The Church and Prop 8

What is California Proposition 8?

In 2008, California Proposition 8, also known as the California Marriage Protection Act, proposed that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[1] The proposition passed, with 52% voting yes and 48% voting no.[2] However, the United States District Court in Northern California ruled the proposition unconstitutional in 2010.[3] In 2015, with the United States Supreme Court ruling Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriage became legal throughout the United States.[4]

What does the Church have to do with it?

In 2008, the Church mounted a state-wide campaigning effort to support Proposition 8.[5]

Isn’t the Church getting involved in politics against the separation of "church and state"?

Possibly. It depends on who you ask. The dividing line between church and state has been litigated and debated since the founding of the United States.[6] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a policy that it will get involved in legislation related to moral issues,[7] but it does not support or endorse specific political parties or candidates.[8]

Okay, but isn’t the Church supposed to be politically neutral?

No, not in all things. Church leaders have long defined “political neutrality” as disengagement from partisan politics, not disengagement from all electoral issues.[9] Non-profit entities, such as the Knights of Columbus,[10] the United Way,[11] and the Southern Poverty Law Center,[12] often become involved in issue-specific political campaigning efforts.[13]

Related Question

Was the proclamation on the family written to fight against gay marriage in Hawaii?

How much money did the Church spend on supporting Prop 8?

The Church did not spend money directly on Prop 8, but it did spend approximately $190,000 worth of staff time, communications, and infrastructure on the campaign.[14] Protect Marriage, which served as the organizational umbrella for the major pro-Prop 8 institutions, estimated that Church members contributed $20 million dollars in support of Proposition 8.[15]

Did they spend more on Prop 8 than they spent on humanitarian efforts?

No. The Church reported that it spent the equivalent of $190,000[16] on Proposition 8, whereas in 2007 they reported humanitarian aid donations that appear to be significantly more than that, including over 60,000 wheelchairs and providing over 9,000 people with free vision care, extensive hurricane relief for Indonesia, neonatal resuscitation training in 23 countries, and clean water projects.[17]

Was the Church the largest donor supporting Prop 8?

No. The largest institutional donor was the Catholic-run Knights of Columbus, with a contribution of over $1.4 million dollars.[18] The next largest donor was Fieldstead and Company, an evangelical-run philanthropy known for its hunger relief and education-based donations.[19]

But were Latter-day Saints, collectively, the largest donors to supporting Prop 8?

Yes, probably. Demographic data wasn't collected on donors, so there is no way to know which group, collectively, donated the most. But Protect Marriage estimated that Latter-day Saints contributed half of the $40 million dollars raised for the measure.[20]

What did the Church ask members to do to support the campaign?

In June 2008, the Church asked members to “do all you can . . . by donating of your means and time.”[21] Church leaders asked members to blog, make phone calls, and canvas neighborhoods.[22]

A man with gray hair holds a sign that says 'vote no on prop 8 - equality for all' outside of the LDS Newport temple in California. — A protest at the Newport Beach California Temple by opponents of Proposition 8 (Wikipedia, (CC BY-SA 2.0)).

Did the Church utilize missionaries in California to campaign?

No, but Church opponents implied otherwise. The Campaign Courage Issues Committee (CCIC) released an attack ad against the Church depicting two missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple to seize their wedding rings and tear up their marriage license.[23]

What specific actions did the Church take during this campaign?

The Church used Church services, such as making announcements related to Prop 8 in sacrament meetings,[24] putting on firesides about Prop 8,[25] and having Church members participate in phone banks.[26]

Did the Church utilize church buildings for the campaign?

To an extent. They used Church meeting times for Prop. 8-related addresses and for the dissemination of organizing plans.[27]

Did they violate any laws?

Yes, they failed to report some portion of their non-monetary contributions and had to pay a $5,539 fine.[28] Depending on the point of view, this could be seen as either a clerical error or an attempt at evading the 501c3 tax laws.

Did they jeopardize their tax-exempt status?

No. The Church was well within the guidelines set for non-profit participation in issue-based political campaigning.[29]

Were members of the Church that didn’t support Prop 8 subject to Church discipline?

Yes and no. Church leadership allowed for personal disagreement on Prop 8 that did not lead to public attacks on the Church's legitimacy. For example, Morris Thurston, an Orange County attorney, challenged Church attorneys' legal arguments made without Church discipline.[30] However, at times, Church members whose disagreement led to full-scale advocacy against the Church's position and legitimacy faced disciplinary actions.[31]

Were Church members targeted by people that opposed Prop 8?

