Take note of the update near the bottom.
Yesterday, Brigham Young University’s student paper The Daily Universe featured a letter to the editor that argued that the legal case for Proposition 8 is “indefensible.” Its author, BYU student Cary Crall*, also asked Mormons to admit that their only opposition to gay marriage is religious. The letter attracted enormous attention and praise from both the Mormon and ex-Mormon online communities. People were most impressed that BYU—in a refreshing display of academic freedom—published it.
But shortly after the letter was posted to the Universe‘s website, it was quietly pulled**. This is disappointing, but not terribly surprising; the letter nearly didn’t get published at all. Crall told me in a Facebook message that he submitted the letter to the Universe a few weeks ago, but it was rejected by the summer editor who felt it was inappropriate for a “newspaper funded by the LDS Church.” It wasn’t until after some edits and the approval of a new editor that it was published, albeit briefly.
Thankfully, Crall was kind enough to email me the original copy of his letter with permission to reproduce it here. (The bracketed sentences did not appear in the Universe.)
Viewpoint: Defending Proposition 8 — It’s time to admit the reasons
By CARY CRALL
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the recent United States District Court case that overturned Proposition 8, highlighted a disturbing inconsistency in the pro-Prop 8 camp.
The arguments put forth so aggressively by the Protect Marriage coalition and by LDS church leaders at all levels of church organization during the campaign were noticeably absent from the proceedings of the trial. This discrepancy between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court shows that at some point, proponents of Prop 8 stopped believing in their purported rational and non-religious arguments for the amendment.
Claims that defeat of Prop 8 would force religious organizations to recognize homosexual marriages and perform such marriages in their privately owned facilities, including LDS temples, were never mentioned in court. Similarly, the defense was unable to find a single expert witness willing to testify that state-recognized homosexual marriage would lead to forcing religious adoption agencies to allow homosexual parents to adopt children or that children would be required to learn about homosexual marriage in school.
Four of the proponents’ six expert witnesses who may have been planning on testifying to these points withdrew as witnesses on the first day of the trial. Why did they go and why did no one step up to replace them? Perhaps it is because they knew that their arguments would suffer much the same fate as those of David Blankenhorn and Kenneth Miller, the two expert witnesses who did agree to testify.
Judge Vaughn Walker, who heard the case, spent 11 pages of his 138-page decision meticulously tearing down every argument advanced by Blankenhorn before concluding that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.” Miller suffered similar censure after it was shown that he was unfamiliar with even basic sources on the subject in which he sought to testify as an expert.
The court was left with lopsided, persuasive testimony leading to the conclusion that Proposition 8 was not in the interest of the state and was discriminatory against gays and lesbians. Walker’s decision is a must-read for anyone who is yet to be convinced of this opinion. The question remains that if proponents of Prop 8 were both unwilling and unable to support even one rational argument in favor of the amendment in court, why did they seek to present their arguments as rational during the campaign?
It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. [This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.] We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.
It was very brave of Crall to write this. In the unfortunate (and I hope unlikely) case that BYU takes disciplinary action against him, let’s give him our support.
Update: The Daily Universe recently released this statement about their decision to pull Cary’s letter:
The Daily Universe made an independent decision to remove the student viewpoint titled “Defending Proposition 8” after being alerted by various readers that the content of the editorial was offensive. The publication of this viewpoint was not intended to offend, but after further review we recognized that it contained offensive content.
This is consistent with policy that The Daily Universe has, on rare occasions, exercised in the past.
So with this statement, we have a clear case of censorship. The Universe removed the piece because they deemed it to be offensive, and not—as was suggested in the comments—because it was “an example of bad journalism.”
To be sure, the Universe has every right to exercise editorial control over its content. I just think the decision robbed BYU and its students of an opportunity to openly discuss an important issue. The Universe instead thinks the length of women’s skirts is a more pressing matter.
*Cary Crall is a BYU senior from Temecula, California, studying neuroscience and mathematics. He plans to attend medical school, which shouldn’t be hard for someone who scored a 44 out of 45 on the MCAT.
**Here is the cached copy of the letter on The Daily Universe‘s website. You will also find it in the pdf version of the paper on page 3.
Great job U/U! I have noticed that on some LDS sites the only views and comments that ae allowed are the supportive ones. I guess that means that everyone that reads it must support it, right?? Stalin and Castro would be proud of the media control. No one is allowed a thought oreven a knee jerk unless it is approved of. PALEEEZE!
