I was not a member (or alive) before blacks could hold the priesthood. I’d be happy to share some words of encouragement, though—but I’m going to need a little more information. Could you be more specific about how you are struggling?

Hidden below the “supposed,” headline issue – is the real threat. Simply put, 61% of California voters voiced their support against same-sex marriage. Using the “issue,” special interest groups…. appealed the vote. California Supreme Court using the “issue,” sided against “We The People,” electing to literally cast the common voice of the people out.

The real issue is not same-sex marriage but rather our Consititution. “We The People,” have fewer and fewer Right’s due to the supposed issues and we continue to give them away… all the time believing we’re doing some poor discriminated gay couple a favor by recognizing them as married. Married, living together etc. Why is our Government, Supreme Court etc. not upholding the wishes and voice of the majority?

Yes, but let’s be clear that Max ALSO did not say what YOU just said. Had he done so, his post might not have been labeled the way it was at BCC. Extreme rhetoric breeds extreme rhetoric.

You may be right that we agree more than I think. If so, then I probably take the most issue with the rhetoric of your post. Really, it was hard for me to see it as more than another conservative member of the Church who is already decided against Obama and is using the California amendment issue as a wedge issue to rally support against him. Now, I realize that this may not have been your intention, but I think it’s a viable interpretation of your post’s rhetoric.

Regarding what is vocal on the Murmurnacle, I would simply ask, “Who is your audience?” Is your blog meant to simply gripe to people on the Murmurnacle? I’m also someone who sees themselves as outside the Bloggernacle, but I don’t see the Bloggernacle as my audience (see this post ). I see my audience as thoughtful Latter-day Saints.

Also, your post was much more than “information.” It was information with a clearly implied conservative agenda (even if it wasn’t intended). A little more context would have been better—for example, making it a clear that this is an issue that a person needs to weigh against other issues, including McCain’s positions that might be against a person’s LDS values.

I think we agree a lot more than you are permitting.

You say there are “MANY pro-Obama supporters who are more thoughtful of these issues than you seem to be giving credit” and I believe you. But they are not a vocal group in the Murmurnacle.

Whether or not he “personally” is against same-sex mariage, the policy positions advocated in his letter are for all practical purposes the most pro-same-sex marriage of any candidate of either party.

My intention with this post was not to push single issue voting, but to make information available that might influence these “thoughtful” members. The fact that Obama not only opposed the amendment, but also advocates the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, should make members of the church uncomfortable, and even if they can reconcile their vote for him justified by Prudence, that reconciliation should not be simple a simple linear equation.

I see what you’re trying to do here, but there are some big problems. First, let me say that I am a supporter of Obama (for now), and I have expressed support for him in spite of a couple of things I don’t fully agree with him on. [See my Why Mormons Should Consider Backing Obama post, in which I discuss this in regards to abortion. There is also a continuing debate on my blog concerning McCain vs. Obama on which we will discuss same-sex marriage soon.] You may be right that many on the Bloggernacle [Murmurnacle] don’t see these positions as a problem, but there are MANY pro-Obama supporters who are more thoughtful of these issues than you seem to be giving credit.

Second, let’s be clear that when you say Obama is “the most pro-same-sex-marriage candidate ever,” that he is NOT, in fact, pro-same-sex-marriage. He has specifically said this. He is in favor of “equality under the law” and opposed to a constitutional amendment (which, by the way, is NOT going to happen anytime soon—that time has passed). His disagreement with the California amendment is not grounded in his personal support for same-sex marriage.

Third, I’m not sure if “all you can do” really means not voting for anyone who is in favor of the amendment—even if they are in no way involved (and Obama is not—he has no say whatsoever in these matters). There might be an important issue here regarding the future of gay rights and gay marriage—but Obama is not an issue in terms of the California amendment. Should I not vote for any political figure in any state who is against the amendment? Maybe I should not even vote for anyone who is not actively supporting it? Moreover, maybe I should quit work, leave my wife, and spend all my time fighting for this amendment—ALL I can do. Well, this example shows that “all you can do” doesn’t really mean “all you can do.” It means all you can, in light of your circumstances. For me, these circumstances do not include not voting for a presidential candidate who has no direct bearing on the amendment simply because he is against it. A big reason why is because of the whole picture of who this candidate is and what he stands for, in comparison to his opponent.

Fourth, many liberals and moderates (I am the latter) really tire of hearing conservative appeals to not vote for someone that are based on a single issue (such as abortion or gay marriage). It is wrong to vote on a single issue (if Hitler is pro-life, it is wrong to vote for him for this sole reason). Likewise, it is wrong to (automatically) not vote for someone because of a single issue. Rather, the one issue needs to be weighed in light of other issues. For you to not be clear about this is disingenuous and it communicates (intentionally or not) a one-sided radically conservative polemic—and worse yet, one that plays on religious sympathies and loyalties. It would have been better for you to have made clear that this is an issue that Latter-day Saints might consider weighing against other things. It also would have been better to simply discuss the issues of gay marriage and an Obama presidency, rather than try to play on a tangential issue like the California amendment.

It’s pretty safe to say that there will be a very strong overlap between those who vote for Obama in California and those who vote against the marriage amendment; I consider his presence on the ballot to be the biggest obstacle the amendment faces. Any work to drum up Obama voters will work against passage of the marriage amendment. If there are those who are campaigning to get Obama supporters to vote for the amendment, though, that is great and valuable.

Given that the vote on the California marriage amendment is the same day as the presidential election, I’m wondering how anyone’s vote for president will have any impact on the passage of the amendment?

Also re #2, if he changed his mind to win votes (which of course wouldn’t surprise me, because that is how politics goes), I think that’s a slimy thing to do. If he changed his mind because he honestly has given it some thought and believes it’s better to support the amendment, then more power to him. Unfortunately, I will never know his motivations, and so that’s that.

And I simply thought it was interesting that he had taken that kind of stand since a lot of times candidates will kind of hmmm and haaaa over tough issues so as not to offend anyone. The fact that each frontrunner has taken such a firm stand on one side or the other makes this race all the more interesting. That is ALL I meant on this post.

Obviously, this issue is a big one for me, but there are many things about McCain I really don’t like. I just needed to make that clear. And I FIRMLY believe that there are good things to be had in both parties. People may not believe it, but I tend to be more independent politically than some might think. I don’t do platforms. I want to talk issues. And I grow weary of both parties’ holding so tightly to platforms that they forget to think.