Ask yourself this question...

In 1989, a federal judge struck down a New York law barring inmates
from getting married while serving life sentences.
The judge called the law "arbitrary and irrational," and said:
"The right to marry in a prison setting is a fundamental one."
Why do serial killers, rapists, and other violent sociopaths
- who are deemed such a threat to society
that they are locked up permanently or exterminated by the state -
have the "fundamental right" to get married...
while any loving, committed, law-abiding same-sex couple does not?

Latest No on 8 Campaign Ad


Anonymous said...

Elsewhere, I posed the question whether "Kenny" is gay. In fact, in watching some of these news clips and some others you haven't posted here, it is incredible to me in that their are gay mormons in support of proposition 8; moreso that there aren't more people calling them out.

Unknown said...


Thank you for leaving a comment on my blog, Nerd Acumen. I would like to respond to your "mormon spammers" remark. I'm not so certain you can logically equate individuals leaving original comments on websites, forums, or blogs, to actual spamming. Spamming is a complicated, and I'm certain, illegal process requiring software, bots, or special scripts, with many negative ramifications for the Internet in general.

If wishes to inform people who are supportive of prop 8 on how to get out their message to other blogs and blog users, to, essentially, engage in the conversation that is going on in all this social media space, then that's perfectly acceptable social behavior.

Nevertheless, thank you for your comment. I am intelligent enough to grasp that your 'spamming' metaphor comes from a place of resentment towards the LDS Church's and individual Latter-day Saints' desire to promote prop 8. But, it's just not spamming. Plain and simple. For your metaphor to even work, you'd have to assume that any Mormon who reads whatisprop8 is going to automagically turnaround and start blasting comments all over the web. That's just not true. You and I both know people do whatever the heck they wish.

Anyway, thanks again. I'd love to hear back from you.

Chino Blanco said...


Thanks for dropping by. I'll reply over at your place. Short version: what I'm calling 'spam' are the numerous comments and blogs made by Mormons that suggest no effort on the part of the author beyond simply copying-and-pasting church-provided material.

If you feel evidence is lacking, I'd point you to the hundreds of Mormon blogs that list six dire consequences if Prop 8 is defeated. Not five, not seven, never more, never less, but always the same six.

Or, I could point you to the slew of comments made by Mormons online since the October 8th satellite transmission from LDS HQ that parrot the terminology and arguments made by the Mormon leadership during that broadcast.

I mention because whenever I see a blog or comment that includes a link or reference to that site, it's a dead giveaway that the author is Mormon. As online strategies go, telling your members to always include a reference to the same Mormon-authored website is kinda boneheaded. It reinforces the perception that many of us have that the Mormon church has basically taken over the Prop 8 campaign. Of course, you have taken over the Prop 8 campaign, I just don't understand why you'd adopt a tactic that makes your dominance of the campaign even more obvious.

Oops, that was supposed to be the short version.

Jessica said...


You're a hard guy to find a contact for, even though there are no shortages of search results with your name on them. Even your e-mail comes back as undeliverable. You'd think you didn't want people to know who you are.

I wanted to reply to your comment. Actually, I'm not a Mormon. I'm an evangelical Christian. I read your definition of Prop 8 "spam" from a comment on your blog and in my own defense (aside from not being affiliated with the LDS) the only thing I copied and pasted were 5 of the points from the What is Prop 8? website, simply because from the numerous articles and information I've heard and read it summarized the ramifications well.

As to your comment,
"A quick check of the comments sections under the news articles that turn up from a search for Prop 8 terms reveals numerous drive-by comments with convoluted "Yes on 8 = tolerance" arguments and always accompanied by a link to ..."

It seems that you may have misunderstood my viewpoint as condoning same-sex marriage. Your comment was a little unclear. I do not condone same-sex marriage nor do I believe it is intolerant or discriminatory to have that viewpoint. What I do believe is that God's law and truth is higher than that of man's emotions.

(As a side note, God did not "endow" homosexuals with different feelings of attraction and intimacy than heterosexuals. They made a choice. As to the argument that homosexuals are "born that way," homosexual scientists have proven that theory doesn't hold up. See here: and here: If you read the Bible you'll notice that every instance of homosexuality is condemned and in the Old Testament, usually, destroyed. You can't pick and choose parts of God you want to believe, that fit with your lifestyle. It's all or nothing. You can't compartmentalize God--if you see him as a God of love, you have to see him as a God of wrath--a God that demands holiness.)

I do believe that the Church (as in the believers that make up Christ's body, not the LDS) should respond in the same manner as Christ--humble, loving, but never compromising the truth as set forth in the Bible, which is sadly what much of the Christian church has done today.

As a body of believers, we have compromised the truth of God's word for the world's opinion in many aspects beyond homosexuality--and that demands repentance. In my post there was a link to a PDF ( that contained an extended version of this post. I'd suggest reading that, particularly the section on What the Church Needs to Know to Respond.

I'm sure we disagree on much, but thank you for commenting on my blog I appreciate it. I would suggest, though, that you leave some way for bloggers to contact rather than search the internet for a way to reach you.


Anonymous said...

First off, the word "marriage" is not biblical; It's origin date back somewhere between 1250-1300. That's AD, by the way.

Second, I think it's interesting that with all the talk about Prop 8, no one on the Prop 8 team has ever talked about Atheists. While they don't believe in religion, they still can get wed and define it as marriage. So where's the outrage there?

Third, Jessica, we don't live by God's law. If we did, you wouldn't be blogging, commenting, or even having a say in any of this. Talk about pick and choose... sheesh. I'd bet if Prop 8 were about women losing the right to vote, for example, i'd bet you'd be blowing gaskets.

So this isn't about the bible and so and so losing their tax status or free speech or whatever else someone conjures up to scare the feeble minded.

And honestly, Jessica, if you really want to make your case, lose the ex-gay talking points.

Chino Blanco said...


Just for you ...

Here's me and my crew:

And you can reach me at jason[at]echols[dot]info


Chino Blanco said...

Oh, and as far as nelson g. is concerned ...


You obviously did not read my post.

Not only can atheists marry, but their close cousins - the serial rapists and murderers among us - are also allowed this solemn privilege.

Where's the outrage?

Anonymous said...

No I saw the prison video thingie, Chino. I know where you and or the video creator is going it, but there's an underlying grey area and I'm going to play make believe just like every one else does with regards to this whole sordid saga.

ChinoBlanco on Twitter

    News and views on NOM, marriage equality and the Mormon church from a former LDS missionary. This site is not affiliated with The National Organization for Marriage or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. © Copyright 2009 by Chino Blanco. All Rights Reserved.

    Add to Technorati Favorites