Anti-Gay LDS Activities     

On 7 March 2000 the state of California will be holding its primary election as part of the national process to select the next president of the United States. Among the items on the ballot will be an initiative to amend the California Constitution to recognize marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Just prior to the 1996 presidential election, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which in effect stated that states did not have to recognize a marriage that was not one man and one woman. The constitutionality of DOMA is in question as a court might find that this is a violation of Article IV, Section One of the US Constitution, which states that "...full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state...".

For a court to consider the constitutionality of DOMA, a state would have to recognize some other form of marriage (two men, two women, or polygamy, as three examples), and then some test case could be arranged.

In a certain sense, the money that will be spent both in support of and in opposition to the California initiative defining marriage is money down the drain. The Federal law, as it stands, protects California's right, as well as the right of any other state to recognize or not recognize alternative forms of marriage. The state law logically seems unnecessary.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, have been at the forefront among organized groups opposing so called same-sex marriage. The Mormon church's efforts in Hawai'i, both in organizing and funding the supposedly local group opposing same-sex marriage with $600,000, its efforts legally to be made party to the court cases there, and its fundraising has been well documented elsewhere. The Mormon church's organizing and fundraising in last years election in Alaska, including its last minute donation of $500,000 dollars, which may have been spent on the media campaign, has also been documented.

Following the pattern of Hawai'i and Alaska, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has begun its involvement in the California March 2000 election.

1. A letter, dated 11 May 1999, and signed by John B. Dickson, John M. Madsen, and Cecil O. Samuelson, General Authorities of the Mormon church, and together constituting the Area Presidency of the North America West area of the Mormon church, was sent to all priesthood leaders in California. Recipients were directed to read the letter in Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society (organizations for adult men and women, respectively) on either May 23rd or May 30th, 1999. The letter describes the initiative, quotes from the First Presidency on the importance of marriage, defines the initiative as a moral issue, and urges church members to give their support to the initiative. The letter also states that a "broadbased coalition is being formed to work for the passage of the traditional marriage initiative", and that details will be forwarded to the recipients as they become available.

   With the letter are enclosures, including a Q and A on the initiative, as well as political commentary. The full text of the letter as well as the texts of the enclosures begin to appear on Mormon internet lists on 1 June 1999.

2. On 9 June 1999 an internet posting from a priesthood leader detailing a meeting began circulating on Mormon e-mail lists. He described a priesthood leadership meeting in which a member of a stake presidency told the assembled group that the stake would be receiving an assessment to raise money to support the initiative, and that members would be asked to support this by contributing directly (the money would not go through church accounts) to an unidentified organization, that is not a PAC, so that the contributions are not tax deductible.

3. On 11 June 1999, a person living in the San Francisco Bay area reported on a public Mormon e-mail list that a friend told her by e-mail that "stakes and wards have been assessed rather large amounts to raise for the anti-gay initiative in California. Members are being called in by their bishops and asked to donate substantial sums above tithing and send it directly to the PAC that is sponsoring the legislation ...".

4. On Sunday, 13 June, a friend of mine called his stake president and point blank asked him if the reports on the internet were true. The stake president flatly denied it.

5. On 14 June 1999, a second confirmation from the San Francisco Bay area was sent to a public internet list. A bishop reported: "The stake presidents have been asked to raise specific dollar amounts. It is not supposed to be done 'officially.' It is to be done by contacting individuals directly. The stake president is doing it himself." The stake president specifically told the bishops that a person not contributing was still eligible for a temple recommend.

6. Later on the same day, 14 June, a person reported on an e-mail list that while the letter read in meetings came from the Area Presidency, the directive about money came to her stake president through the Area Authority Seventy, and not directly from the Area Presidency.

7. On Wednesday, 16 June, my friend who inquired of his stake president, as noted in number 3) above, was called on the phone by the Stake President. He told my friend that he had had a meeting that evening, and that he had been given an assessment, and was calling to correct the information he had given my friend on Sunday.