Don in Las Vegas
http://www.tinyurl.com/myLasVegas
The DU just posted this note on their website regarding the censorship of Crall’s letter:
I wonder if I expressed how offensive the nearly ever other sexist, homophobic, blindly pro-conservative rantings which appear in nearly every other opinion/viewpoint piece are, they’d remove them.
Also what the bloody fuck is up with this “we can’t possibly offend people by expressing an opinion which contradicts theirs” mentality? It’s so thoroughly fucked.
Oh, and Jon, is there no way to add html blockquote tags?
I don’t think so, sorry. I know. It’s lame.
It’s ok. I forgive you.
Actually, you can use the blockquote HTML tag. There was no distinctive styling on quotes in the comments, however, so it didn’t make your quotes stand out. This should now be corrected. Blockquote away!
And this isn’t offensive at all.
http://universe.byu.edu/node/10467
MY EYES! MY EYES! Please put NSFA (Not Safe For Anyone) tags when you post links like that.
And to add to the drama, they’ve also removed at least one comment which was criticising young Mr. Wes for his overzealousness.
Also, apologies to Kyle. You’re right, I should have labelled it as such.
This did get published in the physical paper, right?
That is nothing short of amazing for BYU.
Thank you pointing this one out.
Yeah, it did get published in the physical paper. The staff of the DU probably supported the letter to the editor (the DU has a history of occasionally publishing controversial stuff in the name of free speech/journalistic integrity); I bet somebody in the administration or church leadership got upset, however. I know a couple of the apostles read the DU often and sometimes express concerns about what is published in it.
Perhaps the lack of supporting expert witnesses was instead a strategy based on the realization that nothing would have deterred the judge from making his ruling. Instead, you let the case be stated, and use the appeals process to sort out the result.
But that’s the thing, there is no evidence that any expert witness could point to which would support ProtectMarriage.com’s claims during the election. And going in, they certainly didn’t know how Judge Walker was going to rule. Most of the defence’s expert witnesses dropped out before the trial even began.
Troy – That’s not how the appeals process works. It’s not a do-over for legal teams that don’t produce arguments or witnesses at trial. There was no strategy. And what’s up with you impugning the judge when you yourself haven’t even read his ruling?
The Daily UniFarce has engaged in censorship? Who would believe such a thing?
Pingback: ClobberBlog » The Daily Universe & Censorship
Pingback: Holly Welker: Good Works Can’t Compensate for Mormon Assault on Others’ Civil Rights
“Troy – That’s not how the appeals process works. It’s not a do-over for legal teams that don’t produce arguments or witnesses at trial.”
This is true – in order to challenge a trial judgment on appeal, the challenger must have proffered (i.e., offered) evidence at trial that the judge refused to admit after the other side objected, or must have reached a decision that was indisputably unsupported by the law or the facts. The prop 8 proponents didn’t even try to support their position, and their own experts actually admitted under oath that he agreed with what the opponents of Prop 8 were saying about its harmful effects on people and its lack of rational, factual basis. In short, the Prop 8 proponents did not make much of a “record” for purposes of an appeal: they can’t point to any evidentiary errors made by the judge, and they offered no credible evidence or science to support their position. On appeal, the appellate court generally does not “revisit” factual findings (decisions as to what the facts are) made by the trial judge, because the trial judge who heard the evidence as to the facts was in a better position to make a decision as to what the facts were because he was thee to hear, see and question the witnesses, while the appellate court was not there. The Prop 8 proponents also have a major “standing” problem – they cannot (and did not) provide any evidence that they personally are harmed by the invalidation of Prop 8. I am very interested to see what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will say about the Prop 8 trial decision. The trial decision is very detailed in stating what the evidence and what the witnesses did and did not say and do – it appears to this observer that the Court of Appeals will have a tough time overturning the trial decision so long as the Court of Appeals follows the law.
Can anyone provide references to articles that show that allowing same-sex “marriage” would not be harmful to society in the long run? I can’t believe that some people are so willing to change thousands and thousands of years of tradition (and go against evolution to boot) simply because some people feel like their rights are being violated by not being able to marry someone of the same sex. The burden of proof has never been on supporters of traditional marriage, the burden of proof is always on supporters of same-sex “marriage” to show that it would not have detrimental effects on society. This isn’t a “civil rights” issue; homosexuality is not genetic (yes, I’m aware that there is a genetic link for some people, which link explains 10-15% of the variance in homosexual tendencies in those people but that means that environment and/or some other yet undiscovered biological factors explain the rest of the variance). Anyone who tries to tell you that homosexuality is biological/genetic has not read the peer-reviewed research (I have), or is ignoring the findings. The only consensus is that there is no consensus.
