Mormon anti-gay efforts in Maine
Guest post by djinn
Why are my people doing this? I just read “The Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo. He ran the original Stanford Prison Experiment where students assigned to be guards quickly increased the abuse that they heaped on students assigned to be prisoners such that after a single week (and after the guards had discovered sexual humiliation) the experiment was stopped. He chillingly details how almost all of us will be evil given the right circumstances. We all are good, but in the right circumstances, we all are bad.
Dr. Reed Quinn is both a cardiologist and a Stake President for the Mormon Church. This means he is the ecclesiastical leader for, in this case, 12 Mormon congregations. As a cardiologist he has undoubtedly saved the lives of many people. His wife, Eileen Quinn (or at least someone of that name who lives at the same address) is the CEO of the PAC Maine4Marriage.org, which has a spiffy website here. It’s slogan? “Marriage. One Man. One Woman.” That’s pretty amusing—even funnier since the authors don’t get the joke. You can point and snicker all you want.
The website highlights a general authority of the Mormon church, Elder Russell Nelson, speaking about the importance of families.
Dear friends, future happiness and even the future of nations is linked to children. Families with children need to be re-enthroned as the fundamental unit of society. We simply must value children more than we do! Without a new generation to replace the old, there is no wealth; without families, there is no future.
How does Eileen Quinn plan on valuing families with children? By refusing to allow a subset of them to have the protections of marriage. Of course. I protect my right to (X) by refusing you to have any (X) at all. Because of course, there’s not enough X to go around. Or something. I guess the Quinns are afraid we’ll run out of marriage if the Gays get some share.
I’m sure that the Quinns are really decent kind loving people, but then they behave like this. Why? I think they know. Because their environment—the Mormon church—screams “Hate the Gay” (But, Shh, say it nice, and don’t use the word “hate.” It’s so, uh, hateful.) In the Stanford Prison Experiment, a significant portion of the guards, after confronting what they had done, spent a good portion of their lives keeping others from similar harm.
Elder Nelson’s speech highlighted on the maine4marriage.org site continues: “Those who seek to undermine traditional marriage would effectively limit the rights of those who do uphold the sanctions of these institutions.” Let me rephrase. Your right to equal protection is outweighed by my right to discriminate against you. My right to keep you from doing something (that doesn’t affect me at all) outweighs your right to do the same thing. How amazingly self-centered. And illogical. And dumb.
Being kind, being decent, treating people as you wish to be treated isn’t “undermin[ing] traditional institutions” any more than freeing the black slaves back in 1863 was undermining the freedom of white southerners. Zimbardo, in “The Lucifer Effect” describes how we all follow, blindly, those we deem a “virtuous authority,” even when we should know better. He also describes how we can rise above our situation. “I made a mistake,” “I am responsible,” “I want group acceptance, but value my independence,” “I respect authority, but rebel against unjust authority.”
Rebel.
Update (from Chino): Good Grief. Check out this ad that just launched in Washington (not Maine):
If you’re Mormon, you probably recognize some of the artwork in that ad. You should. It’s owned and copyrighted by the LDS church. Wow. The Washington contest is not even about marriage. Apparently, the LDS church doesn’t mind being associated with a campaign against little ol’ domestic partnership. What’s up with that?
















Reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment should part of the core curriculum of every h.s. social studies class. Maybe as a companion to 1984. "Don't think you couldn't be the one wearing the boot."
But since the moral of the story is to rebel, I doubt we'll see that anytime soon.
October 6, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my sense is that we might actually be doing one better than "rebellion" in Maine and finally "organizing" for victory.
Because, although rebellion sounds like more fun, the folks on the ground who we're counting on now have already been there and done that, and now it's all about them getting the work done.
And I'm now cautiously optimistic that they will.
This post is mostly a call to those stragglers among the faithful who remain hesitant to shout the truth in their hearts from the roof tops: be kind and be not afraid.
October 6, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear -- although organizing for victory can be thought of as a kind of sophisticated rebellion (thus not as much fun).
October 6, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, far too many will think it's a "how-to" manual.
October 6, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Cheney?
October 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhhh . . .
Or this famous Mormon television personality.
~OGD~
October 6, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watching Glenn Beck, all I see is a grown man making an ass of himself.