Yes, to some extent. Some people lost their jobs.[32] A few Prop 8 opponents produced an online map showing the exact locations of every Prop 8 donor in the state.[33]

Were Church buildings vandalized?

Yes. In November 2008, following the election, vandals damaged several churches, Latter-day Saint and Roman Catholic, in Utah and California.[34] In one instance, someone left a burning Book of Mormon by a temple.[35]

Is it true that white powder in an envelope was sent to Church headquarters because of Prop 8?

Yes, they were sent white powder, and yes, it was probably because of Prop 8.[36] This occurred in November of 2008 however, it turned out to not be a biological weapon or toxic. The Knights of Columbus, the largest financial donor to Proposition 8, also received an envelope with a similar white powder delivered to their headquarters.[37]

On November 14, the First Presidency called upon “those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few.”[38]

The Facts

Non-profits are legally allowed to participate in politics.
The Church did not spend much cash on the effort, but it did mobilize its resources to pass Prop 8.
Church members donated large sums of money to the cause.
Opponents of Prop 8 retaliated against the Church and its members.
The Church violated a reporting rule and paid a fine.

Our Take

For many people, this is not a topic that will have satisfying answers. With the mix of political and social issues at play, there’s not really a comfortable place to land.

Did the Church overstep its bounds by getting involved in this highly charged political issue? Was the Church doing the right thing to ask its members to mobilize and vote a particular way? These are difficult questions, and they may not have clear answers.

But one question that is answerable is whether the Church can legally participate in politics and influence policy. Since the Church is a non-profit, and non-profits can participate in politics that affect their interests, the Church was within legal bounds to campaign for Prop 8.

The Church doesn’t usually give direction on how to vote (though in this case, it did), but it does encourage members to be politically active. Though faithful Church members may disagree on how the Proposition 8 situation should have been handled, each should remember to respect and love those on every side of political or social discussions.

What's Your Take?

Kolby R.
“Now that we're fifteen years out from Proposition 8 and the Church is in the midst of an identity and apostasy crisis--I would point to Proposition 8 as one of the biggest causes. As posited above, the Church had the right to get involved but I think it was mistaken to do so.”
Charlie M.
“Yeah I don't think this was an awesome move by the Church. I think there are better ways to uplift society or influence policy that doesn't involve overtly political campaigning.”

