EITHER!!!
Posted by: Wheezy | Nov 17, 2008 10:31:44 PM
Zak, Civil Unions are not equivalent, because they deviate in two important ways, despite the law that you cited.
1. They are not portable. You move from the issuing jurisdiction and your relationship, more often than not, evaporates. This restricts your ability to improve your economic status in a way that no married couple experiences. Some jurisdictions do recognize arrangements made elsewhere, but these agreements must be legislated one at a time and between each and every combination of jurisdictions and legal arrangements. So civil unions restrict your liberty and restrict your pursuit of happiness and waste government time and money, so everyone is hurt by the duplicate structures.
2. They almost always require co-residency. This means that if your jobs require that you live apart, your relationship vanishes. Again, this is another blatant restriction on your ability to improve your own economic status, on your pursuit of happiness. And again, this can be countermanded by yet more legislation, but that's still more time and money wasted.
The argument about federal rights is moot, because the federal DOMA (as unconstitutional as it is IMO) is in force and even if every state let us marry, we still wouldn't have those federal rights.
Posted by: Dave | Nov 17, 2008 11:03:20 PM
I've always thought "The Queens" comments boring and tired.
Did I leave out cliched?
I'm glad she finally exposed herself. All that "I'd put his willy in my royal jellyhole" or whatever the hell she was always on about always struck me as some Quentin Crisp wannabe. A couple of times she gave me a (very) minor chuckle. Minor.
I am surprised at her roll over and play dead approach. How very "Jews for Hitler" of her.
I do, however, think that fighting and protesting loudly outside of churches is bad PR. It would be better to offer to help out at churches (especially Black)or in the communities that voted against us.
Let's face it, us gays are a cool bunch of people once you actually get to know us. Let's try killing them with kindness.
Posted by: Derek Washington | Nov 17, 2008 11:32:16 PM
For that matter, when was the last time that your regional gay rights organization ventured beyond the urban center to the exurbs - or God forbid - the rural areas?
The vote to ban same-sex marriage is fundamentally rooted in misunderstanding of gays and homosexuality. So we need to reach out to disadvantaged neighborhoods and rural areas, not to gentrify and evict, but to humanize us while improving their condition.
Posted by: Dave | Nov 18, 2008 12:28:44 AM
Correct there not portable...
PS. Every time my wife and I go back to her home country our relationship "Evaporates". At least in the eyes of her government. So I know exactly where you are coming from... except for that you also have Taboos of others to overcome as well.
Some one said "Why don't you geta domestic partnership and see how you like it".
Personally I think the government should get out of the "Marriage" business all together. And everyone including heteros should have register domestic partnerships. That way the law could be trully blind to race, gender and religion. And everyone would be happy. Then let the religous people go to their churchs for their "Weddings/Marriages", and the other various configurations of unions and families can go to theirs. And everyone would be happy.
Posted by: Zak | Nov 18, 2008 3:21:11 AM
That's a valid perspective, Zak, but do you really think the majority of heterosexual people would accept having their civil marriages reduced to domestic partnerships or civil unions?
It's absurd to say, "Sorry, in the eyes of this country, you're not married anymore." They would protest - and rightfully so - just as much, if not more, than this community is now.
I'm sorry you have to experience the unfortunate circumstance of losing your legal relationship when you travel to a different country. Just imagine what it would be like to experience that by crossing a county line.
Posted by: Dave | Nov 18, 2008 9:05:06 AM
"Personally I think the government should get out of the "Marriage" business all together. And everyone including heteros should have register domestic partnerships."
I'll agree with you there, Zak. I'd be happy to turn the symbolic trappings of marriage over to the churches IF the state was only in the business of providing CUs for everyone, straight and gay. But, as Dave pointed out, it's unlikely to happen because of heterosexual resistance. As it stands, marriage is a civil institution with benefits provided by the state, and there's no valid reason--beyond discrimination--for there to be a separate system for gay people.
