Church Members Resign Over Prop 8 Support

[Uncle Remus]

This is an interestin' turn of events:

This letter is my formal resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is effective immediately. I hereby withdraw my consent to being treated as a member and I withdraw my consent to being subject to church rules, policies, beliefs and ‘discipline’. As I am no longer a member, I want my name permanently and completely removed from the membership rolls of the church.
>
>
>
Richard Monroe, Salt Lake City


I’m disappointed and ashamed to be a member of this church right now. This isn’t the first time I’ve found my beliefs to be in opposition to teachings from the Church leadership. And while this disconnect has often led me to seriously consider removing my name from the records of the Church, I’ve always believed there was more good to be done by changing people’s minds from within the flock than without. I’m not sure I feel that way anymore.
>
>
>
Rebecah Davis, San Francisco, CA


I was a member until I was 19, when I started (and ended, after a month) a mission.

Still, I believed until recently that the LDS church was overall a force for good in the world, though I disagreed with some of their philosophical and political views. No longer. I can no longer support in any way this vile, hateful behavior, and have sent in my resignation.

If my family reads this, I can only say to them that I’m sorry, but this is more important than hurt feelings. I have to do what I know is right.
Thouis R. Jones, Arlington, MA


MORE HERE (http://signingforsomething.org/blog/?cat=310)

[DVC~OKW~96]

In the grand scheme of Mormon based and backed hatred and intolerance, do these few sane voices matter to that organized hatred? I don't know.

It is nice of you to point it out though. :hug:

[rpmdfw]

In the grand scheme of Mormon based and backed hatred and intolerance, do these few sane voices matter to that organized hatred? I don't know.

It is nice of you to point it out though. :hug:

Never underestimate the impact of one individual.

Where would the civil rights movement be if Rosa Parks hadn't taken a stand by sitting down?

[Uncle Remus]

Never underestimate the impact of one individual.

Where whould the civil rights movement be if Rosa Parks hadn't taken a stand by sitting down?

Harvey Milk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfexvihri8)

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg245/Kurtz_09/Rights/FighttheH8.jpg

[DVC~OKW~96]

True. True. :)

[Uncle Remus]

Here's some news from Prop 102 re: the LDS:

Jim Burroway
November 14th, 2008
I received this email earlier this morning. Portions are reprinted here with permission:

I worked for a Mormon-owned CPA firm… I was fired from my job after admitting that I had voted NO on prop 102.

I was discussing the election on Wednesday with some co workers (who don’t vote) and I asked if you would have voted, what would you have voted on 102? She told me she would have voted no, so I said well at least I’m not the only one on the office that was against it. Then she said wait, what was a no vote for? So I explained 102 to her. She got extremely angry and started saying it was an abomination. So I told her that I had a cousin who was gay that was murdered in a hate crime because he was gay. So I supported it because it was just an equal rights issue. So I just dropped it and didn’t discuss it anymore.

The next day she had a meeting with the owner, and when I came in on Friday they told me that I was being let go. When I asked if it was because of my work performance, the owner said “Let’s just call it a management decision.” I had spoken to the owner just weeks before about the upcoming year and he was telling me he wanted to give me a raise. He had booked me for a tax seminar for the second week of Dec., so I know he was planning on me being employed with him for awhile until this.

This is what we’re up againt: people who act with impunity.


Source (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/14/6239)



I hate that the man lost his job for exercising his right to vote his conscience. :mad:

[DVC~OKW~96]

As much as it sickens me (and I don't have adequate words to describe just how much that is) this can't be the only example of something like this.

This sort of information; real life experience is what needs to make it to the ears of society.

This is the sort of hatred, deceit and intolerance that this nation has behind it's majority vote.

[Uncle Remus]

As much as it sickens me (and I don't have adequate words to describe just how much that is) this can't be the only example of something like this.

This sort of information; real life experience is what needs to make it to the ears of society.

This is the sort of hatred, deceit and intolerance that this nation has behind it's majority vote.

I'm sure people who oppose equal rights for gays would justify this man's firing as the employer's right to do so, you know how they like to be in charge of everything. ;)

[soulmates]

As the old saying goes, "It aint over till the fat lady sings"!! I honestly believe, this is just the begining!! So, hold on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!:woohoo:

[TuckandStuiesMom]

EEOC has been VERY active here in AZ on just these types of situations. In the last week or so, the University of Phoenix got SERIOUSLY slapped for discrimination against non-LDS employees. I sure hope this fella contacted them immediately after being let go.

***FWIW -- I am a little worried about one aspect of this story -- the lack of meaningful details. One of the troubling things I kept running into in my one-on-ones with 102 supporters back before the elections was the constant repeating story of some Canadian church (no denomination, no province, no name, etc.) that got into all kinds of trouble (here the story diverged somewhat -- was sued, was fined, had their land taken away) because its minister -- or whatever ?!?!-- declined to perform a marriage for a same sex couple***

I could be 180 degrees off on this but there was no mention of this on the Wingspan site when I checked it this a.m.