Read More Difficult Questions

122 Primary Sources

Footnotes

[1]↩︎
The Proposition developed in response to a broader, state-by-state effort to legalize marriage and mainstream gay and lesbian identity for nearly 40 years. By the time Californians were voting on Proposition 8, same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships had been recognized in states such as Hawaii, Vermont, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
In 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned all anti-sodomy laws when it decided in favor of John Lawrence and Tyson Garner in Lawrence v. Texas.
[2]↩︎
The Los Angeles Times attributed the victory to Christian pressure groups.
However, Black American and Latino voters in California, most of whom identify as Christian, also played roles in passing Proposition 8, voting for the measure at significantly higher rates than either Asian or Caucasian voters.
- MD reports Christian mobilization for Prop. 8 and passage rate.
- David Blinder Research collects ethnic, religious, and sex data on Prop. 8.
[3]↩︎
Perry v. Hollingsworth (2010) found that Proposition 8 was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses" of the Constitution.
- California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.
[4]↩︎
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) held:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
- SCOTUS finds that the Constitution protects same-sex couples's right to marry.
[5]↩︎
On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency issued a letter to be read in all congregations urging members to support Proposition 8.
In August of the same year, the Church also issued the "Divine Institution of Marriage," the formal Church statement on Prop 8 efforts:
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.
- First Presidency explains Church's rationale for supporting Prop 8.
- Church Newsroom posts the Formal Church statement on Prop 8 efforts.
[6]↩︎
Religions sometimes find their interests embroiled in politics—like the Amish commitment to home school, indigenous rights to smoke peyote, or Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag.
[7]↩︎
In March 1995, as the Hawaii litigation over gay marriage was mounting, President Gordon B. Hinckley told the press:
We try to follow a very strict course in political matters. We observe the principle of the separation of church and state. We do concern ourselves with matters which we consider of moral consequence and things which might directly affect the Church or our fellow churches.
- Gordon B Hinckley explains why the Church becomes involved in political activity.
[8]↩︎
In 2019, the Church articulated its longstanding policy of political neutrality:
The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established. The Church does not: - Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
- Church Public Affairs articulates Church's political neutrality.
[9]↩︎
In May 1996, President Gordon B. Hinckley observed:
We believe that the Church should remain out of politics unless there is a moral question at issue.
Later, in 2019, the Church again articulated its policy of political neutrality noting the Church does not "endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms."
- Gordon B. Hinckley explains position of political neutrality, barring moral issues.
[10]↩︎
The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, donated substantially to Proposition 8.
- NBC Bay Area reported that Catholic Bishops donated to Prop. 8.
[11]↩︎
The United Way, a non-profit humanitarian organization, advocates for public policy changes regarding welfare issues.
- UW issues policy agenda for 117th Congress.
[12]↩︎
The Southern Policy Law Center, a non-profit anti-bigotry group, lobbies Congress regarding discrimination issues.
- SPLC testifies before Congress on far-right groups.
[13]↩︎
The Church has also taken official positions on the issues like the Equality Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, alcohol laws, the MX missile project, and family separation policy at the border.
[14]↩︎
This amount became known when, after Proposition 8's passed, the Fair Political Practices Commission investigated the Church regarding allegations that the Church had not sufficiently disclosed their direct contributions.
- Deseret News reports Church violated laws through failing to report amount spent on Prop. 8 campaign.
[15]↩︎
In addition to the financial contributions Church members made, they also made extensive contributions in time.
In June 2008, Church leadership asked that members "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time."
- New York Times reports on LDS as source of Prop. 8 income.
- First Presidency explains Church's rationale for supporting Prop 8.
[16]↩︎
This amount became known when, in the wake of Proposition 8's passage, the Fair Political Practices Commission investigated the Church regarding allegations that the Church had not sufficiently disclosed their direct contributions.
- Deseret News reports Church violated laws through failing to report amount spent on Prop. 8 campaign.
[17]↩︎
The Church does not report specific dollar amounts given in humanitarian efforts, but they do report key data on specific projects. In the 2007 report they highlighted:
- 950,000 people benefited from clean water projects.
- 60,537 wheelchairs were distributed.
- 9,100 people received vision treatment.
- 176 neonatal resuscitation medical personnel were trained in Ukraine.
The Church also reported on continued relief efforts in 2007 for the 2004 Indonesian tsunami including rebuilding 902 homes, 16 schools, and 3 community centers.
- Church highlights their contributions to humanitarian efforts in 2007.
[18]↩︎
In November 2008, NBC Bay Area reported the Knights of Columbus's contributions.
- NBC Bay Area reported that Catholic Bishops donated to Prop. 8.
[19]↩︎
Fieldstead and Company, founded by Howard Ahmanson, donated just under $1.4 million as well. Howard Ahmanson maintained that his "goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
[20]↩︎
In its article "Mormons Tipped the Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage," the New York Times recorded the efforts of some Latter-day Saints and their contributions and reported the dollar amount from Project Marriage.
- New York Times reports on LDS as source of Prop. 8 income.
[21]↩︎
The Church also maintained that it served as part of a "broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot."
The Church urged members to contribute their "best efforts . . . to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."
- First Presidency explains Church's rationale for supporting Prop 8.
[22]↩︎