If you're interested in reading a serious Mormon conservative's thoughts on marriage equality, I've always been impressed by Nate Oman's contributions to the discussion:
http://www.patheos.com/Explore/Additional-Resources/Why-Conservatives-Should-Support-Gay-Marriage-07072009.html
October 6, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup . . .
Beck's struck it rich on the backs of the easily hoodwinked folks by acting as the horse's ass.
And ... if you take the time you'll see many of those same folks in their younger days sitting in the crowd in this video as Morton Downey Jr takes On Gloria Allred back in the 1980s.
Now there's some real high brow debate there, Eh?
~OGD~
October 7, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I simply don't get objections to marriage between same sex couples or adoption of children by them.
Sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person is, or is not, good at marriage; nor does it have anything to do with whether, or not, two people will be competent as parents. As a generality, the people who are the best at being married and the best parents are those who had good role models growing up. Since not everyone can claim that positive formative experience, better, then, that everyone -- of every persuasion -- take classes, early, in how it's done well. And maybe have to pass an exam. It could be like the bar exam -- you get to take it three times and if you can't pass it on the third try, give up and do something else productive with your life.
October 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my sense is that many on the anti-gay side also know there are no good objections left, but they're cynically revving up the noise machine and milking homophobia for every vote and dollar they can get before this whole debate disappears and is forgotten in about ten years time.
Robby George over at Princeton who chairs NOM is no dummy. As he said in a speech at BYU, at some point the full faith and credit clause will be brought to apply and Utah will be "whipped into line" (his words - which lead to wonder if he isn't an Opus Dei self-flagellator - maybe a topic for another post).
October 7, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
...give up and do something else productive with your life.
Careful what you ask for, Wendy. Apparently, rewriting the Bible to suit the conservative bias is considered productive. :-)
October 6, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops. Should be a reply to Wendy's comment!
October 6, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person is, or is not, good at marriage; nor does it have anything to do with whether, or not, two people will be competent as parents.
Nor does it determine whether one is or will discover that she or he is gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight. I think there is more than going on than a preference. Just think about gay and lesbian individuals with two heterosexual parents. If sexuality was a "behavior" largely based on those who have the most influence over us, 100% of the population would be heterosexual.
October 6, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest ad from the Yes on 1 side in Maine actually ends with this line: "Vote Yes on Question 1 to prevent homosexual marriage from being pushed on Maine students."
Apparently, public school teachers could soon have the power to turn kids gay and would begin marrying them off during school hours just as soon as they were.
October 7, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry 1849, my use of terminology is outdated and inaccurate in the sense you point out; I did not mean to suggest that people are gay, lesbian or straight simply as a matter of choice.
October 7, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why are my people doing this?"
Does this imply that you are Mormon? You seem conversant with stakes, bishops, stc. I don't mean to make you uncomfortable, but calling Dr. Quinn decent and loving may not be the easy call you are making. When there is a "but" to come...
I live in a Mormon-settled valley, and have learned from personal experience and through friends who have attempted to leave the church, that there are plenty of contradictions to LDS members over race, sexual orientation, chastity, and well, ...sexual issues with children that mirror the Catholic Church. That so many attempts to discern truth are deemed "not faith promoting," frankly gives me the shivers. I wish you well in your reconciliation of the issues.
October 6, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Djinn, the author of this diary, is Mormon. I'm a sixth-generation Mormon, but haven't participated since returning from my mission to Brazil twenty years ago. I can't speak for Djinn, but in my case, there's no element of seeking personal reconciliation, just an ongoing interest in the dynamics that lead to so much harm being dished out on gay youth in the community.
October 7, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, jeez louise, I totally missed that this was another person's blog. I'm glad, actually, that it's not you; I didn't want to hurt your feelings.
October 7, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chino, thanks so much for keeping us updated.
You don't post enough.
October 6, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but considering that I only ever post on the same topic, your second sentence is probably a good thing. As it is, I have to resort to finding friends like Djinn to keep it interesting with a guest post, otherwise this would be yet another diary about NOM's tax returns.
October 7, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I went to the site to attempt to ask that "Pastor" a question, and upon clicking on the Contact Us link, was more than a bit shocked. Not only are you required to either put up money or defer "for right now" to even be allowed to comment, but they have to have your full name, and won't bother to respect your privacy by keeping everyone else that peruses the site from seeing it. They also have to have your email, despite it not being needed to comment.
