NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok guys, there has been a lot of (justifiable) anger over Proposition 8 passing, and a lot of it from certian members has been directed towards the Mormon Church (in many ways, justifiable). But, were we direct the anger is irrelevent. What is important is what we learn from this, and there are two big lessons to learn:

1. Our enemies (and yes, it is fair to all them enemies, the word is a deliberate choice of words) have changed the way the game is played. The battlefields are not state by state anymore. Organizations in the state of Utah funneled money into California to fuel a campagin of lies and bigotry. So, we need to stop thinking of things in terms of states also. Yes, many of us were cheerleaders on the side lines when California's supreme court shot down the law banning gay marriage. However, our enemies went a stop further. They actively participated in events in their neioghboring state. We need to stop thinking of this in terms of states. Each fight for gay rights needs to be considered on the national scale.

2. Our enemies are more organized than us. This we have consistanly been shown. However, it was more apperant here. From all reports, the "Yes to Prop 8" side faught a hell of a lot harder than the "No" side. We need that same organizations.

So, what can we do? I want this thread to be a place for us to convine so all of us can help. Those of you in California, keep us updated on the cases that are being brought to bear. Tell us how we can help, via letters of support, protests, boycotts, maybe even donating money to movements, organizations and campaigns.

I know on another thread The Cat Tribe posted a list of businesses Mormons were heavily a part of for the purpose of boycotts. If you could repost that here TCT, thatd be nice.

Lets get organized people. Foreigners, even you can help, even if its only with letters of support and encouragement.

A note to those of you who were Pro-Prop 8. This is clearly marked as a thread for those of us who disagree to meet and communicate, give us some organization. Any comments to debate Prop 8 or about how great it is will be considered thread jacking and I will swiftly report you to the Mods. If you want to post your bigotry, do it elsewhere.

So lets go people. How can those of us outside California help?

*Hands eight stars to KoL*

You might want to pin these to your shoulders.

You are absolutely right, as I said in the other thread. But I don't think trying to keep up some sort of forum thread is the way to go about it, one of the obvious flaws being that it will eventually sink off the top pages, or be locked, or devolve into some sort of flame fest, or something.

But you're absolutely right, bitching won't fix it.

Wouldn't there essentially have to be another proposition put forth? $73 million went into Prop 8, fairly evenly divided among the two sides, but it seems to have been 'won' by outright lies, slick media campaigns and an appeal to ignorance.

Throwing money at the problem probably won't be the answer. You'd have to address the ignorance at the root. I'm not sure how you could do that, honestly. This state-by-state thing vexes me.

You are absolutely right, as I said in the other thread. But I don't think trying to keep up some sort of forum thread is the way to go about it, one of the obvious flaws being that it will eventually sink off the top pages, or be locked, or devolve into some sort of flame fest, or something.

But you're absolutely right, bitching won't fix it.

Indeed, it may not last long, but right now, its the best Ive got. And least we can get some ideas.


Anyone here good with web design? Or have a blog? If we could get some sort of website going, that would be fantastic. Im no good at such things, but I know we have a lot of computer programers here.

So lets go people. How can those of us outside California help?

I certainly agree with the sentiment here. "Don't mourn. Organize."

As a foreigner I think I can best contribute at this point by asking some stupid, obvious questions. What options exist for striking this proposition down? I've heard some murmurs about 'legal challenges' in the news, but I'm unclear how an amendment to the state constitution can be challenged in court. Can the process by which Prop 8 was passed be challenged?

Can a counter-proposition be proposed for the next election? How does one go about getting that on the ballot?

Indeed, it may not last long, but right now, its the best Ive got. And least we can get some ideas.


Anyone here good with web design? Or have a blog? If we could get some sort of website going, that would be fantastic. Im no good at such things, but I know we have a lot of computer programers here.

No need to reinvent the wheel (http://www.noonprop8.com/). Your best bet is to hook up with the organisations that have been fighting this from day one.

Well, it doesn't do much to help I guess, but I just got thoroughly educated on the US law system, based on my ignorance around Prop. 8! Now I feel like I can talk with, while not an authority, atleast an air of knowledge!

No need to reinvent the wheel (http://www.noonprop8.com/). Your best bet is to hook up with the organisations that have been fighting this from day one.

Excellent. Now, if we could just get that list of businesses to boycott from TCT (I cant even remember were he posted them).

don't think it is anything new pretty certain GSANI GLAD sent money against it. Just think those organizations let their guard down and didn't realize they could lose on an issues even when elected Obama.

Excellent. Now, if we could just get that list of businesses to boycott from TCT (I cant even remember were he posted them).

Something that was pointed out to me recently:

If you click the number next to a thread, it shows you all the posters in that thread, and you can then choose one of them, and it shows you all their posts in that thread.

Or, if you mean which thread, it's uh, the one on Mormons and gay marriage. :tongue:

Well, it's not simply organization, it's funding. I don't have the figures, but from the sheer volume of Yes on 8 ads I saw (delivered to doorstep, signs on lawns, mailing, Web) and from this LDS funding business it's clear they had a lot more money.

More money, more advertising, more success.

But there is a need for organization too. I think you'll see it. To too many people, as I've explained in other threads on the subject, they thought the Proposition 8 ads were so absurd (which they were), that the proposition itself just far too fringe-lunacy (which it is) that it didn't have a chance of passing at all (which was incorrect, obviously.)

To other people, who I call uninformed because the only thing they bring to the political table is watching cable TV and knowing about Obama/McCain/Palin. There were a lot of first-time voters too. I think too many of these people just went with whatever ad they'd most recently, or most often seen. Statistically this would be more likely a Yes on 8.

To both these groups we just need a wake-up call and, to be honest, Prop 8 passing and the subsequent fallout and (righteous) indignation is it.

To the ones who voted for 8 because they really think gay marriage threatens (or involves) them at all, or because they are homophobes, or both - I don't know what we can do about them. But I know we outnumber them. It's just a matter of increasing awareness and getting more people to vote.

I think getting more people to vote is always a better idea, though. It's like with representative sampling - our government works better, the more people are involved in the election. It's more representative of the whole population, anyway. Even this election, with record turnout, still only had something like a third of the eligible voters? I don't know exactly, but the point is, we can always do better in terms of turnout.

Finally, I think what we need to do is to continue to ridicule the 'reasons' for Prop 8 in the first place, through open and honest discussion thereof. Don't let anyone bury it beyond the outskirts of the short-term modern attention span. The ideas are backwards, shameful and irrational, and that point needs to be hammered home. So that when and if the people can vote on this again, we get it right.

Excellent. Now, if we could just get that list of businesses to boycott from TCT (I cant even remember were he posted them).

There's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Management_Corporation) list on wiki.

'ere we go lads:

Here is some information about Mormon-owned/operated companies:

LDS Inc. - a partial listing of corporations owned by the Mormon Church (http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon410.htm) (this source is dubious, but it's list seems to be confirmed by other sources I have seen)

Companies owned and/or operated by Mormons (http://whoaremormons.blogspot.com/2008/07/companies-owned-andor-operated-by.html)

Mormons hold a strong presence in the business world. Here are some examples of companies owned, founded, and/or operated by Latter-day Saints:

Sunrider International
Marriott
Latham & Watkins
Franklin Covey
Novell
Huntsman Chemical
Bain Capital
NuSkin
Black & Decker
Spectra
JetBlue
Azul
Zions Securities Corp.
Bonneville Comm.
Telefonica Brasil
American Express
Dell
Deloitte Touche


Mormon Stock Index: (http://www.mormonstockindex.com/)

The Mormon Stock Index tries to measure the stock market performance of companies run by Mormon executives. More than 50 companies have been part of the index in its two year history, including more than 30 companies on the index today. Companies are included as long as they have a Mormon executive on their management team, and as long as the company's public stock market capitalization exceeds $100 million.

Listed companies:

Affiliated Computer Services
AES Corp.
Avista Corp.
American Express
Black & Decker
Cadence Design
Corvis
Central Pacific Bank
1-800-Contacts
Cygnus Inc.
Diebold
Dell Computer
Dionex
Downey Savings and Loan
EarthShell
Franklin Covey
Hillenbrand Industries
Headwaters, Inc.
Hollywood Entertainment
Host Marriott
Iomega
JP Realty
Key Corp.
Knight Transportation
K-Swiss, Inc.
La Quinta Properties, Inc.
Marriott International
Micrel Semiconductor
Micro General
Merit Medical Systems
Monaco Coach
Microsemi Corp.
Myriad Genetics
Novell
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
NuSkin
Oil States International
Oakley
priceline.com Inc.
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Ryder Systems
SkyWest Airlines
Swift Transportation
Cornerstone REIT
Tropical Sportswear
Williams Companies, Inc.
Zions Bancorp



A big fuckin thank you to The Cat Tribe for digging this up. The above are businesses we can boycott.

No on Prop. 8 was fairly well organized; the trouble was that it lagged behind in funding. Religious institutions are very good at rallying financial support, and this time they were mostly on the other side.

Oh, well. We'll fight harder next time.

Well, it's not simply organization, it's funding. I don't have the figures, but from the sheer volume of Yes on 8 ads I saw (delivered to doorstep, signs on lawns, mailing, Web) and from this LDS funding business it's clear they had a lot more money.

That doesn't appear to be true (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10889066?nclick_check=1).


Opponents of Proposition 8 had a slight lead in contributions as of Monday, having raised $37.6 million. Supporters of the gay marriage ban had raised $35.8 million.

That doesn't appear to be true (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10889066?nclick_check=1).

Then I will just have to say that that extra 1.something million obviously wasn't put to effective use. But you can't ignore money in all of this, nor will boycotts be all that terribly effective or popular a tactic. Money needs to be raised. I'm sure there's already organizations to donate to already to work on this.