I'm a little bit reminded of that moldy old Nietzsche aphorism "Look not too long into the abyss for the abyss is also looking into you."

Here's some news from Prop 102 re: the LDS:

Jim Burroway
November 14th, 2008
I received this email earlier this morning. Portions are reprinted here with permission:

I worked for a Mormon-owned CPA firm… I was fired from my job after admitting that I had voted NO on prop 102.

I was discussing the election on Wednesday with some co workers (who don’t vote) and I asked if you would have voted, what would you have voted on 102? She told me she would have voted no, so I said well at least I’m not the only one on the office that was against it. Then she said wait, what was a no vote for? So I explained 102 to her. She got extremely angry and started saying it was an abomination. So I told her that I had a cousin who was gay that was murdered in a hate crime because he was gay. So I supported it because it was just an equal rights issue. So I just dropped it and didn’t discuss it anymore.

The next day she had a meeting with the owner, and when I came in on Friday they told me that I was being let go. When I asked if it was because of my work performance, the owner said “Let’s just call it a management decision.” I had spoken to the owner just weeks before about the upcoming year and he was telling me he wanted to give me a raise. He had booked me for a tax seminar for the second week of Dec., so I know he was planning on me being employed with him for awhile until this.

This is what we’re up againt: people who act with impunity.



I hate that the man lost his job for exercising his right to vote his conscience. :mad:

[hematite153]

One of the troubling things I kept running into in my one-on-ones with 102 supporters back before the elections was the constant repeating story of some Canadian church (no denomination, no province, no name, etc.) that got into all kinds of trouble (here the story diverged somewhat -- was sued, was fined, had their land taken away) because its minister -- or whatever ?!?!-- declined to perform a marriage for a same sex couple***


Yeah, I'm absolutely certain that story isn't true. There is NOTHING in the Canadian legislation that compels a church to marry a same-sex couple--just as there's nothing that compels a church to marry an opposite-sex couple.

However, there are many churches that have said their ministers have to abide by the wishes of their congregation. So, it's possible that a minister may have been fired by his/her congregation for refusing to perform a wedding that the congregation had approved.

[TuckandStuiesMom]

Yeah, I'm absolutely certain that story isn't true. There is NOTHING in the Canadian legislation that compels a church to marry a same-sex couple--just as there's nothing that compels a church to marry an opposite-sex couple.


Of course it's not true -- it's just an urban, suburban, and (unfortunately for me in my attempts to get some otherwise kind, considerate, salt-of-the-earth people to rethink their knee-jerk positions) flippin' rural myth to legitimize and perpetuate intolerance. I'm hoping the story of the fella who lost his job isn't just more of the same -- coming from the other direction -- if that makes any sense.

[hematite153]

Of course it's not true -- it's just an urban, suburban, and (unfortunately for me in my attempts to get some otherwise kind, considerate, salt-of-the-earth people to rethink their knee-jerk positions) flippin' rural myth to legitimize and perpetuate intolerance. I'm hoping the story of the fella who lost his job isn't just more of the same -- coming from the other direction -- if that makes any sense.

Yeah, it makes sense. I actually fear that it is more of the same coming from the other side--I find that I never trust these stories unless there's a reputable news article to support it, because even then there have been instances of inaccuracies.

I don't think I've said this recently, but, I hope you know that I really appreciate all of your attempts to improve awareness and your seemingly boundless energy to fight on the behalf of others.

[TuckandStuiesMom]

Yeah, it makes sense. I actually fear that it is more of the same coming from the other side--I find that I never trust these stories unless there's a reputable news article to support it, because even then there have been instances of inaccuracies.

I don't think I've said this recently, but, I hope you know that I really appreciate all of your attempts to improve awareness and your seemingly boundless energy to fight on the behalf of others.

Well --same back atcha, Friend Hematite. :grouphug: I'll admit though you've made me feel a little guilty here...

for you see...

I am an inactive member of the church that shall not be named :) (kinda rhymes with the fifth element on the periodic table) and I am really hating what they are doing to themselves by taking this intolerant and hateful stance.

When my former bishop called us on the phone back in mid-October to see if we were on-board with the rest of the ward on this issue, it about broke my heart. I am 100% sure that I was in his prayers that night after that phone call; but I'm not sure that he knew that he was in mine as well. I've kinda been thinkin' about going in to church on an upcoming Testimony Sunday and saying my piece -- but I'm not sure I'm up for it -- not sure I could keep from getting angry, am not a particularly good public speaker, and finally am just plain not sure at all I'm ready to take another public swing at this particular hornet's nest.

