The liberal media is in full attack mode, as NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times, and Salt Lake Tribune join hundred of other liberal media in spreading bigoted lies about the Mormon church because of their support for Proposition 8. The federal court is on the brink of overturning the state constitution, and concurrently the liberal propaganda film "8: The Mormon Proposition" seeks to place full blame for Proposition 8 on Mormons.
Today, the New York Times pushes this Nazi tactic to new hateful levels, placing full blame on Mormons for making California the "first state in the United States to take rights away from people by changing its constitution." (Lie #1) That's pretty ironic since Mormons were the first group in the history of the United States who had their rights to marry taken away by a the Supreme Court changing the constitution.
Reed Cowan’s polemical film “8: The Mormon Proposition” examines the successful campaign against gay marriage in California that was heavily financed by the Church [Lie #2] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is implacably opposed to homosexuality. [Lie #3]
The Church financed very little, and no tithing money went to the cause. Aside from the grammatical errors in this sentence, it is completely the opposite of what the New York Times reported last year:
...on Wednesday, the church was being praised by gay rights activists in Salt Lake City, citadel of the Mormon world, for its open support of a local ordinance banning discrimination against gay men and lesbians in housing and employment.
Doesn't look like implacable opposition to me.
The degree to which money influences politics is suggested by the passage of Proposition 8... [Lie #4]
Never mind that anti-Proposition 8 gay activists actually spent more. That would actually mean that money doesn't influence politics... since it managed to pass...
Gay marriages that took place between June 16, 2008, and Nov. 5, 2008, remain legally recognized and retain full state-level marriage rights... Tyler Barrick and Spencer Jones, a gay couple from Mormon backgrounds, who married in San Francisco in June 2008 and were devastated to find their marriage legally delegitimized.
Um. Contradiction much? (Lie #5)
It uncovers the classified church documents and the largely concealed money trail [Lie #6] of Mormon contributions that paid for a high-powered campaign to pass Proposition 8. The Mormon involvement, the film persuasively argues, tilted the vote [Lie #7] toward passage, by 52 percent to 48 percent, in its final weeks.
Have people forgotten the blacklist propagated by the liberal media and California state against Mormons? If one thing is clear here, it's that Mormon donors have been outed, leading to violent attacks, vandalism, and terrorism. It is the height of ridiculous to say financing by Mormons was covered up. Proposition 8 won by a huge margin, more than Obama's victory as president. There was no tilting, sorry.
That involvement was concealed under the facade of a coalition with Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians called the National Organization for Marriage. [Lie #8]
So the involvement of other religions was imagined? What about San Francisco's shakedown of the Catholic Church in retaliation for their support of Proposition 8?
...homosexuality, which one church elder calls “contrary to God’s plan.” Chris Buttars, a proudly homophobic [Lie #9] Utah state senator, compared male coupling to bestiality.
Chris Buttars is not proudly homophobic, in fact the film makers tricked him into giving those statements. He is a wacky politician. He sponsored an Intelligent Design bill and he tried to abolish 12th grade. NYT illogically associates him with the Mormon church as they try to call all things Utah as Mormons. The church made it very clear after Buttar's comments: "From the outset, the Church's position has always been to engage in civil and respectful dialogue on this issue. Senator Buttars does not speak for the church."
New York Times finishes with one final lie:
In the meantime the struggle to repeal Proposition 8 is under way.
When a judge rules something unconstitutional, that would be overturn, not repeal. Repeal is when you vote something out. Though, how can the constitution be deemed unconstitutional? You tell me.