No on Prop. 8 was fairly well organized; the trouble was that it lagged behind in funding. Religious institutions are very good at rallying financial support, and this time they were mostly on the other side.

Oh, well. We'll fight harder next time.

They didn't lag that far behind in funding.

I don't think funding alone is the answer.

The pro-prop 8 campaign appealed to people's fears, bigotry, and ignorance. Those are powerful forces, and very hard to overcome.

The problem is messaging not money.

One simple message: gays are bad

The rebuttal is long and complicated, not to the enlightened souls of NSG perhaps but to those who need convincing.

People who think prop 8 is a good idea should head to a country that matches their interests better, such as Iran or North Korea.

The problem is messaging not money.

One simple message: gays are bad

The rebuttal is long and complicated, not to the enlightened souls of NSG perhaps but to those who need convincing.

Ayup.

The problem is messaging not money.

One simple message: gays are bad

The rebuttal is long and complicated, not to the enlightened souls of NSG perhaps but to those who need convincing.

Then we really need to be hammering out the many, many studies that have been done that show, for example, that children with gay parents grow up just as healthy and happy as children with straight parents.

They are abundant. But for some reason people are reluctant to use them.

No on Prop. 8 was fairly well organized; the trouble was that it lagged behind in funding. Religious institutions are very good at rallying financial support, and this time they were mostly on the other side.

Oh, well. We'll fight harder next time.
Good to see you again, Soheran.

Anyway, we could try getting support from Unitarian Universalists. We already have both the ACLU and Lamba Legal, which are pretty big and well-endowed legal foundations that support us. We can also look into improving the material conditions in which LGBT and queer people live by campaigning for such things as universal health care. (This is also a wider issue that can bring in support outside our cause, yet we stand to benefit.)

Also in connection to advertising, there's the issue of message: "No" ads (or so I've read) tended to leave same-sex couples themselves out of the picture, emphasizing marriage as such and that rights shouldn't be taken away. It struck me at the time that while it offended my sensibilities, this was fundamentally a good idea--but with the failure it might be worth reconsidering. Perhaps it made the issue too abstract... an abstraction contrasting sharply with the emotionally-loaded messages coming from the other side about the indoctrination of children and the weakening of families.

That doesn't appear to be true (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10889066?nclick_check=1).

That's interesting... but on the other hand, the simple comparison doesn't address the question of whether more funding might have helped the "No" side.

Wouldn't there essentially have to be another proposition put forth? $73 million went into Prop 8, fairly evenly divided among the two sides, but it seems to have been 'won' by outright lies, slick media campaigns and an appeal to ignorance.

Throwing money at the problem probably won't be the answer. You'd have to address the ignorance at the root. I'm not sure how you could do that, honestly. This state-by-state thing vexes me.

A minimum of two years must pass before it can be repealed. There are legal challenges going on right now, but they might fail.

So the soonest another ballot proposition could be done to change California's constitution back would be November, 2010.

Then I will just have to say that that extra 1.something million obviously wasn't put to effective use. But you can't ignore money in all of this, nor will boycotts be all that terribly effective or popular a tactic. Money needs to be raised. I'm sure there's already organizations to donate to already to work on this.

likely just means California is becoming a more homophobic place.
Might be joinging the red states following the advice/threats of their governator

Then we really need to be hammering out the many, many studies that have been done that show, for example, that children with gay parents grow up just as healthy and happy as children with straight parents.

They are abundant. But for some reason people are reluctant to use them.

Now you know what demographic (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10909847?source%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B8C7F471EACE0DA4EF2.html) you have to reach though...blacks, latinos, etc.

Gloria Nieto had a sense of those demographic forces, too. When Nieto, a lead organizer for the No on Proposition 8 campaign in San Jose, wanted to distribute campaign signs in Spanish and Vietnamese this fall, she had to get them made herself because the statewide campaign only had signs in English.

...

"The LGBT community has not done a good job of having relations with people outside of a white middle-class group," said Nieto. Among the leadership of the No on 8 campaign, "I could not find any evidence of any African-Americans or Latinos that were on the steering group. Even if it was one or two, that's not good representation."

It particularly rankled Nieto that the No on 8 television ads showed very few gay or lesbian people — an omission also noted by other critics.

"We had no identity; we had no names," Nieto said. "We were just this group of people that the Mormons were painting as asking for special rights and trying to make their children be taught about gay marriage in the first grade."

likely just means California is becoming a more homophobic place.

No. I think the reasons I described are more likely, for the reasons I described.


Might be joinging the red states following the advice/threats of their governator

Hardly.

likely just means California is becoming a more homophobic place.

Prop. 22, banning same-sex marriage, passed in California some years ago with 61% of the vote. Prop. 8 passed with 52%.

More homophobic? Nonsense. California is not San Francisco.

Prop. 22, banning same-sex marriage, passed in California some years ago with 61% of the vote. Prop. 8 passed with 52%.

More homophobic? Nonsense. California is not San Francisco.

Sacramento and San Francisco are very different cities.

All right, Im going to bed. Keep the ideas coming people. And please, if someone comes in here and starts ranting about gays, report them to the mods for threadjacking for me.

Prop. 22, banning same-sex marriage, passed in California some years ago with 61% of the vote. Prop. 8 passed with 52%.

More homophobic? Nonsense. California is not San Francisco.
That's interesting. Wasn't Prop 22 the ban that got struck down by Cali SC? In which case the "backlash" was not as harsh as the initial passage?

In terms of advertising, it needs to be personalised for those who need convincing, it was what, 2-3% vote difference?

I'd have gone with a stamp image - Rights Denied - with the sub-header - Next time it could be you

Or...

Rights denied - what if it was your child?

I'd then support with heavy education on the issues through the web and related leaflets etc.,

This is without thinking much but it needs to be more direct and to the person, the issue should have been over equal rights and not defense of gay people specifically.

Anyway, the fact is, people were more concerned with the general election and, I suspect, didn't really think it would get through.

Having said that, if it requires another freaking 2 years before anything can be done then I'd hope that enough progress in education would change the vote anyway.

Wasn't Prop 22 the ban that got struck down by Cali SC?

Yes, it was.

In which case the "backlash" was not as harsh as the initial passage?

Right. 9% difference in eight years.

They're on the losing side of history.

I say we encourage the Mormons to get an animatronic figure from their dioramas to run for national public office. Then they can throw away their money on his campaign again.

Before I go to bed, a (mostly) joking idea for an ad campaign:

Ban gay marriage, and Willow Rosenberg gets angry.
You wouldn't like her when she's angry. (Really.)

I wonder if we could recruit Alyson Hannigan?

That's interesting. Wasn't Prop 22 the ban that got struck down by Cali SC? In which case the "backlash" was not as harsh as the initial passage?

In ten years, this wouldn't have passed. If the legal challenges fail, we need to ensure that it's repealed in two years. I think it can be done.

And as has been seen before, a victory in California is big, and if marriage rights for gays become entrenched in California, the rest will eventually follow.

In terms of advertising, it needs to be personalised for those who need convincing, it was what, 2-3% vote difference?

I'd have gone with a stamp image - Rights Denied - with the sub-header - Next time it could be you

Or...

Rights denied - what if it was your child?

I'd then support with heavy education on the issues through the web and related leaflets etc.,

This is without thinking much but it needs to be more direct and to the person, the issue should have been over equal rights and not defense of gay people specifically.

Anyway, the fact is, people were more concerned with the general election and, I suspect, didn't really think it would get through.

Having said that, if it requires another freaking 2 years before anything can be done then I'd hope that enough progress in education would change the vote anyway.

If we continue the fight during the next two years, we will win.

People who think prop 8 is a good idea should head to a country that matches their interests better, such as Iran or North Korea.

People who voted "yes" on Prop. 8, I would guess, simply believed one or more of the arguments made in the pro-8 ads - that gay marriage would result somehow in limitations on churches, expose schoolchildren to that ever-insidious "gay agenda," encourage judicial activism, etc. etc. And I'm sure some voters were driven by homophobia or religious bigotry, too. But based on discussions with my co-workers and neighbors, the bigots weren't the ones who pushed 8 over 50%. Regular, well-meaning people bought specious arguments backed by big money and sold in shiny packages.

Like Soheran mentioned, California voters are voting for things like Prop. 8 by slimmer and slimmer margins, and the increased African American and Hispanic turnout, in conjunction with large sums of Mormon money, probably made the difference this time around. In short, Prop. 8 wound up winning, paradoxically, with the help of an Obama coattails effect, backed by money from a group who, historically, were persecuted for their beliefs on marriage, which would be kinda funny if it hadn't hurt so many people. But it won by the slimmest of margins, which I would expect to disappear by 2010.

People who voted "yes" on Prop. 8, I would guess, simply believed one or more of the arguments made in the pro-8 ads - that gay marriage would result somehow in limitations on churches, expose schoolchildren to that ever-insidious "gay agenda," encourage judicial activism, etc. etc. And I'm sure some voters were driven by homophobia or religious bigotry, too. But based on discussions with my co-workers and neighbors, the bigots weren't the ones who pushed 8 over 50%. Regular, well-meaning people bought specious arguments backed by big money and sold in shiny packages.

Like Soheran mentioned, California voters are voting for things like Prop. 8 by slimmer and slimmer margins, and the increased African American and Hispanic turnout, in conjunction with large sums of Mormon money, probably made the difference this time around. In short, Prop. 8 wound up winning, paradoxically, with the help of an Obama coattails effect, which would be kinda funny if it hadn't hurt so many people. But it won by the slimmest of margins, which I would expect to disappear by 2010.

I hope you're right.

