Wow. This isn’t exactly subtle.
KUTV summarizes this full-on attack ad smearing the LDS Church:
In the commercial they knock on the door, say they are from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tell a lesbian couple “we are here to take away your rights.”
They enter the home take the women’s rings, ransack the house looking for their marriage license, find it, and then tear it up.
At the end, the missionaries was away saying, “that was too easy, yeah, what should we ban next?”
So who has the campaign of hate? Mormon missionaries are now portrayed as fascist stormtroopers out to take away people’s rights? What kind of treatment is in store for missionaries going door to door or proselytizing in the streets?
Last week several commenters suggested that much of the Pro-Prop 8 arguments were attacks on the judges. Somehow using the same arguments as the dissenting justices was demonizing the court and judicial system. I would like to ask those commenters how does this ad compare? Not being in California, I don’t know but I fear for the damage this will to do the Church in California.
This isn’t your quickie dime-a-dozen internet ad. It’s professionally done and KUTV reports it will be airing tomorrow in California as well as on CNN and MSNBC.
I guess this is what was meant when a San Francisco city attorney said that the Prop 8 debate was a “blood feud” with the Mormon Church.
UPDATE: The Church’s response:
“The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”
[via Article VI]
-
I think its a dumb ad. I can’t see it changing anyone’s mind, mainly because about everyone already has their mind made up. I think it will influence those opposed to redefining marriage to become more involved next time around, especially as this ad can be resurrected to remind us of what kind of people we have to deal with.
Whenever one’s opponent resorts to name calling it is a sure sign of desperation.
-
The Church is losing the public relations battle on this one. I hope it was worth it.
-
I would hazard a guess that the Church leaders think it is more important to do what is right (support Proposition
than to win some nebulous PR battle. I’ve found that when I stand up for my beliefs I almost always win more friends than enemies. Over the long haul I expect it will be the same for the Church. But no matter if it isn’t. -
Just as “protectmarriage.com” is the official portal for the Yes on 8 campaign, Equality California is the official portal for the No on 8 campaign. This ad was produced by a different group and is not affiliated directly with Equality California. Kind of like when the Swift Boat people made their ad and didn’t go through the Republican National Committee or the Bush/Cheney Campaign in 2004.
So calm down, already.
-
Phouchg -
I’m not sure why you just copied and pasted the same comment here as you posted at M&A, but what’s the point?
The ad is being broadcast and is a desperate tactic to scapegoat Mormons. Who cares which group is behind it? I didn’t realize there was only one “official” group opposed to Prop 8. I doubt most people see it that way either.
I don’t think most anti-Prop 8 people feel this way but this campaign has turned from debating gay marriage to targeting Mormons and particularly missionaries. And here they are being portrayed as Nazi-like.
I don’t think you can overstate how despicable this ad is.
-
Funny advertisment. Mighta been better with Archie Bunker.
-
I’ll say it’s unfortunate. It’s just plain mean, but I guess it’s nothing compared to trials of the early Mormons.
-
Rick,
Doing what is right is nice and all, but you do realize that the church was stuck in a position back in the 1880s on “doing what was right” on polygamy and doing what the rest of the country wanted. I don’t mean to say that going against gay marriage will in any way come to a point where our religion is forced to accept it, but what I am saying is that I don’t think the costs of this fight are worth the effort.
Remember, Jesus taught us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves. Just something about this fight doesn’t feel wise to me. But I’m just a regular sinful Joe Shmoe.
-
Of course there’s going to be fallout on this issue, and I’m sure that many Mormons are are not to sure that the Church’s position on this was “wise”. This is to be expected and is the result of our free agency. However, we should not forget that we have a new Prophet for our times, and the Church’s position is this is not something that just happened accidentally, or was even the result of a reasoned decision making process, but rather was undoubtedly the result of revelation.
All Mormons, even those that have reservations about this would do well to follow the First Presidency’s counsel in this.
-
This commercial is a very low blow and offends me on a personal level. I work in the MTC in Utah training Mormon missionaries and I have never met one that would even think about doing something like this. I hope no one believes this garbage.
-
Dan,
With a majority of states already having a constitutional amendment in place that are similar to Proposition 8, this time the Church with its support is also “doing what the rest of the country” wants. The Church has always had enemies and can take care of itself. I expect that it will be involved in many more fights and will increasingly be an influence for good.