Posted by: Ernie | Nov 18, 2008 11:08:12 AM
Why would they be... Its not taking anything away in the eyes of the law from those who are currently married so I don't see it as being "reduced" to a domestic partnership or civil union. A marriage in the eyes of the law for all intents and purposes is just a civil union, so the government can arbitrate legally between the two parties. And as far as the law is concerned thats as far as it should go. We are fighting over the definition of a word people. One side wants to be recognized equally by their government, the other side wants the traditional definintion to remain the same. So how do we cater to all. We create a new term (or just use an old one, Civil Union)... that is broad enough to encompass all under the umbrella in complete neutrality in the eyes of the law and then give it all the powers and rights that are embued and encompassed by the current term that is being faught over.
See its much more than rights that the LaGC are fighting for. They are fighting to force respect and acceptance of themselvesand their lifestyle by society at large. Which is basically infringing on the rights of those they are fighting against.
We all have the right to be biggots. To pout and be mean and vindictive and push boycotts and force resignations from life long jobs and discriminate against people. This has happend on both sides of this debate, arguably more on on side in some respects than the other and vice versa, but...Isn't that just devolving into chaos?
Posted by: Zak | Nov 18, 2008 11:54:53 AM
"They are fighting to force respect and acceptance of themselvesand their lifestyle by society at large. Which is basically infringing on the rights of those they are fighting against."
1) Full civil marriage equality for everyone, straight and gay, does not infringe on anyone's rights.
2) Gay people are not trying to "force respect and acceptance." I couldn't care less what bigots think of me. I do care when they vote to discriminate against me. That's not a belief, it's an action, one that infringes upon my civil rights.
3) Being gay is not a lifestyle, any more than being straight is.
Posted by: Ernie | Nov 18, 2008 1:03:45 PM
3) Being gay is not a lifestyle, any more than being straight is.
Here Ill have to disagree... Its learned behavior. other wise you wouldn't have people who are polerized to one side or the other and those who are bi that can do both. Bi's are bi because they have shed the inhabition and taboos and can move between either without preference or aversion.
Posted by: BERT | Nov 18, 2008 8:23:34 PM
Bert (aka Zak), since almost all gay people grow up in straight families, they would "learn" to be straight. We did not learn to be gay. We are gay, period, just like straight people are straight, and bi people are bi. It's not complicated. I'm not quite sure why you're so interested in homosexuality, since presumably it doesn't affect your life, but it's time to move on to other topics.
Posted by: Ernie | Nov 18, 2008 8:52:46 PM
Unhand Ernie, Bert (aka Zak), he's mine. And we'll have no Russian appetizers without vodka, thanks.
You have every right to be a bigot. But only the Yes on 8 side imposes on anyone. Gay people don't affect straight marriage at all, and they certainly don't go into churches and tell them how to live their lives.
Neither do they claim that straight people have "learned" their behavior. I always find it odd that some anti-gay experts (and amateurs like Zak) think they know what being gay is all about. Why should they? It's no more reasonable than only relying on white racists to tell us what being black is all about.
Marriages are recognized not only from one state to another, but from one country to another. If you are married in Russia, you do not have to get married again in the US. Trust me on this: been there, done that. One civil marriage is enough (and it was a civil marriage, church weddings were frowned on the USSR).
Civil Unions, on the other hand, were invented in my state out of whole cloth. They know what they are in New Jersey and Connecticut -- but CT has now decided they're not good enough. For the most part they are recognized neither in other states nor in other countries. I doubt the latter will ever change.
Things like the French PACS are not recognized outside France.
With marriage you at least have a chance. They know what that is from Albania to Zimbabwe. That makes a difference.
Posted by: KevinVT | Nov 18, 2008 8:57:18 PM
Maybe I am ignorant...
Haven't we already established that separate is no equal?
Posted by: Beka | Nov 19, 2008 11:00:06 AM