... But I know I should.

... I'd SO MUCH rather just pull a Martin Luther and nail a parchment to the Stake Center's doors.

... but that would be the coward's way.

CTR means Choose The Right.

[hematite153]

I'll admit though you've made me feel a little guilty here...


Ohhh...that wasn't my goal. Is there another church somewhere (even an hour away) that you could attend where the fight wouldn't be quite as hard? I mean a congregation that just hasn't engaged the issue at this point would be likely to have a few people who think like you, even if the majority doesn't. But, then, you could get support and be able to connect with people (and influence their thinking) one-on-one instead of having to be a public speaker.

25 years ago the church that I attend had a tiny membership with a single child and had a minister settled there with the instructions to help them close their doors. However, she found that the congregation had a strong sense of themselves and a willingness to fight for survival. So, instead of helping them close she helped them to redefine themselves as passionate about social justice and welcoming to all people and people who had been driven out of their churches, for a variety of reasons, started trickling in. Today, we are one of the few congregations that are growing and our children's program has around 70 kids.

It might be too much to hope for a congregation near you to have begun down this path (but, it's probably worth looking for), but, there might be one that is ready to begin being guided towards it.

In other words, I get that trying to change minds in your former church may be too much, but, there are probably people who are less polarized and simply unexposed with whom you could connect better--after all, the vote was close, so, you only need to change the minds of the middle group in order for change to begin.

Good luck! :grouphug:

[TuckandStuiesMom]

Oh Sweetie -- It's the GOOD kinda guilt -- the kind that makes ya get up off yer butt and do something!!!! :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2 THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART!!!! :goodvibes I've gotta leave for work right now but will add a couple thoughts later. :) :) :)



Ohhh...that wasn't my goal. Is there another church somewhere (even an hour away) that you could attend where the fight wouldn't be quite as hard? I mean a congregation that just hasn't engaged the issue at this point would be likely to have a few people who think like you, even if the majority doesn't. But, then, you could get support and be able to connect with people (and influence their thinking) one-on-one instead of having to be a public speaker.

25 years ago the church that I attend had a tiny membership with a single child and had a minister settled there with the instructions to help them close their doors. However, she found that the congregation had a strong sense of themselves and a willingness to fight for survival. So, instead of helping them close she helped them to redefine themselves as passionate about social justice and welcoming to all people and people who had been driven out of their churches, for a variety of reasons, started trickling in. Today, we are one of the few congregations that are growing and our children's program has around 70 kids.

It might be too much to hope for a congregation near you to have begun down this path (but, it's probably worth looking for), but, there might be one that is ready to begin being guided towards it.

In other words, I get that trying to change minds in your former church may be too much, but, there are probably people who are less polarized and simply unexposed with whom you could connect better--after all, the vote was close, so, you only need to change the minds of the middle group in order for change to begin.

Good luck! :grouphug:

[bicker]

Harvey Milk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfexvihri8)
Thirty years ago, today, Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by political rival Dan White.

[Uncle Remus]

Thirty years ago, today, Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by political rival Dan White.

Yes and it was a sad day for many folks.

Gonna be a good movie. :thumbsup2

[Uncle Remus]

NBC NEWS November 27, 1978 George Moscone & Harvey Milk Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUB-RCNBDnk)

[sunnydoozer]

Yeah, I'm absolutely certain that story isn't true. There is NOTHING in the Canadian legislation that compels a church to marry a same-sex couple--just as there's nothing that compels a church to marry an opposite-sex couple.

However, there are many churches that have said their ministers have to abide by the wishes of their congregation. So, it's possible that a minister may have been fired by his/her congregation for refusing to perform a wedding that the congregation had approved.

I think people get this sort of thing confused:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/sask_same_sex_marriage

They hear he declined because of faith, and don't read the part of him being a civil servant appointed by the government. Of course someone appointed by the government would have to be non-discriminatory :confused3. Its not as though he would be losing part of his income by giving up his license a marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan can only charge $50 + 39 cents per km of travel.

[hematite153]

I think people get this sort of thing confused:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/sask_same_sex_marriage

They hear he declined because of faith, and don't read the part of him being a civil servant appointed by the government. Of course someone appointed by the government would have to be non-discriminatory :confused3. Its not as though he would be losing part of his income by giving up his license a marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan can only charge $50 + 39 cents per km of travel.

Yeah. If he wants to decline because of faith then he should get a marriage license that is attached to his faith. If he wants to perform religious marriages, then, he can become a minister, be ordained by the Baptist church and then apply for a marriage license as a Baptist Minister. The province would then have no problem with him declining because of his religious beliefs.

However, if he wants to have a license for civil marriages, then, he has already decided that religion doesn't belong in the equation and cannot randomly decide to put it back in.