In an October 8, 2008 broadcast, Russell M. Nelson asked members of the Church to "join the conversation" and that many will "text message, blog, make phone calls, walk your neighborhoods" to advocate for Proposition 8.
- Russell M. Nelson advocates for Prop 8; requests Church members to campaign actively, in a respectful manner, in one's community.
[23]↩︎
The CCIC advertisement depicted the missionaries telling the couple, "We're from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we're here to take away your rights."
At the close of the ad, the missionaries tell each other, "That was too easy. What should we ban next?"
- CCIC issues advertisement depicting missionaries invading lesbian home.
[24]↩︎
Some members reported details about their experiences of ward-level mobilization during the campaign, including sacrament meeting talks on Proposition 8, supplying donation forms, and rescheduling ward and stake meetings to allow for precinct work.
[25]↩︎
On October 9, 2008, Elder David A. Bednar held a fireside for all California students attending BYU and warned them of the "tyranny of tolerance," predicting that a failed Proposition 8 would only create an environment less tolerant for people who believe in "traditional marriage."
- DAB comments on what anti-Proposition 8 activists were trying to do: "the tyranny of tolerance."
[26]↩︎
Historian Neil J. Young observed that leaders enlisted the help of Church members who owned businesses to house the phone banks.
In October 2008, the Church Newsroom released a statement:
It is a combination of two things . . . We are looking at options to fulfill a request from the coalition to help with phone calls to encourage support of Proposition 8. We’re also responding to the many requests we have had from students and others who want to help. Making phone calls is something they can do.
- CPA sets up phone volunteering system in support of Prop 8 in California.
[27]↩︎
Various reports from Latter-day Saints detailed how letters were read in support of Proposition 8 in chapels, meetings were organized, and donations were solicited.
[28]↩︎
When Church legal administrators neglected to acknowledge some of these sorts of contributions, the Church paid the fine and noted that they “mistakenly overlooked the daily reporting requirement for non-monetary contributions.”
- Scott Taylor in the Deseret news speaks to the Church's oversight in campaign finances.
[29]↩︎
Some advocates called their status into question, given the depth and richness of the Church’s capacity to mobilize quickly and the extensive financial resources from many of its donors. However, laws regulating charitable campaigning leave room for interpretation. The Tax Court has found that a 501c3 charity may spend approximately 10% of its revenues on commercial activity without losing its tax-exempt status.
The Church’s use of mailing lists and phone trees reflected largely unregulated practices among charitable organizations, which gave room for political, issue-based campaigning efforts without contributing a “substantial” amount of its resources to the cause.
- Brian Galle writes analysis of what constituted breach of non-profit status when 501c3 becomes involved in politics.
[30]↩︎
Morris Thurston challenged the thinking of many Latter-day Saints in Southern California without facing church counsel. He observed:
The following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on misinterpretations of law and fact. . . . I suspect they are the result of overzealous volunteers who have misinterpreted California law and the legal cases on which the supposed consequences depend. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.
Thurston maintained that "the general church authorities I have spoken to have been understanding and compassionate. They counsel respect and civility toward those who may disagree with the church's position."
- MT argues why common LDS arguments are untrue or misleading.
- Peggy Fletcher Stack reports on Morris Thurston's views of Prop. 8; he notes that Church leaders are civil and respectful to those who disagree with Church's position.
[31]↩︎
Andrew Callahan, a prominent anti-Prop 8 organizer and Church member in Nebraska, faced a membership council over his advocacy. He was reported to have written hundreds of letters to local Church leaders advocating support for his movement against the Church's position on Proposition 8.
- Stake Presidency sends letter warning to Andrew Callahan of disciplinary action for anti-Prop 8 activity.
[32]↩︎
For example, California Musical Theatre and Sacramento Music Circus artistic director Scott Eckern lost his job after donating to Proposition 8.
Marjorie Christofferson, a manager at El Coyote, donated $100 to Proposition 8. LGBT activists boycotted El Coyote in response. MormonTimes reported that she was considering resigning.
- Jessica Garrison reports that Marjorie Christofferson targeted for contributing to Prop. 8.
- Adam Hetrick highlights Scott Eckern's contribution to Prop. 8.
[33]↩︎
This map included pieces of identifying information and the amount the individual contributed. Under California campaign finance laws, all donations over $100 must be publically reported, so this information was publically accessible.
- Frank Schubert comments on persecution targeting Church members post-Prop. 8.
[34]↩︎
For example, in San Francisco, a Catholic church was vandalized in the weeks following Proposition 8.
Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, described it as part of a broader attack on Black Americans and the Christian religion.
- CNA reports that white powder sent to Knights of Columbus as well as Mormon church post-Prop. 8.
[35]↩︎
In November 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that someone left a burning Book of Mormon outside of the Denver temple, though the article did not cite a source.
- Nicholas Riccardi reports on Book of Mormon burning near Denver.
[36]↩︎
The Church released this statement after receiving the envelope:
Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.
However, an FBI agent in Salt Lake City, Juan Becerra took a more cautious approach on connecting it with Proposition 8:
The evidence does not lead to [linking the powder with Proposition 8] right now and it would be irresponsible to say anything otherwise.
[37]↩︎
NBC News reported that the Knights of Columbus was the single largest institutional donor, donating $1.4 million to the Yes on 8 campaign.
[38]↩︎
Following the vote, the First Presidency called for peace:
The Church is keenly aware of the differences of opinion on this difficult and sensitive matter. . . . Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere. We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other.
- First Presidency responds to vandalism post-Prop 8 passage.