-
David:
The ad is being broadcast and is a desperate tactic to scapegoat Mormons.
Are others really as involved in this as the Mormon Church?
-
To go further, why are any Mormons complaining about this? Isn’t this entirely foreseeable given the campaign the Church has been engaged in? This is the natural consequence of the actions that the Church has taken.
I don’t think anyone has to agree with opponents of Prop. 8 to be able to put themselves into the shoes of gay or lesbian couples who have gotten married for just a moment and sense who this whole thing looks to them.
My guess is that gay and lesbian couples who have availed themselves of the privilege of getting married are not out to subvert society but rather wish to live a stable family life.
To gay and lesbian couples, I would imagine, our Church’s campaign against Prop. 8 looks like a subversion of stable families, or rather the potential of stable families.
Of course Mormons disagree with that and don’t believe that gays and lesbians can or should live in stable families, but the point is to be able to put yourself in their shoes for just a moment to see what it looks like to them. Based on that, if you can do it, this commercial seems a natural response.
Like it or not, the actions we take have consequences. My parents taught me this as a fundamentally Mormon truth and I believe it. That is why the commercial does not surprise me and, frankly, was very foreseeable from the beginning when the Church decided to make this its cause.
-
Man, those are some old missionaries!
-
john f -
Just because it is foreseeable does not make it excusable.
It’s a ridiculous ad that demonizes missionaries. Is that the Church’s fault? Portraying them as Nazi-like is not what I would call a “natural response.”
Is the Church foreclosed from taking unpopular positions because of the ridicule that will surely follow? When it comes are we just supposed to take it and not point it out? I’m not suggesting we return the attack or similarly demonize those who oppose the Church. From my limited vantage point, I haven’t seen anything comparable.
Gay families deserve a lot of understanding and sympathy. There are a lot of dimensions to the involved arguments that should be debated without resorting to religious intolerance.
Gays have been the victims of religious intolerance for a long time, this ad shows that some are willing to use it for their benefit. I think that’s worth calling out.
-
The church knew it was going into hardball politics. To me this is a good response to the blackmail letter sent to the anti-prop 8 business contributors, which letter was signed by a Mormon.
-
David: I’m saying that if we Mormons want to get involved in political causes like this then we shouldn’t complain when those opposed in something with such high stakes punch back. We need to have a thicker skin if we are going to be leading such campaigns. This means that we also need to go into such campaigns with eyes wide open. To gay and lesbian couples who have married and who perhaps also are raising children and trying to give them a stable family life, this campaign against their marriages, which charge appears to be led by Mormon money and manhours, must very much feel like the type of intrusion depicted in the commercial.
-
It’s just plain mean
Which is how a lot us feel about the whole Yes on Prop 8 campaign.
If the LDS Church wants to dump tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to subvert the rights and dignity of gay families and individuals, then they ought not to be surprised when things get a little rough.
Gay people have been consistently demonized throughout this campaign; represented as a threat to family and religious liberty and children. (Oh, the children!).
The bully looks silly when he complains about getting bullied back.
-
john f -
I agree that it is necessary to have a thick skin when getting into hardball politics. But another part of politics is not letting your opponent get away with low blows.
As I understand your logic, offended LDS would be justified in producing a similar ad in response. Because we feel offended we’re justified in demonizing those who disagree with us.
Remember that gay unions are allowed all the civil rights in CA that a marriage has. Those who want to keep marriage defined as between a man and woman are now the equivalent of racists and are not worthy of a civil debate.
Thick skin or not, I don’t find that acceptable.
-
David, but do you think that actions have consequences?
-
“So who has the campaign of hate?”
Riiiiiight. People are voting against Prop 8 because they hate religious people. Give me a break.
-
[edited for clarity]
John f -
As a matter of fact I do. When an ad attacks missionaries a natural consequence is to protest it as unworthy of the debate.
Do you think the Church’s position is that unreasonable? It’s merely trying uphold the definition of marriage that existed until five months ago. Not take rights away.
You seem to be holding the Church’s opponents to a pretty low standard of civil discourse. I’ve never suggested there were not going to be consequences to the Church’s involvement. Anti-prop 8 people can respond as they please and so can I.