Over the top, much?
So, I guess I'll just ask my question here. Has anyone seen/heard an explanation as to how Gays/Lesbians having the right to marry "effectively limits" the rights of the Radicals?
October 7, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my sense is that maine4marriage.org site is mostly just window dressing. As far as I can tell, the PAC itself has so far reported raising $15. I think mainly it just gives Eileen and Miriam spiffy titles they can sign off with when sending out email blasts to their Mormon network in Maine (e.g., Yours Truly, Miriam Conners, President of Maine4Marriage, yada yada). A more useful site to visit is republicanproject.org, where you can see Miriam's bio.
Regarding your final question, the explanation I've heard from LDS General Authorities (like Nelson above, and Bednar elsewhere) is that increasing hostility to discrimination against gays threatens to lead to the silencing of the Mormon view that there's something fundamentally wrong with gays, or something like that. It requires a serious Mormon-sized persecution complex to understand.
October 7, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, basically, it's wrong because I say so.
And, please accept my sincerest apologies if I offended you in any way with my post. I didn't catch that you were connected to these people. And thanks for taking the time to explain.
October 7, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offended? The only people who offend me are these well-to-do, well-educated Mormon leaders who peddle ignorance and hate to their followers. I am so totally not offended by anything you typed.
October 7, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, there's a piece in the NY Times today about Utah's new governor and his meeting with Equality Utah that covers some of this same ground:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/06/us/AP-US-Gay-Rights-Herbert.html
The article also links to a site that some fellow Mormons have set up, and I'm gonna drop a link here, since they're trying in their own way to make some headway with the Utah and LDS leadership:
http://www.ldsapology.org/
October 7, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the LDS Church's recent anti-gay crusade is rooted in a desire for acceptance as much as intolerance. The LDS wants to get more involved in politics, specifically GOP politics. But the evangelical and Catholic communties distrust and dislike LDS.
In order to overcome that obstacle, they are bankrolling this effort in order to dispel the image of polygamy and unite with other churches in order to bash an historically maligned minority.
In other words, LDS wants to be part if the kewl kidz. Just my two cents.
October 7, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. That all sounds about right.
Last year, I helped construct a timeline of Mormon involvement in Prop 8, and this was one of the early dates that stood out:
September 2007: Mitt Romney, in an interview with Christianity Today, describes an earlier 2007 Salt Lake City meeting between Jerry Falwell and Gordon B. Hinckley to discuss their cooperation on a campaign against same-sex marriage in California.
Source: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/8536/
So, yeah, the Mormons and the Falwells were planning a joint effort on Prop 8 way back before anyone had even heard of Prop 8.
October 7, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may or may not have an answer to this question which is off-topic. When my husband and I moved to this valley many years ago, we went to a couple informational sessions at the local LDS church introducing the religion to non-members. Attendees went to different stations where different men in the hierarchy explained various issues. I truly don't remember any mention of the Bible, was given The Book of Mormon, most of which I read.
At some point it seemed that Mormons went more mainstream as a "Christian' religion; now on their teevee ads, a person can request a Bible (and a few visits by missionaries, assumedly). In your experience, has there been a switch, or are you too young to have known what the religion was doing, say, thirty years ago?
FYI: I used to let the missionaries in to talk, but I don't any longer. they have been woefully ignorant of the world's religions, and are too frustrating to talk with. I now only let them in if they agree to have something cold to drink, talk no religion, and leave. If they break their word, I show them to the door.
October 7, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up Mormon under the impression that we were alone in our own corner (politically, theologically, and otherwise).
Twenty years on, it seems pretty apparent that we've now teamed up with the theocons.
October 8, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how many of the commenters here have no clue as to what the homosexual marriage debate is. They think it's inclusiveness vs. arbitrary exclusiveness motivated by hate.
It's impossible to hold a dialogue with people who cannot think outside of this limited and frankly juvenile rubric. If the main motivation of one party is to feel good about himself by accusing others of irrational prejudice, there's nothing you can do, because acknowledging the true nature of the dispute will dismantle his self-image as fighter on behalf of the oppressed against the forces of hate, which is often all he is interested in.
October 12, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please feel free to clue us in, Cimarron.
Corrections always welcome. Gratuitous insults? Not so much.
October 23, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink