Did Stephanie Meyer support Proposition 8?

Stephanie Meyer's 'Twilight' saga has been wildly successful - especially amongst an audience that embraces romance, the supernatural and the concept of 'true love will out.'

Which is why Stephanie Meyer's publicity hounds are scrambling desperately to cover up accusations that Meyer, a devout Mormon who attended Brigham Young university in Salt Lake City*, donated a 'substantial' amount of money in support of 'Proposition 8.'

Prop 8, as I'm sure you already know, was the controversial voter referendum in California, which amended the constitution to redefine marriage as 'between a man and a woman' - thus rendering 18,000 same-sex unions null and void and banning gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

(The California supreme court upheld the amendment on appeal, but legitimized the 18,000 existing marriages.)

This isn't exactly surprising. 45% of out-of-state donations in support of Proposition 8 came from Utah, while 80% to 90% of all door-to-door campaigning against Gay Marriage was carried out by Mormons and members of the Church of Latter Day Saints**.

In all, Mormons donated approximately $20 million dollars to ban same-sex unions in California (some families donated their life savings and their kid's college funds.)

At the very least, a significant amount of money from Meyer's 10% 'tithe' she pays to the Mormon church would have been used to support Proposition 8.

However, accusations still abound that she donated more money directly to the campaign.

In any event, I know this would upset many fans of the 'Twilight' saga.

Most of the ones I know were avid opponents of Proposition 8 and would be very disappointed to learn that Meyer's romanticized version of 'true love' only extends to those of different genders.

NB - Bob, of the blog The Mormons Are Coming! refuted my claim in his blog post 'Did Twilight Fans Help Pass Prop 8?' He points out that no cash contributions were made to the 'Yes on Prop 8' campaign by the church. That being said, over $190,000 of 'in-kind' services were donated in direct support of Proposition 8 - which still leaves their members (including Meyer) culpable.

* ...actually Provo, Utah, an hour south of Salt Lake City, as corrected by the lovely Ashley - Kitty Copy Editor
** ...actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as corrected by Ashley - Kitty Copy Editor

How California made the Wrong Choice the Right Way

NB: Since writing this, I might have even changed my mind. By the logic I put forward here, Loving vs. Virginia - the case which allowed an interracial marriage to take place, despite segregation - should have also been decided in the legislature, not the courts. By that logic, interracial marriage might still be illegal today! Not good!

As readers of Militant Ginger will know, I'm totally in support of same-sex marriage and was intensely disappointed when the California electorate shot down that liberty with their vile amendment to the State Constitution 'Proposition 8.'

However, when the California Supreme Court decided to uphold the amendment during appeal, I felt they made the right decision.

Don't get me wrong - I haven't changed my belief that same-sex couples should have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals. I just feel that this is an issue that's far too important to be decided in the courts.

Proposition 8 was ratified by referendum - the people of California were allowed to personally decide the issue, instead of leaving it up to the state legislature.

52.24% of them voted to redefine marriage as 'between a man and a woman,' obliterating the right same-sex couples previously had to enter into committed marriages themselves.

Sure, the fact that this issue was decided by referendum is incredibly disappointing. California's supposed to be a liberal state and has often led the way in progressive politics. These ballot results exposed underlying conservatism and religious zealotry in what many of us had previous considered 'safe territory.'

But the fact is, the vote was cast and the decision was made.

That it was the wrong decision is not up for debate - but, nevertheless, that's how democracy works. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

When the appeal reached the California Supreme Court, it stopped being about right or wrong and became about democracy and the law - and if the judges had upheld the appeal, it would have thrown everything the issue stands for into disarray.

"Put simply, the appeal complaint is that it's just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the referendum process," wrote Justice George, explaining the Court's decision. "But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail the Democratic process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it."

7 million people voted to redefine the institution of marriage. Despite questions about the morality of that decision, or whether or not it contradicted the US Constitution, you simply can't ignore the fact that 52.24% of voters said 'this is what we want.'

Conservative pundits like Mark Levin often throw around the term 'legislating from the bench,' but if the seven Supreme Court justices had upheld the appeal, overruling the Constitutional amendment, 'legislating from the bench' would have been exactly what supporters of Prop 8 would have accused them of doing.

To them, it would have been a clear demonstration that those seven voices were more important than their seven million. Any faith in the democratic process would have disappeared forever - 'Prop 8' detractors had already seen their freedoms stolen by the ballot box, now the proposition supporters themselves would see their voices overruled by the courts.

Supporters of Prop 8 would never have accepted a Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage. They'd have fought against it and won, as same-sex marriages would only continue until they manufactured another court ruling splintering that liberty once again.

The sad fact is; the only sustainable route to securing same-sex marriage is through the legislature. It has to be a freedom secured through democratic methods, otherwise it will never mean as much as the 'gay marriage' laws passed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont.

I'm not arguing that same-sex couples deserve the right to marry. I'm open-minded to comparisons between the struggle for gay rights and the civil rights movement. During the battle against segregation and racism, the majority of voters didn't always make what we know today to be the 'right' decision. The same applies today.

But, nevertheless, we have to uphold the democratic process, otherwise it's meaningless.

The good news: In 2010, the gay rights movement will have same-sex marriage back on the ballot - and this time, they'll win that fight. Last time around, less than 5% of votes separated the gay rights movement from victory. I'm confident that they can win those voters over this time.

When that happens - when a majority of Californians take a stand and support the freedom of same-sex marriage - then it'll be a long overdue, permanent victory. One that religious zealots and conservatives can't take away.