At the same time, I want it to be overturned decisively next time around, so that it can't come up again.

Before I go to bed, a (mostly) joking idea for an ad campaign:

Ban gay marriage, and Willow Rosenberg gets angry.
You wouldn't like her when she's angry. (Really.)

I wonder if we could recruit Alyson Hannigan?

I don't know--Samuel L. Jackson did a No on 8 ad, and we still lost.

At the same time, I want it to be overturned decisively next time around, so that it can't come up again.

Once they lose by ballot once, they will lose every other time afterward. Nowhere has popular opinion moved backward on this topic.

I don't know--Samuel L. Jackson did a No on 8 ad, and we still lost.

Yeah, but when Samuel L. Jackson gets pissed off, he doesn't turn into an evil being of near unstoppable power, rip the skin clean off your flesh, and proceed to nearly destroy the world.

Also, Alyson Hannigan is really hot. :fluffle:

Also, I really should be going to bed, but I can't stop posting!

Once they lose by ballot once, they will lose every other time afterward. Nowhere has popular opinion moved backward on this topic.

And as I've said before, demographics are moving in our favor. Unfortunately, it may take a while for all of the bigots to die off.

I don't know--Samuel L. Jackson did a No on 8 ad, and we still lost.

Wait... he did?


That's awesome. He just got hella points in my book.

Once they lose by ballot once, they will lose every other time afterward. Nowhere has popular opinion moved backward on this topic.

Depends on turnout. While two years from now they might be in the minority, that won't matter if we don't muster our full strength on voting day.

Hopefully it get's thrown out as incompatible with the constitution.

If not then The LGTBS Army shall ride to the rescue! or not - we're lazy.

Guys, I've seen this amongst Progressives too many times. They get passionate about something, try to improve it, fail and give it up. We need an overall Progressive Agenda, not just "single issue voters". Progressive must join and fight together.

Also, the advertisements ran in California against Prop. 8 were just plain pathetic. I've seen them. One of them read "You know me, I am your second cousin and I'm gay" and had an ugly chick on it. Now I'm ok with gays and ugly chicks, but that's not how you advertise politically to the main stream. Instead you have a poster of Angelina Jolie knocking out Ellen DeGeneres and saying "wanna see us do this again? No on Prop. 8". Yes it's not collegial, but it's POLITICS. And that's what sadly most Progressives don't get. Don't re-invent the wheel, fight the battles, use provocative tactics if you have to, but do it for the right reason. Otherwise Progressives will just keep on losing.

Step I: Get an overall Progressive Agenda, not just Prop. 8
Step II: Start funding it. Even a $5 can help!
Step III: Do step I before Step II.

We have 2 years to organize and win. Let's do it, let's pass a Truly Progressive Proposition in 2010, that's not just about Gay Marriage. Look at Diebold - they're conservatives all over the place, not just on marriage, and unless we have a Progressive Agenda on all issues, we will lose, every time.

Prop. 22, banning same-sex marriage, passed in California some years ago with 61% of the vote. Prop. 8 passed with 52%.

More homophobic? Nonsense. California is not San Francisco.

Difference between an act and amendment. Also voter turn out was different. Very low turn out in 2000 something like 10% less then 2008.
The Gallup polls at the time predicted a 49% defeat to 51% victory and likely corresponds to more average voter for California.
Also this is with a magnetic Democratic front runner. instead of Al gore who just barely got the popular vote when he should have sailed in easily off the good times Clinton has given us.

Difference between an act and amendment.

I don't think this made all that much difference, since the California Supreme Court struck down Prop. 22 and forced the issue.

Very low turn out in 2000 something like 10% less then 2008.

But turnout may well have helped Prop. 8.

Also this is with a magnetic Democratic front runner.

Who did essentially nothing to stop Prop. 8. What does Obama have to do with anything?

I say we encourage the Mormons to get an animatronic figure from their dioramas to run for national public office. Then they can throw away their money on his campaign again.Isn't this a John Fogarty song?

We need an overall Progressive Agenda, not just "single issue voters". Progressive must join and fight together.

Progressives won on pretty much every other issue. We have every reason to be focusing on this one at the moment.

Why don't we start with ourselves (speaking as a gay person)? Come out of the closet - all the way - if you haven't already. Be open about your relationship.

Find some kind of civil/religious ceremony if you're so inclined and call your "partner" your husband/wife. Don't gender-bend, and stop calling him or her your "roommate" to your family!

Ask your Human Resources department for benefit forms, and ask why domestic partners aren't allowed. Or how to fill them in to include your partner. When told "we don't do that" simply ask "how far along are the plans to do that, and will you please inform me of it?" Don't ask if there are plans; act as if it's the most normal thing in the world that plans are being prepared and let HR enjoy being on the defensive for once. Ask "why not?" to HR, your line manager, any employee forums you might have, etc.

We homosexuals aren't going to get our rights by citing long lists of studies showing we make perfectly fine parents despite our homosexuality. We aren't going to get them by arguing that we aren't threatening *your* marriage. We aren't going to get them by making the "other" person feel ashamed by being discriminatory.

We'll get them either through playing the political games and manipulations better than "the other side" at an opportune moment, by going to court, or by attraction. SHOW "the other side" that they don't have anything to fear instead of explaining it to them. That'll reach their hearts, and not stay stuck in their minds.

Because a lot of people might agree with the "No on Prop 8" position in their heads, but on a gut level have enough personal issues with homosexuality that they still voted yes.

Why don't we start with ourselves (speaking as a gay person)? Come out of the closet - all the way - if you haven't already. Be open about your relationship.

Find some kind of civil/religious ceremony if you're so inclined and call your "partner" your husband/wife. Don't gender-bend, and stop calling him or her your "roommate" to your family!

Ask your Human Resources department for benefit forms, and ask why domestic partners aren't allowed. Or how to fill them in to include your partner. When told "we don't do that" simply ask "how far along are the plans to do that, and will you please inform me of it?" Don't ask if there are plans; act as if it's the most normal thing in the world that plans are being prepared and let HR enjoy being on the defensive for once. Ask "why not?" to HR, your line manager, any employee forums you might have, etc.

We homosexuals aren't going to get our rights by citing long lists of studies showing we make perfectly fine parents despite our homosexuality. We aren't going to get them by arguing that we aren't threatening *your* marriage. We aren't going to get them by making the "other" person feel ashamed by being discriminatory.

We'll get them either through playing the political games and manipulations better than "the other side" at an opportune moment, by going to court, or by attraction. SHOW "the other side" that they don't have anything to fear instead of explaining it to them. That'll reach their hearts, and not stay stuck in their minds.

Because a lot of people might agree with the "No on Prop 8" position in their heads, but on a gut level have enough personal issues with homosexuality that they still voted yes.
I agree that staying out and visible is a good idea, but "don't gender-bend"? Why not? I either walk with my trans brothers and sisters or I don't.

Why don't we start with ourselves (speaking as a gay person)? Come out of the closet - all the way - if you haven't already. Be open about your relationship.

Find some kind of civil/religious ceremony if you're so inclined and call your "partner" your husband/wife. Don't gender-bend, and stop calling him or her your "roommate" to your family!

Ask your Human Resources department for benefit forms, and ask why domestic partners aren't allowed. Or how to fill them in to include your partner. When told "we don't do that" simply ask "how far along are the plans to do that, and will you please inform me of it?" Don't ask if there are plans; act as if it's the most normal thing in the world that plans are being prepared and let HR enjoy being on the defensive for once. Ask "why not?" to HR, your line manager, any employee forums you might have, etc.

We homosexuals aren't going to get our rights by citing long lists of studies showing we make perfectly fine parents despite our homosexuality. We aren't going to get them by arguing that we aren't threatening *your* marriage. We aren't going to get them by making the "other" person feel ashamed by being discriminatory.

We'll get them either through playing the political games and manipulations better than "the other side" at an opportune moment, by going to court, or by attraction. SHOW "the other side" that they don't have anything to fear instead of explaining it to them. That'll reach their hearts, and not stay stuck in their minds.

Because a lot of people might agree with the "No on Prop 8" position in their heads, but on a gut level have enough personal issues with homosexuality that they still voted yes.

This.

Act as if it's the most perfectly normal thing in the world. Why? Because it is.

I agree that staying out and visible is a good idea, but "don't gender-bend"? Why not? I either walk with my trans brothers and sisters or I don't.

I'm pretty sure New Illuve means "Don't disguise the gender of the person with whom you are in a relationship."

call your "partner" your husband/wife.

No one is calling me "husband." Ever.

But otherwise, I agree.

I'm pretty sure New Illuve means "Don't disguise the gender of the person with whom you are in a relationship."

Oh, well in that case, I could see that.



No one is calling me "husband." Ever.

Good call.

Start a large campaign to promote the idea that a marriage is between two right handed people. After all, left handed people have been considered sinister for centuries - it is obvious they are a dangerous deviation. Besides, left is socialism !

It's a nice sentiment and all but I'm more concerned about fighting this particular evil at home than in some far away land.

Yes, I realize the irony of that statement, given my current location

I will try to do my best to help from Spain, if it's necessary. Everyone, regardless of sex, age, creed, nationality or sexual orientation has the same right as anybody to love and marry whom they will.

I have a more serious idea for an ad, or perhaps a YouTube video (yay for the power of the internet!), just for a more general campaign, rather than more specific to California:

First scene, a woman standing in a polling booth. She faces the camera: "Some people didn't think I should have the right to vote. So we compromised, and now I get half a vote."
Next, a young black man: "Integration was controversial, so we compromised, and now I can go to the white schools... I just have to use my own water fountain."
Two people kneeling in front of an altar: "Some people don't like our religious beliefs. We compromised, and now we can go to our church, but it's illegal to wear our religious symbols."
A man, holding a newspaper, "The government didn't like my stories and wanted to shut me down, so we compromised. Now I can still run my newspaper, I just need all stories pre-approved." He holds it up, the headline reads Government, 100% approval rating. (I would like a better one than this, actually, it's just off the top of my head)

Fade to black.
White text:
"Compromising on rights doesn't make sense. Civil Unions are not marriage."