Further, when did we as a people stop talking about what is morally right? This is a moral issue. Or are morals merely a religious issue? Should we get rid of all of our criminal law in America because it is based on specific (largely Judeo-Christian) moral beliefs? All criminal law and most of our civil law is moral law.
Also, when did it become a bad thing to follow what the LDS Prophet declares? That’s a choice that many of us make. Why is it somehow wrong to use religious arguments either for or against political issues? Is it okay to base your reasons on the philosophies of Plato, Kant, Marx, or James but not on religious ideals and ideas? Why are religious arguments second-class citizens to secular ones? That is clearly not how the Founding Fathers wanted the U.S. to function. They set up a great way for laws to change; how it’s been done in California goes against those principles. If supporters of same-sex “marriage” want to make it legal there’s nothing stopping them from trying to gather the support of voters. Mr. Crall wrote: “This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group.” First, when did same-sex “marriage” become a right? Further, when was it taken away? In 2000 with California’s Prop 22? Or maybe 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act? Or maybe it was Prop 8? Maybe it was the Founding Fathers when they didn’t include same-sex “marriage” in the Bill of Rights (I know they didn’t include an abolishment of slavery or universal suffrage either but they did set in place the manner to extend rights, hence Amendments 13, 15, and 19).
Lastly, what does the MCAT score of Mr. Crall have to do with this article? Yes, his score is very impressive; he sounds like a very intelligent person. However, it has nothing to do with the veracity or validity of his (or Jon Adams’) arguments. It boils down roughly to the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, although in this case Mr. Crall is not an authority (at least I’m assuming that he hasn’t done any of the research looking at the effects of homosexuality on society – that’s a safe assumption to make because there isn’t any research. There are a few looking at the psychological adjustment of kids raised by same-sex parents {they turn out as well-adjusted as other kids} but that’s not addressing the issue.)
Same-sex “marriage” is not an issue like Emancipation or Women’s Suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education. But I guess I’m just another close-minded, stupid BYU graduate who is not only homophobic but also bigoted in just about every other conceivable manner because I am opposed to same-sex “marriage”. Also, I’m sure I’d probably have gotten a 0 on the MCAT (yes, I know you can’t really get a 0, I’m being facetious) if I had chosen to go to med school instead of get a PhD. Yes, I have gay friends (one is a BYU graduate) but just because they are my friends doesn’t mean I have to agree with their lifestyles. It doesn’t mean I think less of them either. I have a lot of friends whose lifestyles I disagree with but I still love them.
I’m not opposed to same-sex civil unions but let’s not change the definition of marriage to something other than between man and woman.
“But I guess I’m just another close-minded, stupid BYU graduate who is not only homophobic but also bigoted in just about every other conceivable manner because I am opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’.”
At least we agree on one thing.
“…let’s not change the definition of marriage to something other than between man and woman.”
Or a man and many women; a man, many women, and his concubines; a man and his slave; or a man and his rape victim; or a man and his sister(s); or a man and a kidnapped girl whose entire family he slaughtered after he and his buddies invaded their lands. (for references, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw). All of these are doctrinally sound traditional marriages.
Seriously though, putting scare quotes around words when you dislike the definition isn’t a terribly good way to argue your point.
If you actually read the other comments, you’ll find that all of your arguments have were refuted before you even made them. (Or “refudiated” if you prefer.)
“Yes, I have gay friends (one is a BYU graduate) but just because they are my friends doesn’t mean I have to agree with their lifestyles. It doesn’t mean I think less of them either. I have a lot of friends whose lifestyles I disagree with but I still love them.”
Of course; you just think that they should not have the same rights that you do because you believe they are wrong, and thus the love.
I’ll be brief. Perhaps somebody will offer a more thorough response later. Please don’t mistake my brevity for rudeness, Jared.
“Can anyone provide references to articles that show that allowing same-sex “marriage” would not be harmful to society in the long run?”
First, I don’t know the future, but I do know that, presently, society is harmed by NOT allowing same-sex marriages. Second, wresting the burden with those who think it would not harm society is onerous, because it’s difficult to prove a negative. Third, freedoms, like marriage, shouldn’t be denied to people absent compelling state interests. The burden of proof always belongs to those who would deny freedom. In a court of law, Prop 8 defendants assumed that burden, and they failed to show that there was a compelling state interest to justify the ban on gay marriage.