I’m starting to suspect we are talking in circles and will have to agree to disagree.
I’ll just suggest that the actions of this ad have consequences too.
-
David:
Do you think the Church’s position is that unreasonable?
Where did I ever say that? What I am saying is that it sounds silly for Mormons to moan about this ad given what gays and lesbians perceive the Church to be doing directly to them.
You seem to be holding the Church’s opponents to a pretty low standard of civil discourse.
I’m not saying there’s nothing wrong with the commercial. I’m saying that I think I’ve been able to get into a position to understand why gays and lesbians are so upset at what they perceive the Church to be doing.
Also, because the Church has a very unfortunate record on civil rights throughout the twentieth century, this campaign is easily viewed as fitting into that framework.
-
The add is obviously using hyperbole to make a point. It is true that missionaries don’t really act like that, but the missionaries in the add are function as symbols for the church (you know, like a parable). And it is simply undeniable that the Mormon church is attempting to take away some legal rights, albeit rights that have only existed for a few months.
David, have you tried, as john f. suggests, to imagine how you would feel if a small religious organization mounted an intense and well funded lobbying campaign to publicly declare your family legally illegitimate? If you would, I don’t think you would find this add either surprising or particularly outrageous.
-
ed -
I’d like to think I am sympathetic to gay families but I’m sure I can’t perfectly understand their situation.
But does that mean there is no way to oppose gay marriage without being a bigot or deserving ads like this?
-
David:
An LA Times Opinion piece makes similar points:
The Yes on 8 campaign is doing its best to spread its outrage — outrage!! — over the latest ad against Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to take away the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed.
The ad, which debuted on YouTube and is going out on television today, is certainly the most attention-getting TV spot to criticize the proposition. Most of the ads against Proposition 8 have been extraordinarily tame, unlike the fear-mongering rumors spread by the Yes side.
Not any more. The new ad — a skit in which two actors playing Mormon missionaries visit the home of a married lesbian couple — is clearly intended to signal viewers that the Mormon church has been a major player in the Yes campaign. Its message is that the religious right is claiming the power to strip others of their rights, starting with marriage and heading into any other arenas the movement finds immoral.
Having viewed the ad, I can’t see what the big deal is. Skits like this are common fodder for campaign ads. Were opponents of Prop. 8 supposed to never touch the religious aspect of this? Is it supposed to be unfair to play the Mormon card, considering the role Mormonism has played on the Yes side (e.g., pressing its members to donate and work for the campaign)? Surely the Mormon church and its members never expected to leap into a campaign with this much vocal and financial might, funding it in large part and pushing for it relentlessly, without expecting that they would be viewed as a force that is trying to roll back the clock on gay rights in California. And considering that the Yes on 8 campaign has tried to depict gays and lesbians as attempting to take over elementary schools and force themselves on religious weddings, it’s not in a great position to claim bigotry and intolerance, let alone misleading advertising, coming from the other side.
The “missionaries” show up at the front door …. but watch and judge for yourself.
Believe me, I don’t like seeing Mormon missionaries as the target of a political ad either. It surprises me, however, to see Mormons crying foul at this considering the involvement of the Church in the campaign. If only this really were a broad-based coalition against gay marriage but I’m afraid the data show otherwise. Therefore, the main players are getting singled out. Is this a PR blackeye for us? I believe it is. But commenters above pointed out above that if it is a true principle to deny gays and lesbians the opportunity to establish a stable family life in civil marriages, then PR considerations should be irrelevant. Thus the type of open outrage Mormons are showing at this add seems misplaced. A better reaction would be resignation, i.e. understanding that as the driving force behind this campaign, we will bear the brunt of the response to our efforts. And, frankly, putting myself in the shoes of married gay couples, I can see how they would see our efforts in this as akin to the Mormon missionaries invading their home to revoke their marriages. It never hurts to try to see where your political opponents are coming from. That’s why, although the commercial saddens me, I am not particularly upset by it. I have a hard time seeing how it is out of bounds or unfair, even if it is not ideal for us as Mormons.