Actually, now that I think of it... anybody want to try to make this happen? I'm sure we could find some people, even just on NSG.

I have a more serious idea for an ad, or perhaps a YouTube video (yay for the power of the internet!), just for a more general campaign, rather than more specific to California:

First scene, a woman standing in a polling booth. She faces the camera: "Some people didn't think I should have the right to vote. So we compromised, and now I get half a vote."
Next, a young black man: "Integration was controversial, so we compromised, and now I can go to the white schools... I just have to use my own water fountain."
Two people kneeling in front of an altar: "Some people don't like our religious beliefs. We compromised, and now we can go to our church, but it's illegal to wear our religious symbols."
A man, holding a newspaper, "The government didn't like my stories and wanted to shut me down, so we compromised. Now I can still run my newspaper, I just need all stories pre-approved." He holds it up, the headline reads Government, 100% approval rating. (I would like a better one than this, actually, it's just off the top of my head)

Fade to black.
White text:
"Compromising on rights doesn't make sense. Civil Unions are not marriage."



Actually, now that I think of it... anybody want to try to make this happen? I'm sure we could find some people, even just on NSG.

That's a nice ad idea you have there. You should send it in to whoever is leading the repeal effort.

People who voted "yes" on Prop. 8, I would guess, simply believed one or more of the arguments made in the pro-8 ads - that gay marriage would result somehow in limitations on churches, expose schoolchildren to that ever-insidious "gay agenda," encourage judicial activism, etc. etc. And I'm sure some voters were driven by homophobia or religious bigotry, too. But based on discussions with my co-workers and neighbors, the bigots weren't the ones who pushed 8 over 50%. Regular, well-meaning people bought specious arguments backed by big money and sold in shiny packages.

So it wasn't bigotry it was....stupidity?

Both are pretty hard to combat.

I have a more serious idea for an ad, or perhaps a YouTube video (yay for the power of the internet!), just for a more general campaign, rather than more specific to California:

First scene, a woman standing in a polling booth. She faces the camera: "Some people didn't think I should have the right to vote. So we compromised, and now I get half a vote."
Next, a young black man: "Integration was controversial, so we compromised, and now I can go to the white schools... I just have to use my own water fountain."
Two people kneeling in front of an altar: "Some people don't like our religious beliefs. We compromised, and now we can go to our church, but it's illegal to wear our religious symbols."
A man, holding a newspaper, "The government didn't like my stories and wanted to shut me down, so we compromised. Now I can still run my newspaper, I just need all stories pre-approved." He holds it up, the headline reads Government, 100% approval rating. (I would like a better one than this, actually, it's just off the top of my head)

Fade to black.
White text:
"Compromising on rights doesn't make sense. Civil Unions are not marriage."

Actually, now that I think of it... anybody want to try to make this happen? I'm sure we could find some people, even just on NSG.

Bingo!

I'd slightly change your tag-line - more 'equal rights are equal rights - vote no on proposition 8' or something but, yes, you've hit the mark.

Bingo!

I'd slightly change your tag-line - more 'equal rights are equal rights - vote no on proposition 8' or something but, yes, you've hit the mark.

Well, it was really intended more to be a general ad, especially since prop 8 has been passed already.

But still, it was a pretty rough outline, which would obviously need a bit of work.

Well, it was really intended more to be a general ad, especially since prop 8 has been passed already.

But still, it was a pretty rough outline, which would obviously need a bit of work.

Make it, post it on youtube, and email a link here: http://www.noonprop8.com/ giving them full permission to use it.


Time to unleash propaganda of our own. If we can cause moral outrage, the lawyers have a better chance of winning. Even judges have to worry about
being reelected.

Give it a rest people and for the whole bigotry (yes bigotry) against the Mormon church, pretty narrow. What's next are you going to around gathering all the people who voted yes on Prop 8 and beat them too? And honestly you'll never be able to boycott every business owned or stocks shared by them. And well you seem to be blisfully ignoring whoever proposed it be on the ballot in the first place.

Give it a rest people and for the whole bigotry (yes bigotry) against the Mormon church, pretty narrow. What's next are you going to around gathering all the people who voted yes on Prop 8 and beat them too? And honestly you'll never be able to boycott every business owned or stocks shared by them. And well you seem to be blisfully ignoring whoever proposed it be on the ballot in the first place.

No one is being bigotted against the mormon church.


Reported to moderation for thread jacking.

The more I think about it, the more in favor I am of a directed boycott of Mormon-controlled/owned/directed businesses.

However, a poster on Daily Kos makes an argument that targeting companies ONLY because they have a Mormon CEO or whatever would be bigoted, as opposed to going after businesses that are directly controlled/owned by the LDS church.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/111146/963

That's a good point, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

This needs to be a battle for hearts and minds, not just to win over all those non-Mormon voters who voted for Prop 8 and similar anti-gay measures in other states, but also to weaken the position of big powerful groups like the LDS on this issue. What I'm trying to say is, I would like to win over voters, but I would also like to get the LDS to back off on the political interference.

The argument has been made, with justification, imo, in another thread that, if you are a member of a group, and you support that group, and that group does something bad, then you, as a member of it, need to take a stand about it. You shouldn't get to reap all the benefits of membership without taking on any of the responsibilities or even consequences of membership.

If the CEO and board of a company connected to the LDS agrees with the LDS's action, then let them be boycotted for it. If they disagree with the LDS's action, then let them say so, and show it in their own company policies. If they do, then give them credit for that, but if they don't, then welcome to the boycott.

This is important, and it is time for people to be called to account for their positions on this issue. I mean everybody. No more letting people slide with a limp-ass "We have nothing to do with that aspect of the group blah blah blah."

So I suggest the following, and I hope any of our resident attorneys will point out any problems with these raw ideas, which I'm just spinning off the top of my head while having breakfast:

NOTE: These are just raw ideas that need thought and a lot of reworking.

Working from TCT's list:

1) Let's be careful not to target companies JUST for having Mormon executives or whatever.

2) But do let us target companies that, even if they themselves are not directly controlled by the LDS, are so heavily invested in by the LDS that they generate significant income for the LDS. (In addition, of course, to LDS owned/controlled companies.)

3) Each individual person who boycotts a company should contact that company and tell them that they are being boycotted and why. I think each individual boycotter should send their own announcement of it because I think it will have more impact if, over time, the target companies keep getting more and more notices of boycott (hopefully piling up like snowdrifts).

4) I would suggest that all such "notices of boycott" should inform the target company that they are being boycotted as part of a political action in response to the LDS's deliberate actions to influence the vote in California to pass Prop 8, thus stripping civil rights from gay citizens, etc, and words to that effect. It should make clear that that the reason THEY are being targeted is because of their financial connection to the LDS, and that they are not being individually blamed for Prop 8. It should also mention that the boycott is not open-ended, but that when the LDS in Utah ceases interfering in the non-religious political affairs of other states, this action will end and the boycott will be lifted.

5) The media should be made aware of the boycott effort as well.

6) If we could make a website for the boycott effort, presenting the arguments for gay rights/marriage, against Prop 8, explaining the idea behind the boycott, listing the target companies, providing an email-able, downloadable "boycott notice" form, and with a discussion forum or message board, I think that would be good. The main purpose of such a site would be exactly what KoL wants the purpose of this thread to be, but just more focused.

EDIT: 7) Even if, like me, you already don't use the products/services of the companies on TCT's list, we should still notify them that we will not use them because of this issue. Never getting a customer might not be as harsh as losing one, but every voice counts, I think.

EDIT2: 8) And don't forget, if you own stock in any of the target companies, you should dump it and tell them why.

I did a quick google, and I didn't find any comparable sites, though I am sure some will crop up soon. Right now, there seem to be only some sites listing Mormon-owned companies, and a few rabid Mormon-hating conspiracy nut sites that have probably been around for a long time.

I think we should either coordinate through a more advanced activist group sites when one comes together or build one if a good one doesn't come together soon -- like within a few months.

The more I think about it, the more in favor I am of a directed boycott of Mormon-controlled/owned/directed businesses.

However, a poster on Daily Kos makes an argument that targeting companies ONLY because they have a Mormon CEO or whatever would be bigoted, as opposed to going after businesses that are directly controlled/owned by the LDS church.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/111146/963

That's a good point, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

This needs to be a battle for hearts and minds, not just to win over all those non-Mormon voters who voted for Prop 8 and similar anti-gay measures in other states, but also to weaken the position of big powerful groups like the LDS on this issue. What I'm trying to say is, I would like to win over voters, but I would also like to get the LDS to back off on the political interference.

The argument has been made, with justification, imo, in another thread that, if you are a member of a group, and you support that group, and that group does something bad, then you, as a member of it, need to take a stand about it. You shouldn't get to reap all the benefits of membership without taking on any of the responsibilities or even consequences of membership.

If the CEO and board of a company connected to the LDS agrees with the LDS's action, then let them be boycotted for it. If they disagree with the LDS's action, then let them say so, and show it in their own company policies. If they do, then give them credit for that, but if they don't, then welcome to the boycott.

This is important, and it is time for people to be called to account for their positions on this issue. I mean everybody. No more letting people slide with a limp-ass "We have nothing to do with that aspect of the group blah blah blah."

