I hear this argument a lot, and I’d like to see its assumptions spelled out. To me it seems disingenuous to retreat into a focus on the process rather than the content of the law only after your position has been established. I believe people continue to fight for gay rights for the very reasons, logistically, that the Church continues to fight against them: in a democratic republic, they’re up for grabs. Quite simply, policy can still be changed. If something similar to prop 8 had been on the ballot in Massachusetts this last election and the Church asked you to fight for it, would you nevertheless decline to get involved on the grounds that it’s appropriate to “just accept the decision of the majority that made a moral choice”? The majority has spoken; if you were a resident here (I’m guess you’re not?) would you be silent forever after out of deference to the majority’s will? If not, your position strikes me as inconsistent and your argument opportunistic rather than morally grounded.

I find this situation manifestly absurd (in an abstract sort of way).

What specifically is it that you find absurd? That people think public opinion might still be swayed on the matter or that policy might change? I find it manifestly obvious.

The point isn’t that the Church shouldn’t be allowed dismay and indignation at protesters. The point is that the if the Church is committed to its position it should stand up, unashamed, and accept responsibility for its actions.

So while people on this discussion seem to think it is stupid for the church to express surprised disappointment at the protests of others, the church is still free to express its surprised disappointment.

I certainly agree; as Ziff said, I didn’t mean to suggest that the Church doesn’t have the right to express its views. What I was responding to was the sentiment I kept encountering that the Prop 8 backlash somehow meant that the Church had lost its right of free speech, an assertion that didn’t make sense to me.

But what did you expect the church to do? Express it’s ecstatic excitement at the protests? Say nothing? No, the church would not stand silently by with the violence and so on occurring.

That’s a fair question. I think I would have had more respect for a response along the lines of, “we realize that this has been a painful situation for a lot of people, but it’s an issue where we felt strongly that we had to take a moral stand.” Instead, we got something more like “but we weren’t the only ones involved! why are you picking on us?”

Just so I’m clear–I’m not saying that I’m okay with all the tactics used by the anti-8 crowd, some of which clearly cross the line and have been rightly denounced both by the Church and by gay rights groups. And, unlike a lot of those who share my political views on this matter, I’m actually a strong believer in the right of religion to be involved in the public sphere. But I agree with Kiskilili’s point in this post that if you make the choice to be involved in politics, you can’t then declare yourself immune as a political target. I also find it a bit disingenuous for an organization to put a lot of effort into pushing an initiative like this through, and then distancing themselves after the fact. I’m still flabbergasted when I read people saying things like, “but it wasn’t the Church, it was the members.”

While we’re asking questions, we might as well also ask why the opposition to Proposition 8 can’t just accept the decision of majority that made a moral choice.

You really expect that people will give up a cause they believe in passionately, that personally affects them so greatly, because of a single hotly contested, narrowly lost election? Really? I find the response of people who protested in California to be completely unsurprising (although I think TrailerTrash made a good point that their response may not have been strategically wise).

And as far as calling it a “moral” choice, I understand that you accept the Church’s framing of the issue as one of morality. I suspect you already know this, but there are other ways to frame the discussion. I find the approach based on rights much more compelling. As Lynnette put it so well in this post, “I decided that if I was going to err, I would rather err in the direction of a more inclusive society, one which seeks to give all its citizens equal opportunities.”

So while people on this discussion seem to think it is stupid for the church to express surprised disappointment at the protests of others, the church is still free to express its surprised disappointment.

But what did you expect the church to do? Express it’s ecstatic excitement at the protests? Say nothing? No, the church would not stand silently by with the violence and so on occurring.

If you remember, some of the general authority messages in the last general conference talked about bearing up under persecution. Nothing less than prophetic. I remember listening to them and thinking, “Oh, they are talking about the flak Mormons are getting going into this election!” No. Now we see that they were talking (prophesying) about the flak Mormons would get coming OUT of the election.

“The Church was openly, publicly committed to the passage of Proposition 8. Why not stand up and accept responsibility for the role it played now?”

While we’re asking questions, we might as well also ask why the opposition to Proposition 8 can’t just accept the decision of majority that made a moral choice.

I find this situation manifestly absurd (in an abstract sort of way). Is this a case of the winners picking on the losers? No. It is a case of the losers picking on the winners. And as winners, we have to just take it, otherwise we’ll be bullies. Time to practice some athletic turning-of-the-cheek…