-
I am not concerned about the church’s PR stance and I don’t think they are either. There are those that on this issue are filled with such vitriol, that even if the church had not entered the arena, they still would have been behind it according to them. I don’t believe that the church’s money bought votes. I have read too many stories of members being divided on this proposition. And, have been subjected to local “hating on Mormons” historically in my community for more than 30 years.
Being a voting member of the California citizen-ry I am usually an unrepresented vote. I am a conservative in a liberal state. It feels good to know, that the majority of my fellow citizens stood with me on this issue (twice). It has nothing to do with hating homosexuals. It has everything to do with the vote of the people.
-
Ha! The Church has been asking for it. They wouldn’t have made that smearing ad if the Church hasn’t been so active in this area for so many years. It is such a large issue for me, that it makes me embarassed to even tell people that I am a member of the Church any more. I’m glad to see it coming more into the public spotlight.
-
I have not seen this commercial but form hearing about it I am so uneasy and discusted at the hipocracy of the No on 8 Supporters. I am a California Mormon and I live very near SF. I fear for what ignorant people will do to the missionaries in my area. People were fooled by the commercials on this issue already. The ad’s against Prop 8 stated that it would not be taught in schools because it is not a requirement to teach sexual education in the schools. TRUTH: 96% of California schools teach sexual education…which means had prop 8 not passed 96% of our students would be learning about Gay Marriage without parent notification. People have a hard time thinking for themselves. People will believe this about missionaries…most of which in California DID NOT COME FROM CALIFORNIA!!! A Majority of the Missionaries who are in cali DID NOT VOTE ON PROP 8!!!!!
-
I’m trying to wrap my head around this “teaching kids about gay marriage thing that everyone finds so objectionable. ESPECIALLY when a lot of kids in California go to schools with other kids who have gay parents. Have play dates with them or share baby-sitting with them or play soccer or baseball or whatever with them
Fear-mongering, without it, churches would be out of business,.
-
Kayla, if you’re so afraid that your children will find out that annie has two mommies or timmie has two daddies, perhaps you should just take them out of public schools altogether and limit their non-mormon activities, no little league, no outside friendships, ’cause otherwise, they’ll meet someone who, in fact, has two mommies, or two daddies, and where will you be? Or perhaps, they’ve heard all the fuss about the vote and have already figured it out?
-
Oh, and whoever owns this website, Amazon.com (just above this comment box here) just recommended not only David Bowie’s “Low” (Mr. Bowie being a well-known bi-sexual) but also Antony and the Johnsons. It is physicially impossible to be more flaming than Antony unless you’re Boy George, so I think you should rethink that Amazon banner. Oh, and they’re both great albums, if you’re into that sort of thing. And look! Between the buttons! (get it?) The Rolling Stones! Bad bad bad bad boys. Tsk, tsk.
-
Kayla, you can keep your kids out of the sex education classes in California. You can keep them out of spelling, if you have the mind. What exactly is your fear? That parents not as clever as you will fail to keep their young ones out of the classes and they’ll learn things they shouldn’t? Heaven forbid. My mormon parents kept me out of every sex education class in every school I was in. Just do the same.
-
I should be more clever about this, but, oh well. Kayla, the point is not that the missionaries did or did not vote for Prop. 8. It is that it was orchestrated from the very top of the Mormon Hierarchy, and Mormon is very hierarchical. So, the missionaries, as representative of said hierarchy and, as such, are representing the beliefs of Thomas Monson and the 12, who have let their views very clearly be known. It makes no difference if an individual missionary voted for the proposition or not, as he is representing an organization that spent, what? 22 Million? to get the proposition pased.
-
First off the Mormon church didn’t “fund” the money that went into prop 8; last time I checked any individual can contribute/give their money to any one or any thing they want to. I personally contribute to several political and charitable events - can I expect to have the religion I practice attacted because of where I want to give my money? I don’t understand why so many people are attacking the Mormons over this. The entire State of California had the opportunity to vote and did-not just one church . I can see people being upset that this may have not gone the way they wanted but in 2000 they voted on prop 22 and it went through also. It’s reasonable to say that a vote on a similar topic would go the same way-I don’t know why people were shocked. The behaviors of those attacking people and churches are disgusting -they are pure hate crimes!
36 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.asoftanswer.com/2008/11/03/anti-prop-8-ad-direct-attack-mormon-church-and-its-missionaries/trackback/