Gay Marriage

The wonderful Coffee Bean is preparing her thoughts on today's hottest topic, Gay Marriage (tomorrow's hottest topic will be French Onion Soup.)


I'd certainly head over and see what her blogging pals (myself included) have to say about it.

In the mean time, I have my own question:

Coming from Europe, and having lived in Paris and even having paid to go and see Brokeback Mountain (which was stunning for the scenery, a little bit squirmworthy for the sodomy) I really have no problems with gay people, gay marriage or whatever.

As long as it's behind closed doors between two consenting adults, I don't think anybody has the right to cast judgement. The decision to ban gay marriage in California is, as far as I'm concerned, just retarded.

But apparently, I'm (just barely) in the minority. So I ask this: What IS the problem with two consenting adults entering into a legally binding, monogamous relationship with all the rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage?

What's wrong with gay people getting married?

And I don't just want the tired old: "Oh, it undermines the sanctity of marriage" unless you're going to back it up with facts and examples or at least your thought process for saying that. The last person who made that claim admitted they were from a fatherless home themselves.

I mean, 'traditional marriage' is as dead as disco. Two out of three marriages ends in divorce anyway. It's all a farce unless you're in it for the long haul, straight OR gay. It's my fifth wedding anniversary tomorrow and, as far as I know, we're on our way to beating the odds.

So please, tell me: "What is wrong with gay marriage?" and, to channel my high school history teacher, Mr Tosh, please let's see the thought process behind why you feel that way.

There will be no poo-pooing, no scorn, no insults and no judgement from me. Just open minded curiosity. To my mind, it's all outlined in the Declaration of Independence:

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States decision that allowed interracial marriage, it was declared:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

If you disagree with that, why?

Every Silver Lining Has a Cloud

The astonishing sensation of Barack Obama winning the presidency has most American feeling euphoric and optimistic, but it wasn't all good news.

In California, Arizona, and Florida, conservatives made some headway into 'social issues' with their constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

It's caused enormous consternation in California, especially since more that 18,000 gay couples have tied the knot since same-sex marriage was legalized in June.

Already, conservatives are launching legal bids to have those marriages annulled.

Personally, I'm disgusted.

Coming from Europe, the idea of discriminating against people because of their sexuality is as abhorrent to me as discriminating against people based on their race, or gender.

Yet in California, straight-faced conservatives argue that it's not about bigotry. It's about 'freedoms.' Like how banning gay marriage would preserve their 'religious freedom' to refuse to rent their church halls and accommodation to same-sex couples, just like those same conservatives had fought for similar 'freedoms' to exclude black people during the days of segregation.

I really don't see what their problem is. This is 21st century America. If two people of the same sex want to have a committed, monogamous relationship, what problem does that cause?

Why does their gender give conservatives the right to refuse them the most basic of constitutional rights - the right to marry who you want to? The right to the same goods and services as everybody else?

It's not just the term 'marriage' that they're fighting over, either.

In Britain, people overcame the bigots by reclassifying same-sex marriage as a 'Civil Union,' which meant two people could make a commitment that shared all the same legal and social rights and duties of a traditional marriage, just avoided the religious ones.

Rights like being able to file a joint tax return, or share a spouse's benefits and become the beneficiary of their life insurance if they die. Basic stuff...

But Californians refused them that right - basically saying: "No, your relationships are not equal to ours."

I think it's disgusting.

It's gets better/worse, though. In Arkansas, the voters passed a law banning unmarried couples from adopting children. This is a blanket ruling, which covers common-law heterosexual couples, but is clearly aimed at lesbians and gays. Basically, unless you are in a traditional, Christian marriage, you're unfit to be parents.

It's so stupid, it makes my head hurt.

The statistical 'evidence' they have to support this hypothesis is so blindingly one-sided, it astonishes me.

Yes, according to your figures, middle-class, white, married heterosexual couples are more stable and secure.

Yet by those same statistics, middle-class, white, homosexual couples actually fair better than, for example, middle-class African-American married couples.

So if you're working on the idea that human achievement is limited purely to demographics, the good people of Arkansas should have just out-and-out admitted their old-school racism and banned black people from adopting kids as well as the gays and unmarried couples.

But, of course, that would be morally reprehensible. Thankfully, even they realize that your ability to be a parent isn't defined by statistics. It's defined by you.

So, instead, regardless of demographic origin, couples are allowed to prove to an Adoption Board that they will make good foster or adoptive parents, as is absolutely right and appropriate.

Whether you're black, white or purple, your ability to be a parent should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not on the color of your skin.

But gay couples and the unmarried can't take that test. Why? Because there's the conservative fear that they might go right ahead prove themselves suitable or even excellent potential parents.

It's disgusting. Redneck conservatives in Arkansas complain bitterly about abortion, yet then go and limit the number of financially secure, committed couples who can adopt kids.

"We have a thousand children still waiting to be adopted," said Julie Munsell, spokeswoman for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, which oversees adoptions and foster parenting. "We will have to target our recruitment efforts to those folks who are eligible under the law."

Like in all matters relating even remotely to abortion, the conservatives are the first to throw practical solutions towards reducing abortion under the bus, just so they can push their retarded, bigoted agenda.

GOOD JOB, you IDIOTS!

On a day that has given so many Americans hope for a better future, these conservative victories serve as a chilling reminder that the shadow of bigotry didn't die when we elected our first African American president.