“I can’t believe that some people are so willing to change thousands and thousands of years of tradition (and go against evolution to boot)”
Tradition in and of itself is not an argument against gay marriage. I hate to be cliche, but slavery was also a tradition. And how does gay marriage go against evolution? Marriage in general goes against evolution in that it commits us to one sexual partner, thus limiting our reproductive opportunities.
Do you just mean that homosexuality is unnatural? There are several studies that explain why homosexuality might have evolved. But even if it is the case that homosexuality goes against evolution, why does that matter? Evolution should not dictate our morality. Also, homosexuality is going to exist with or without gay marriage, so…yeah, I just don’t understand your argument here.
“Anyone who tries to tell you that homosexuality is biological/genetic has not read the peer-reviewed research (I have), or is ignoring the findings.”
Also irrelevant. There is a component of homosexuality that is likely genetic (as demonstrated by twin studies), but the main factor appears to be the hormonal environment in the womb. Genetic or no, we should at least be able to agree that people don’t choose homosexuality, just as you didn’t choose your heterosexuality. And frankly, even if people DID choose homosexuality, this isn’t grounds for discrimination. People choose to marry people of different races, so why can’t they choose to marry people of the same sex?
“Should we get rid of all of our criminal law in America because it is based on specific (largely Judeo-Christian) moral beliefs? All criminal law and most of our civil law is moral law.”
There is nothing wrong about basing laws on morals, but I just think those moral arguments should have a wide, secular appeal. Basing laws on sectarian religious morals, morals that can only be divined through appeals to revelation/scripture and are not accessible through reason, are divisive and undermine the fabric of democratic society. When laws don’t primarily serve a secular purpose, they are unconstitutional (as per the so-called “Lemon test”).
“Also, when did it become a bad thing to follow what the LDS Prophet declares?”
It’s not wrong to follow authorities, so long as that obedience isn’t blind. In any case, Cary Crall didn’t say it was wrong to follow the prophet.
“First, when did same-sex “marriage” become a right?”
When marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia, and various other court cases.
“Lastly, what does the MCAT score of Mr. Crall have to do with this article?”
It doesn’t. You misunderstood it as an appeal to authority, but that was not my intent. I was merely providing biographical info about Mr. Crall.
Finally, I don’t think you’re a bigot. I just think you’re wrong.
Craig, thank you for your reply. I’m glad you can agree with me about something! However, should I legitimize same-sex “marriage” by removing the quotes? That is what I would be doing – allowing the word to be used in a manner that it does not mean. Hence the quotation marks. I know you find them obnoxious (frankly, I do too) but it’s done for a very specific purpose. I do not use quotation marks lightly. You might think that is a semantic quibble but it’s an important issue.
Yes, I did write man and woman and not one man and one woman on purpose. All I was stating is that marriage is between male and female. Polygamy and/or polygyny has nothing to do with the issue of redefining marriage to include male-male or female-female relationships because at their base, polygamous marriages are still male – female (man and woman – both used collectively). I’m not saying I’m supporting polygamy, I’m just saying that it’s not related to this discussion; that is why I was trying to be as non-specific with my man and woman statement.
I’ll admit, I haven’t read all the comments but now I will (okay, I can say I will for sure because I am quite busy this semester) because I have never once seen or read anything that provides sound scientific evidence that repudiates my positions. I’m looking forward to having all my arguments refuted. If you don’t believe me then you do not know me (which is obvious since this is my first visit to this blog and I highly doubt we’ve ever met in real life, although it’s certainly possible). I take logic and scientific inquiry very seriously.
Moudi, I also thank you for your reply. I’ll respond more later if I am able.
Jon, thanks for your reply. My lack of reply isn’t meant as rudeness either, I simply have run out of time to respond; it’s late in this part of the country.
I meant to add that I don’t think that the letter was offensive. I disagree with Mr. Crall but there wasn’t anything offensive in it.
The proponents of Prop 8 asked to be allowed to participate in Perry v. Schwartzenegger and they were given leave to do so. They had a chance to offer evidence that same-sex marriage would harm society and they were unable to do so – in fact, one of their experts admitted on the witness stand that allowing same sex marriage would be good for society by providing stable homes for the adults and the kids. Moral considerations are a fine component of legislation, but religious considerations are not, because the moment you allow them to inform legislation, you run the risk of stepping on someone’s individual freedom on the basis of religious beliefs that that someone does not share.
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - Page 10 - LDS Mormon Forums
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - Page 11 - LDS Mormon Forums
Pingback: Reminders of the anti-gay message at Mormon’s General Conference - Wide Rights
Pingback: Last Call for Brodies Nominations! | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Congratulations 2010 Brodie Winners!!! | Main Street Plaza