So I suggest the following, and I hope any of our resident attorneys will point out any problems with these raw ideas, which I'm just spinning off the top of my head while having breakfast:

NOTE: These are just raw ideas that need thought and a lot of reworking.

Working from TCT's list:

1) Let's be careful not to target companies JUST for having Mormon executives or whatever.

2) But do let us target companies that, even if they themselves are not directly controlled by the LDS, are so heavily invested in by the LDS that they generate significant income for the LDS. (In addition, of course, to LDS owned/controlled companies.)

3) Each individual person who boycotts a company should contact that company and tell them that they are being boycotted and why. I think each individual boycotter should send their own announcement of it because I think it will have more impact if, over time, the target companies keep getting more and more notices of boycott (hopefully piling up like snowdrifts).

4) I would suggest that all such "notices of boycott" should inform the target company that they are being boycotted as part of a political action in response to the LDS's deliberate actions to influence the vote in California to pass Prop 8, thus stripping civil rights from gay citizens, etc, and words to that effect. It should make clear that that the reason THEY are being targeted is because of their financial connection to the LDS, and that they are not being individually blamed for Prop 8. It should also mention that the boycott is not open-ended, but that when the LDS in Utah ceases interfering in the non-religious political affairs of other states, this action will end and the boycott will be lifted.

5) The media should be made aware of the boycott effort as well.

6) If we could make a website for the boycott effort, presenting the arguments for gay rights/marriage, against Prop 8, explaining the idea behind the boycott, listing the target companies, providing an email-able, downloadable "boycott notice" form, and with a discussion forum or message board, I think that would be good. The main purpose of such a site would be exactly what KoL wants the purpose of this thread to be, but just more focused.

EDIT: 7) Even if, like me, you already don't use the products/services of the companies on TCT's list, we should still notify them that we will not use them because of this issue. Never getting a customer might not be as harsh as losing one, but every voice counts, I think.

EDIT2: 8) And don't forget, if you own stock in any of the target companies, you should dump it and tell them why.

I did a quick google, and I didn't find any comparable sites, though I am sure some will crop up soon. Right now, there seem to be only some sites listing Mormon-owned companies, and a few rabid Mormon-hating conspiracy nut sites that have probably been around for a long time.

I think we should either coordinate through a more advanced activist group sites when one comes together or build one if a good one doesn't come together soon -- like within a few months.

Indeed, if anyone good with web design could make a website for the boycott...

Indeed, if anyone good with web design could make a website for the boycott...
At first, I guess you, KoL (since this was your idea) should nail down a domain or two so we have it in reserve in case we need to build our own site. I think it's likely that a better organized grassroots activism group might put something together soon, and in that case, we might do better to support them than go off on our own. However, if we do need our own site, we should not rush it into existence but should carefully plan who is going to be doing what, what its content should be, etc.

EDIT: And make sure to check your spelling before you register anything! :p

I think we should either coordinate through a more advanced activist group sites when one comes together or build one if a good one doesn't come together soon -- like within a few months.
I agree that coordination should happen. Why not set a date after which if no prominent and better organized group pops up, we set out?

If I can manage the video (I really have no clue what I'm doing here and will need to talk to some people), I give you full permission to use it on the site, if you manage that. ;)

I agree that coordination should happen. Why not set a date after which if no prominent and better organized group pops up, we set out?
My knee-jerk response would be to give it until the end of January/end of February, but considering time, calendar, finances, planning, etc. that might either be too short or too long. I know I personally could not do anything until then at the earliest.

Working from TCT's list:

1) Let's be careful not to target companies JUST for having Mormon executives or whatever.

You should take Marriott off your list, it's owned by a Mormon family, but it's a franchise company, meaning most of the Marriotts aren't owned by Mormons.

I haven't been able to trace back how Dell is controlled by Mormons. Michael Dell is Jewish.....I haven't been through the board or every employee yet, I mean if I find out that one of the employees at the call center down the street has a Mormon aunt do we boycott the company?

What are you guys intending to do with this? Bankrupt the Mormon church? It won't work. Most of the companies up there are publicly traded, how do we know that it's just not Mormon investors who will re-invest elsewhere if the stock goes down?

A Mormon owns the 7-11 franchise I go to for coffee, if I put his family out on the street does that make me a good person? Am I fighting the good fight?

I have a couple of questions, and I'm not going to read through the entire other thread:

Is there evidence that the LDS played a significantly larger role in this than other groups - ie. large enough to warrant targeting them specifically?

Were there other groups that also played a large part in contributions, etc. Shouldn't they be targeted as well?

I have a couple of questions, and I'm not going to read through the entire other thread:

Is there evidence that the LDS played a significantly larger role in this than other groups - ie. large enough to warrant targeting them specifically?

Were there other groups that also played a large part in contributions, etc. Shouldn't they be targeted as well?

Well, the LDS contributed ~40% of funds that were used to get Prop 8 passed, so they were a huge part.

I would personally like to target every major group involved, but really, at this point, I'm more concerned about getting equality for my friends and others like them all across the country.

Well, the LDS contributed ~40% of funds that were used to get Prop 8 passed, so they were a huge part.

I would personally like to target every major group involved, but really, at this point, I'm more concerned about getting equality for my friends and others like them all across the country.

Equality gained by what? Trying to intimidate people from participating in the political process?

You really think us lazy bunch of generalities can do anything!? We're far, far, far too small in number.

Well, the LDS contributed ~40% of funds that were used to get Prop 8 passed, so they were a huge part.

Did the LDS itself contribute? Or was it church members?

I ask because, if it was the LDS itself, they can likely have their tax exempt status revoked for acting as a PAC, rather than a church.

I would personally like to target every major group involved, but really, at this point, I'm more concerned about getting equality for my friends and others like them all across the country.

I'm concerned with that as well.

And I fear that the effort could be harmed by targeting only one group among many.

Equality gained by what? Trying to intimidate people from participating in the political process?

There's a reason that I said, "I would like to target major players, BUT I am more concerned with equality."

Yeah. It may be petty, but I like it when bigots suffer consequences for inflicting their bigotry upon everybody else through means of law.

But I care more about getting equality. That's the number one issue.

Equality gained by what? Trying to intimidate people from participating in the political process?

Is that what boycotting is? Boycotting has long been held as an accepted way to make a political statement. Do you disagree with that?

No one is saying that Mormons (or any other group) shouldn't participate in the political process - simply that they shouldn't misuse it.

Did the LDS itself contribute? Or was it church members?

I ask because, if it was the LDS itself, they can likely have their tax exempt status revoked for acting as a PAC, rather than a church.



I'm concerned with that as well.

And I fear that the effort could be harmed by targeting only one group among many.

Well, in the thread on Mormonism/Gay Marriage, there was an article posted (I'll see if I can dig it up) that indicated the Church itself donated money, but, apparently, because they supported a cause and not a candidate, it was legal.
Or something like that.

Is that what boycotting is? Boycotting has long been held as an accepted way to make a political statement. Do you disagree with that?
Not at all. Boycotting a private bus company because they won't let certain people ride is one thing. Boycotting publicly owned companies who employ hundreds of thousands of people because some of the private investors might be Mormon.....it's not wrong, it's just stupid and ineffective.
No one is saying that Mormons (or any other group) shouldn't participate in the political process - simply that they shouldn't misuse it.
So, this boycott, what is the purpose? To keep them from participating in the future.

Marriott
Novell
Black & Decker
Affiliated Computer Services
Central Pacific Bank
Dell Computer

and from the Wiki list...
Hawaii Reserves: manages commercial and residential properties in Lā'ie, Hawai'i.

Sorry, but the bolded ones and the wiki one I quoted I will not boycott.

You should take Marriott off your list, it's owned by a Mormon family, but it's a franchise company, meaning most of the Marriotts aren't owned by Mormons.

I haven't been able to trace back how Dell is controlled by Mormons. Michael Dell is Jewish.....I haven't been through the board or every employee yet, I mean if I find out that one of the employees at the call center down the street has a Mormon aunt do we boycott the company?

What are you guys intending to do with this? Bankrupt the Mormon church? It won't work. Most of the companies up there are publicly traded, how do we know that it's just not Mormon investors who will re-invest elsewhere if the stock goes down?

A Mormon owns the 7-11 franchise I go to for coffee, if I put his family out on the street does that make me a good person? Am I fighting the good fight?
A) I said right in the part you quoted that we should NOT target businesses JUST because Mormons are connected to them. But thanks for ignoring that so that you could sound an alarm bell over a fire that isn't burning.

B) No, the point of a boycott is NOT to bankrupt the target. It is to express the strength of public displeasure with the target's political actions in a way that that the target will "get" and understand. If a lot of people feel such outrage at what they did, then the boycott will be effective because there really is a message to send. If not a lot of people feel the outrage, then the boycott will have no effect because there really isn't a message to send.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/111146/963/314/655661

Boycott: List of Supporters of Prop 8

Here is a list of businesses who have endorsed / donated to Yes on 8 that you can boycott. Whether or not Prop 8 passes, you can still vote with you dollar.

Ag West Distributing Co

Alpasina Insurance Services
Unable to locate info

American Build & Design, Inc

American Focus
Alhambra, CA

Automated Environments

Bambrick & Associates
Anaheim, CA

Best Tire and Automotive
San Pedro, CA

Bluefields Creative

Rich Bott-Bott Radio Network
Fresno/Modesto/Merced 99.9FM

Bradley L. Quick Insurance Agency
Escondido, CA

Briden Wilson Farm
Arbuckle, CA

Buildex Inc.
Granite Bay, CA

Busy Little Bee Daycare
San Jose, CA

CC Layne & Sons Inc
Unable to locate info

Carter Construction Company (Texas based)

Chiropractic Family Health Center
El Cajon, CA

Classic Clean, Inc.
Los Gatos, CA

Community West Mortgage
Scotts Valley, CA

Cornerstone Custom Construction
Unable to locate info

Cottonwood Quilting
Silverado,CA

Culp Diversified Properties
Red Bluff, CA

Curry Copy Center of Hemet

Cyrus Tree Service

David Smalley MD
Riverside, CA

Design Electric
Pleasanton, CA

Direct to You Mobile Dentistry
Murrieta, CA

Duncan's Auto Sales
Corning, CA

Ebmeyer Charter and Tour

EL VOCERO MAGAZINE
Salinas, CA

Environmental Geology Services

Esthetique Dental Center
Auburn, CA

Everything4Mom.com (Wisconsin based)

Fahillion Technology Consultants
San Luis Obispo, CA

Fetal Diagnostic Center
Mission Viejo, CA

The Fire & Cop Shop
Moreno Valley, CA

First Data Cardservice
Laguna Beach, CA

First Experiences Preschool
Bakersfield, CA

First Security Home Loans
Poway, CA

GFBB Benefits and Insurance
Roseville, CA

Golden Door Press
Santa Rosa, CA

Guy Strohmeiers Auto Center
Lakeport, CA

Harmonious Scents

Haws, Record & Magnusson, Attorneys at Law
Santa Barbara, CA

Home Instead Senior Care

Honda Car Repair
Tracy, CA

I Wannabe Costumes
West Sacramento, CA

Images by Aida
Sherman Oaks, CA

inetMatrix
Riverside, CA
Even ads on website for protect marriage

Inspired Stylus Writing and Copyediting
affiliated with iNetMatrix
Riverside, CA

Jason's Glass Tint
San Clemente, CA

Justin A. March Associates
El Cajon, CA

Kerr Real Estate Advisors
Fair Oaks, CA

Knapp Financial
Calabasas, CA

Lampstand Studios (Colorado based)

Land Resource Investments (Nevada based)

The Law Office of H. Craig Miller
Roseville, CA

Law Offices of Kimber B. Goddard
Sacramento, CA

Lewis Appliance Repair and Installation
Los Banos, CA

Lion's Roar Media
Victorville, CA

Maximum Marketing Inc
Bakersfield, CA

MJ Baxter Drilling Company
El Cajon, CA
May be affliliated with M.J.B. Floral Services

MOTE Inc
San Diego, CA

Napa Valley Engraving
Napa, CA

NordalAppraisal.com
Encinitas, CA

NorthBay Neonatology Associates

Pacific Coast Auto Body
San Diego, CA

PaperPack, Inc. (Georgia based)

Quietcool, inc
Winchester, CA

RCS Door Service
Salida, CA

Reimer's Wholesale Nursery
Bakersfield, CA

Reliable Referrals LLC (Wisconsin based)

Resources For Continuing Education, Inc
BRYN MAWR CA

RF Sweet & Associates Real Estate
Palm Desert, CA

Rickert Cabinetry
Silverado,CA

Roche Oil, Inc
Tulare, CA

Rockingham Asset Management
Los Angeles, California

RPM Events, Inc.
San Luis Rey, Ca

The Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System (SCVHHS) http://www.sccgov.org/...
Santa Clara, CA

Schindler & Schindler Inc
Fountain Valley, CA

Scott McDonald & Assoc.
Scott McDonald is former Marketing Manager for the California D. A.

Senior Helper's
Fresno, CA

Sheppard & Associates Insurance Agency
Citrus Heights, CA

Sibling Systems
Roseville, CA

Splash! Designworks (Delaware based)
Dover, Delaware

Stubblefield Family Chiropractic
Yuba City, CA

Superior Notary, LLC
Rocklin, CA

Tri-Valley Propac, Inc
Danville, CA

Tropical Sands Vacations
Corona, CA

Valencia Tax Service
SAN YSIDRO, CA

Warren Photography
Victorville, CA

The Wellness Advantage (Arizona based)
Scottsdale, AZ

West Coast Commercial Mortgage, Inc
Huntington Beach, CA

White Diamond Jewelers
Canoga Park, CA

WishIHadThat.com
Bakersfield, California

The this is not complete, there were a few that I could find no info on, you can see the list in full at www.protectmarriage.com.

Maybe this is a better place for y'all to start. Not that it's any of my business, you know, I just don't see the point in boycotting franchises and publicly traded companies. I'm not entirely sure how equality oriented and stuff you can claim to be when singling out one group.

Okay, I found this (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705258856,00.html) article, and it seems that the Church itself only made a small contribution, the rest of the 40% being that they strongly encouraged its members to donate themselves.

A) I said right in the part you quoted that we should NOT target businesses JUST because Mormons are connected to them. But thanks for ignoring that so that you could sound an alarm bell over a fire that isn't burning.
Didn't ignore you. Quoted you to add.

B) No, the point of a boycott is NOT to bankrupt the target. It is to express the strength of public displeasure with the target's political actions in a way that that the target will "get" and understand. If a lot of people feel such outrage at what they did, then the boycott will be effective because there really is a message to send. If not a lot of people feel the outrage, then the boycott will have no effect because there really isn't a message to send.
So, do what we say or we won't patronize you. Sounds like the mob.

Okay, I found this (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705258856,00.html) article, and it seems that the Church itself only made a small contribution, the rest of the 40% being that they strongly encouraged its members to donate themselves.

According to the DailyKos, the website/paper is owned my Mormons. :eek2:

Didn't ignore you. Quoted you to add.
Okay then.

So, do what we say or we won't patronize you. Sounds like the mob.
No, Smunkee, the MOB would say, do what we say or we'll destroy you.

I am under no obligation to patronize any company, and if I choose to include politics in my decisions about who to do business with, I am perfectly within my rights to do so.

Now explain to me how that suddenly becomes mob mentality if I choose to tell the company that the reason I am not investing in them or buying their product or service is because of their connection to a group who I oppose on this or that issue?

Also explain to me how I am violating their rights to engage in politics if I also tell my friends that, because of this issue, they may want to stop doing business with these people, too.

Basically, what I hear you saying is that, in order to respect their right to engage in political action, I have to give up my right to engage in political action. Only I don't, really, do I?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/111146/963/314/655661



Maybe this is a better place for y'all to start. Not that it's any of my business, you know, I just don't see the point in boycotting franchises and publicly traded companies. I'm not entirely sure how equality oriented and stuff you can claim to be when singling out one group.
This is a very good list, but it can be most effectively used only by residents of California.

The reason I think the LDS needs to be targeted is because they organized their action for Prop 8 from Utah, reaching across state lines to interfere in the political issues of another state.

Okay then.


No, Smunkee, the MOB would say, do what we say or we'll destroy you.

I am under no obligation to patronize any company, and if I choose to include politics in my decisions about who to do business with, I am perfectly within my rights to do so.

Now explain to me how that suddenly becomes mob mentality if I choose to tell the company that the reason I am not investing in them or buying their product or service is because of their connection to a group who I oppose on this or that issue?

Also explain to me how I am violating their rights to engage in politics if I also tell my friends that, because of this issue, they may want to stop doing business with these people, too.

Basically, what I hear you saying is that, in order to respect their right to engage in political action, I have to give up my right to engage in political action. Only I don't, really, do I?

I'm sleepy.

This is a very good list, but it can be most effectively used only by residents of California.

The reason I think the LDS needs to be targeted is because they organized their action for Prop 8 from Utah, reaching across state lines to interfere in the political issues of another state.

question. Does the LDS have any churches in California?

question. Does the LDS have any churches in California?
I'm sure they do, plenty of them. That's not the point.

If INDIVIDUAL local churches had acted INDIVIDUALLY, then there would be no point in targeting political protest against the whole LDS, but according to the reports out so far, that is not what happened. What happened was that the impetus for donations and the promotion of the particular ad campaign that is being credited with influencing the vote through deceptive means was orchestrated outside of California. That puts the onus on the entire LDS, not just its California churches.

Not at all. Boycotting a private bus company because they won't let certain people ride is one thing. Boycotting publicly owned companies who employ hundreds of thousands of people because some of the private investors might be Mormon.....it's not wrong, it's just stupid and ineffective.

And I agree that the large publicly owned companies probably shouldn't be targeted.

But the general principle is the same thing - boycotting companies because they are anti-equality.

So, this boycott, what is the purpose? To keep them from participating in the future.

Not at all. It is to keep them from misusing it.

Like I said, no one is saying that Mormons shouldn't participate in the political process - just that they shouldn't use their participation to oppress others.

JuNii, I heard and please, be advised that I'm not entirely sure this source is correct, that there are Mormon churches here in Spain. So... go figure.

EDIT: They've been here since 1969.
Iglesia de Dios de los Santos de los Últimos Días (http://www.sud.org.es/)

And I agree that the large publicly owned companies probably shouldn't be targeted.

But the general principle is the same thing - boycotting companies because they are anti-equality.
It would also be a good idea to examine each target company to see if they're connection to the LDS is tenuous and/or their own internal policies and/or publicly stated positions in re gay rights are such that they should not be boycotted -- like, for instance, if they opposed Prop 8.


Not at all. It is to keep them from misusing it.

Like I said, no one is saying that Mormons shouldn't participate in the political process - just that they shouldn't use their participation to oppress others.
Or let them do that. Let them try to get their measures passed. And let them reap the reward for that -- which is to be the target of political action in protest for their actions.

Enough already with this weird idea that people should not be held responsible for what they do, or that individuals bear no responsibility for what the group they belong to/support does.

If the LDS wants to go around the country, state to state, stripping civil rights from gays, let them learn that there might be some blowback for that.

At first, I guess you, KoL (since this was your idea) should nail down a domain or two so we have it in reserve in case we need to build our own site. I think it's likely that a better organized grassroots activism group might put something together soon, and in that case, we might do better to support them than go off on our own. However, if we do need our own site, we should not rush it into existence but should carefully plan who is going to be doing what, what its content should be, etc.

EDIT: And make sure to check your spelling before you register anything! :p

I dont even know how Id go about doing this.


But everyone keep your eyes open for better organized groups. Id be all about throwing in behind them.

Downey Savings and Loan
My bank is run by Mormons? :eek:

I'm sure they do, plenty of them. That's not the point.

If INDIVIDUAL local churches had acted INDIVIDUALLY, then there would be no point in targeting political protest against the whole LDS, but according to the reports out so far, that is not what happened. What happened was that the impetus for donations and the promotion of the particular ad campaign that is being credited with influencing the vote through deceptive means was orchestrated outside of California. That puts the onus on the entire LDS, not just its California churches.

Except a church like the Mormons are part of a larger group. Like individual Catholic churches are still part of the larger Catholic Church system. So what's wrong with the group as a whole comming to aid the fight of some of their individual members?

Should the Salvation Army branches that are located in California be the only ones to help victims of the fires that rage out of control with their own funds?

oh and as long as Prop 8 was reported NATIONALLY, then yes, the LDS in Utah can assist because I'm sure those fighting for "No on 8" also recieved help and donations from people and groups outside California.

Except a church like the Mormons are part of a larger group. Like individual Catholic churches are still part of the larger Catholic Church system. So what's wrong with the group as a whole comming to aid the fight of some of their individual members?

Should the Salvation Army branches that are located in California be the only ones to help victims of the fires that rage out of control with their own funds?

oh and as long as Prop 8 was reported NATIONALLY, then yes, the LDS in Utah can assist because I'm sure those fighting for "No on 8" also recieved help and donations from people and groups outside California.
Look, this thread is for discussing ways to organize action for those who think action is warranted.

You obviously do not think it is.

I am not interested in justifying to YOU in this thread why I disagree. I have already stated my position and why I hold it. I personally believe the LDS overstepped its proper function as a religious organization by getting involved in the Prop 8 fight the way it did, but THAT is not the reason I would consider a boycott action. It is specifically because of what Prop 8 is and what it did. I am within my rights to express my disapproval of the LDS making and supporting a concerted effort to strip civil rights away from US citizens, and that it is what I intend to do.

I really don't care if you think it's okay for them to reach across state lines to help strip citizens of rights, if other groups also reached across state lines to help citizens retain their rights. I am protesting the stripping of rights.

The only reason I mentioned the crossing state lines thing was to show why the LDS, as an organization, is a legitimate political target in this matter.

But if you don't think action is warranted, then don't engage in any actions that might be discussed here. Simple, eh?

As for me, regardless of whether this conversation goes anywhere or not, I have every intention of pulling whatever business I have away from LDS-connected companies and letting them know that I am doing so for this reason.

I dont even know how Id go about doing this.


But everyone keep your eyes open for better organized groups. Id be all about throwing in behind them.
Google-rific.

Google "register domain" or "register domain free". Go shopping. Google "LDS prop 8 boycott." For starters.

Take action against LDS on Prop 8 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/14360/8381/69/655898)
by Blissable

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM PST

I'm furious that a church can use it's massive outreach and raise funds to manipulate the political process in such a blatant and outrageous manner.

If it upsets you as much as me that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something simple you can do:

Blissable's diary (http://blissable.dailykos.com/) :: ::
To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print
these articles out and any others you can find:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Then print, sign, and send the following form

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf

List the taxpayer as:

Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

List his occupation as President and the business as The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.

Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and
their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of
the IRS's separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to
interfere with a state's political process.

Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign
finance records."

You don't have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form
and the printed articles to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

and also:

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/

A list of who's funding the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign to take away marriage equality in California. Below are the Top 12 donors (click their names for more info). To view the names of the hundreds of other donors, click the link at the end of the list.
Knights of Columbus, New Haven, CT $1,425,000
Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Irvine, CA
Fieldstead & Co.
$1,395,000
John Templeton, Bryn Mawr, PA
John Templeton Foundation, Chairman/President
$1,100,000
National Organization for Marriage,
Princeton, NJ
$1,041,134.80
Terry Caster & Family, San Diego, CA
$693,000
Robert Hurtt, Orange, CA
$550,000
Focus On the Family, Colorado Springs, CO
$539,643.66
American Family Association, Tupelo, MS
$500,000
Claire Reiss, La Jolla, CA
Reisung Enterprises
$500,000
Elsa Prince, Holland, MI
$450,000
Concerned Women for America, Washington DC
$409,000
Hartford Holdings, LLC., Provo, UT
$300,000

You obviously do not think it is.
and you can try to find evidence of that thought in any of my posts.

your "reason" for hating the LDS isn't only because they supported Yes on 8, but the fact that they "interferred" in a California proposition from their home base in another state. saying that was wrong.

Hate the LDS for pushing and successfully promoting Prop 8? fine, ok, i'm not against that. but don't hate them because they "interferred with California's Politics from another state."

The only reason I mentioned the crossing state lines thing was to show why the LDS, as an organization, is a legitimate political target in this matter. they're a legitimate political target because they supported "Yes on 8". nothing more. "crossing political state lines" is a petty reason that distracts from the real reason.

But if you don't think action is warranted, then don't engage in any actions that might be discussed here. Simple, eh? oh, so you only want a thread of yes-men? well, I didn't say you or anyone can't boycott or protest the LDS. I only disagreed with that one reason for targetting the LDS.

As for me, regardless of whether this conversation goes anywhere or not, I have every intention of pulling whatever business I have away from LDS-connected companies and letting them know that I am doing so for this reason. Good for you and those that follow your example.

and you can try to find evidence of that thought in any of my posts.

your "reason" for hating the LDS isn't only because they supported Yes on 8, but the fact that they "interferred" in a California proposition from their home base in another state. saying that was wrong.

Hate the LDS for pushing and successfully promoting Prop 8? fine, ok, i'm not against that. but don't hate them because they "interferred with California's Politics from another state."

they're a legitimate political target because they supported "Yes on 8". nothing more. "crossing political state lines" is a petty reason that distracts from the real reason.

oh, so you only want a thread of yes-men? well, I didn't say you or anyone can't boycott or protest the LDS. I only disagreed with that one reason for targetting the LDS.

Good for you and those that follow your example.

Im this close to reporting you for thread jacking.

1. Just for the record, my list of Mormon owned/operated business from the other thread was simply what I could find on Google. I would note that the two lists people seem to find most objectionable were from pro-Mormon sources bragging about Mormon financial influence.

I would note that Marriott (one of the companies people have object to being listed) is founded by a Mormon and has a Mormon CEO and chairman. It brags about this on its "Company Heritage (http://www.marriott.com/corporateinfo/culture/heritage.mi)."

I do think it makes more sense to boycott companies that directly contributed to Prop. 8, but that doesn't mean a backlash against the LDS Church and its financial resources is unwarranted.

But I'm not suggesting you merely stop using Marriott products. I suggest that we create a form letter explaining that we are upset about Prop. 8 and will therefore be boycotting organizations that either contributed directly to its passage or indirectly through their association with the LDS Church.
Such letters are likely to have as much or more effect than a boycott itself.

Again, I would prioritize letters to (and boycotts of) those businesses most directly tied to Prop. 8. But, depending on where you live, you may not be able to effectively boycott those business as much as you can some of the LDS Church's financial resources.


2. A critical thing that people can do is provide support to those organizations fighting the implementation of Prop. 8: Equality California (http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385), Nat'l Center for Lesbian Rights (http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer), ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html), etc.

But I'm not suggesting you merely stop using Marriott products. I suggest that we create a form letter explaining that we are upset about Prop. 8 and will therefore be boycotting organizations that either contributed directly to its passage or indirectly through their association with the LDS Church.
Such letters are likely to have as much or more effect than a boycott itself.


Maybe one of us should type up this letter and start circulating it for signing.

Whats everyone think?

Thanks, TCT, you said what I was thinking of much better than I did.

Take action against LDS on Prop 8 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/14360/8381/69/655898)
by Blissable

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM PST

I'm furious that a church can use it's massive outreach and raise funds to manipulate the political process in such a blatant and outrageous manner.

If it upsets you as much as me that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something simple you can do:

Blissable's diary (http://blissable.dailykos.com/) :: ::
To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print
these articles out and any others you can find:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Then print, sign, and send the following form

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf

List the taxpayer as:

Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

List his occupation as President and the business as The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.

Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and
their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of
the IRS's separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to
interfere with a state's political process.

Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign
finance records."

You don't have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form
and the printed articles to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888


I hardily endorse this strategy as well. This is even better than a vague boycott of LDS businesses.

2. A critical thing that people can do is provide support to those organizations fighting the implementation of Prop. 8: Equality California (http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385), Nat'l Center for Lesbian Rights (http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer), ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html), etc.
I can support this half.

and you can try to find evidence of that thought in any of my posts.

your "reason" for hating the LDS isn't only because they supported Yes on 8, but the fact that they "interferred" in a California proposition from their home base in another state. saying that was wrong.

Hate the LDS for pushing and successfully promoting Prop 8? fine, ok, i'm not against that. but don't hate them because they "interferred with California's Politics from another state."

they're a legitimate political target because they supported "Yes on 8". nothing more. "crossing political state lines" is a petty reason that distracts from the real reason.

oh, so you only want a thread of yes-men? well, I didn't say you or anyone can't boycott or protest the LDS. I only disagreed with that one reason for targetting the LDS.

Good for you and those that follow your example.
A) You're criticizing me for saying the exact opposite of what I did say.

B) You're putting words in my mouth.

C) You're copping a baiting tone.

D) You're off topic. Therefore,

E) I'm done talking to you until you have something on-point and on-topic to say.

I hardily endorse this strategy as well. This is even better than a vague boycott of LDS businesses.
That was a great find on Sumamba's part. I know some people who are very angry and depressed about Prop 8 who am I sending that link to now.

Was this decision not democratically voted upon?

It was, so not much you can do about it. Weather the decision was right or wrong its what the people wanted

Was this decision not democratically voted upon?

It was, so not much you can do about it. Weather the decision was right or wrong its what the people wanted

The people also wanted segregated schools, women not having the vote, blacks not having the vote, sodomy laws, and all sorts of disgusting things.

Was this decision not democratically voted upon?

It was, so not much you can do about it. Weather the decision was right or wrong its what the people wanted

You are, totally, unaware of whats going on, arent you?

Right, because there won't ever be another election in which repeal of the amendment could be put on the ballot. :rolleyes:

I stand by my point. There was a referendum where everybody in the state had a chance to vote, this is arguably the highest level of democracy there is, and they voted yes on prop 8. You should respect that decision

I stand by my point. There was a referendum where everybody in the state had a chance to vote, this is arguably the highest level of democracy there is, and they voted yes on prop 8. You should respect that decision

The people also wanted segregated schools, women not having the vote, blacks not having the vote, sodomy laws, and all sorts of disgusting things.

requisite five characters or more

I stand by my point. There was a referendum where everybody in the state had a chance to vote, this is arguably the highest level of democracy there is, and they voted yes on prop 8. You should respect that decision

The beauty of Democracy, is that you can voice your dissent on any subject and rally to have it changed.

I can see a repeal popping up for vote by 2012 at the latest.

Im this close to reporting you for thread jacking.
reported for threadjacking for discussing one of the various reasons why people are encouraging others to be critical of the LDS? if you feel that way, go ahead and report me.

seriously, I'm kinda interested in the ruling they would do.

in fact, let me report it in if you haven't already.

A) You're criticizing me for saying the exact opposite of what I did say.

B) You're putting words in my mouth.
you didn't?
I did?

hmm.. your posts. my bolding
This is a very good list, but it can be most effectively used only by residents of California.

The reason I think the LDS needs to be targeted is because they organized their action for Prop 8 from Utah, reaching across state lines to interfere in the political issues of another state.

I'm sure they do, plenty of them. That's not the point.

If INDIVIDUAL local churches had acted INDIVIDUALLY, then there would be no point in targeting political protest against the whole LDS, but according to the reports out so far, that is not what happened. What happened was that the impetus for donations and the promotion of the particular ad campaign that is being credited with influencing the vote through deceptive means was orchestrated outside of California. That puts the onus on the entire LDS, not just its California churches.

It would also be a good idea to examine each target company to see if they're connection to the LDS is tenuous and/or their own internal policies and/or publicly stated positions in re gay rights are such that they should not be boycotted -- like, for instance, if they opposed Prop 8.

Or let them do that. Let them try to get their measures passed. And let them reap the reward for that -- which is to be the target of political action in protest for their actions.

Enough already with this weird idea that people should not be held responsible for what they do, or that individuals bear no responsibility for what the group they belong to/support does.

If the LDS wants to go around the country, state to state, stripping civil rights from gays, let them learn that there might be some blowback for that.

guess so. :rolleyes:

reported for threadjacking for discussing one of the various reasons why people are encouraging others to be critical of the LDS?


This is not the thread for that. I have been clear.

The beauty of Democracy, is that you can voice your dissent on any subject and rally to have it changed.

I can see a repeal popping up for vote by 2012 at the latest. Very true, but I doubt there will be a different outcome. People's mindsets are unlikely to change in four years.

Very true, but I doubt there will be a different outcome. People's mindsets are unlikely to change in four years.

You apperantly are unfamlier with this case....at all.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with trying. And hey, people thought the same thing about segregation.

You apperantly are unfamlier with this case....at all.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with trying. And hey, people thought the same thing about segregation. Whey aye, never surrender. When gay rights become an issue for the national government in the same way segregation did then you will see a real change. Until then, I think you are fighting a lost cause for the next 20 years at least.

Whey aye, never surrender. When gay rights become an issue for the national government in the same way segregation did then you will see a real change. Until then, I think you are fighting a lost cause for the next 20 years at least.

Why 20 years? It seems that every year it gets faster and faster. If anything else, this setback will remind people that the outcome will not always be what you expect. Who would have though a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage would be passed in CA?

Not to mention what happens if the DoMA get removed and married couples move from Mass. and Conn.? Some state constitutions say same-sex marriage do not exist but the US constitution has the Full Faith and Credit Clause....which wins?

Why 20 years? It seems that every year it gets faster and faster. If anything else, this setback will remind people that the outcome will not always be what you expect. Who would have though a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage would be passed in CA?

Not to mention what happens if the DoMA get removed and married couples move from Mass. and Conn.? Some state constitutions say same-sex marriage do not exist but the US constitution has the Full Faith and Credit Clause....which wins?

Thankfully, it's very easy to say who wins. Read ... Article VI, Clause 2, I think. (At least, I'm pretty sure that one's the Supremacy Clause. I'm horrible at remembering these.:tongue:)

Was this decision not democratically voted upon?

It was, so not much you can do about it. Weather the decision was right or wrong its what the people wanted

The problem with that is that it's one thing to, as a people, vote on something that effects all the people, or most of the people, such as a tax increase. But when a large groupe of people vote to remove a right of a smaller group of people, based solely on a moral disagreement that has nothing to do with them, does not harm them or anyone in any way shape or form, the fact that it was democratically arrived at -should- become secondary to the fact that it in violation of civil rights.

In a perfect world, anyway. This is my understanding of the issue.

Maybe one of us should type up this letter and start circulating it for signing.

Whats everyone think?

People here would have to disclose a postal address to each other.
Some of you might be comfortable with that, but it would really cut the numbers.
Plus, it only takes one saboteur "losing" the letter to undo a lot of work.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, I agree with the sentiment.

Boycotts can be counter-boycotted (people deliberately consuming the company's product and writing to say why.)

The counter-boycott has a force multiplier too. So you don't buy a Dell, that's the limit of your boycott. The counter-boycotter can buy two ... or ten.

EDIT: Never mind. More research has persuaded me that anti-boycotts work even less often than boycotts. Go for it.

Take action against LDS on Prop 8 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/14360/8381/69/655898)
by Blissable

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM PST

I'm furious that a church can use it's massive outreach and raise funds to manipulate the political process in such a blatant and outrageous manner.

If it upsets you as much as me that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something simple you can do:

Blissable's diary (http://blissable.dailykos.com/) :: ::
To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print
these articles out and any others you can find:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Then print, sign, and send the following form

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf

List the taxpayer as:

Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

List his occupation as President and the business as The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.

Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and
their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of
the IRS's separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to
interfere with a state's political process.

Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign
finance records."

You don't have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form
and the printed articles to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888


Did we need to provide the printed copies of those articles in the envelope?

People here would have to disclose a postal address to each other.
Some of you might be comfortable with that, but it would really cut the numbers.
Plus, it only takes one saboteur "losing" the letter to undo a lot of work.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, I agree with the sentiment.
I don't think we'd do it like a petition. We just have to draft a letter and post it where everyone can download their own copy for signing.

Did we need to provide the printed copies of those articles in the envelope?
I would.

Are those companies the only ones?

It did say examples. Though I can't see myself throwing away my AmEx card, it wouldn't do anything even if I did.

Boycotts can be counter-boycotted (people deliberately consuming the company's product and writing to say why.)

The counter-boycott has a force multiplier too. So you don't buy a Dell, that's the limit of your boycott. The counter-boycotter can buy two ... or ten.

EDIT: Never mind. More research has persuaded me that anti-boycotts work even less often than boycotts. Go for it.
Especially in the current economy, I think there's a little more incentive to boycott than anti-boycott. ;)

I would.

Righto...

Righto...
Muravyetsian life rule: When in doubt, send everything. :D

Muravyetsian life rule: When in doubt, send everything. :D

Always a good decision.

It's in the mail. I just hope I'm not the only one here sending one in...

Always a good decision.

It's in the mail. I just hope I'm not the only one here sending one in...
Mine will be in the mail in a day or so. I'm out of ink.

Mine will be in the mail in a day or so. I'm out of ink.

Good good.

Is there anything else I can do to help at this moment?

Good good.

Is there anything else I can do to help at this moment?
Well, I'm all set, but thanks. ;)

I think we're kind of in thinking about it mode.

Especially in the current economy, I think there's a little more incentive to boycott than anti-boycott. ;)

True that. Company boards will be more responsive too, given how jittery stock prices are.

Well I hate to get my hands dirty but this is a fight worth it; so forgive me if someone has mentioned this idea already... also I'm going to fight dirty:

With some simple "South Parkian" animation we see Osama bin Laden's face pop-up and see his picture mouth the words "I voted YES on prop. 8" cut to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's picture doing/saying the samething, which cuts to Kim Jong-il, Hitler, Stalin all saying the samething.

Well I hate to get my hands dirty but this is a fight worth it; so forgive me if someone has mentioned this idea already... also I'm going to fight dirty:

With some simple "South Parkian" animation we see Osama bin Laden's face pop-up and see his picture mouth the words "I voted YES on prop. 8" cut to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's picture doing/saying the samething, which cuts to Kim Jong-il, Hitler, Stalin all saying the samething.

That's a great idea! You should get it on the screen as soon as possible!

Send your idea here. (http://www.southparkstudios.com/)