Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 04:40PM

As background, Lynn D. Wardle is a law professor at Brigham Young University who recently launched a public tirade against marriage equality (lumping in with that attack his call for criminalization of adultery and cohabitation). Wardle is of the view that society should only provide legal acknowledgment and protection of heterosexual marriage, warning that cohabitating, adulterating and/or same-sex marrying will destroy civilization as we know it. (Wardle, along with two others, was a featured guest on a KUER "Radio West" interview conducted by host Doug Fabrizio (for audio of the interview, go to: "Utah's Marriage Battle," 7 January 2014, at: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/utahs-marriage-battle)

Wardle had earlier inveighed against same-sex marriage, in a bigoted, Mormon-believer broadside that was published in the "Salt Lake Tribune," where he stated (without the benefit of foundational facts) the following:

"The Brown decision [against Utah's anti-cohabitation law] departs from both constitutional history and deeply rooted social mores. Nothing in the Constitution (not its text or history or precedents) forbids states to ban adulterous cohabitation.

"Laws prohibiting adultery are deeply rooted not only in American legal and moral tapestry but in the legal and social fabric of most civilized societies. Sexual fidelity to one’s spouse is a core, basic element of marriage, and has been for millennia, not merely in American law but in virtually all cultures and societies in the world.

"While those values at times have been honored in the breach rather than the observance, they have persisted as deeply important principles of not just family and social organization but as foundational constitutional values. The form part of the moral substructure upon with our constitutional superstructure is based.

"Likewise, marriage has required the union of man and woman for millennia. In fact, it is only in the past 15 years (and only in a handful of jurisdictions) that marriage has been redefined to allow same-sex marriage. Today, only 16 of 193 sovereign nations (8%) have legalized same-sex marriage--it is forbidden and legally rejected in nearly 92% of the nations of the world.

"There is an important reason why gender-integration has been a core component of marriage in all societies across all time. It lays the foundation for the equality of both genders and for equal respect for the contributions of both genders throughout society. It protects and reinforces the mother-father family, which is the basic social institution.

"When marriages are disregarded and trivialized by public officials, as by the judges in the Brown and Kitchen rulings, that weakens the institution of marriage and subverts the integrity of the relationship of marriage.

"Societies in which marriage is weakened and trivialized suffer severe consequences. History shows that the dependent, the young, the weak, and the aged pay a heavy price when marriage is weakened. . . .

"That some federal judges might have personal views about 'modernizing' Utah’s marriage law to embrace novel forms of marriage and diminish the meaning of marriage is not surprising. However, that they would abuse the power of their office to rewrite Utah’s marriage laws to impose those views upon the people of this state is wrong and deeply troubling.

"It is truly unfortunate that the judges in these two cases forgot basic principles on which our constitutional system is predicated. Those principles include not only respect for gender-integrating marriage but also for judicial self-restraint.

"In both cases, the courts displayed a remarkable disrespect for the institution of marriage. Both judges severely abused judicial power. Because marriage matters, state and county officials should vigorously and effectively appeal the unjustified."

"The [recent] Brown decision [against Utah's anti-cohabitation law] departs from both constitutional history and deeply rooted social mores. Nothing in the Constitution (not its text or history or precedents) forbids states to ban adulterous cohabitation.

"Laws prohibiting adultery are deeply rooted not only in American legal and moral tapestry but in the legal and social fabric of most civilized societies. Sexual fidelity to one’s spouse is a core, basic element of marriage, and has been for millennia, not merely in American law but in virtually all cultures and societies in the world.

"While those values at times have been honored in the breach rather than the observance, they have persisted as deeply important principles of not just family and social organization but as foundational constitutional values. The form part of the moral substructure upon with our constitutional superstructure is based.

"Likewise, marriage has required the union of man and woman for millennia. In fact, it is only in the past 15 years (and only in a handful of jurisdictions) that marriage has been redefined to allow same-sex marriage. Today, only 16 of 193 sovereign nations (8%) have legalized same-sex marriage--it is forbidden and legally rejected in nearly 92% of the nations of the world.

"There is an important reason why gender-integration has been a core component of marriage in all societies across all time. It lays the foundation for the equality of both genders and for equal respect for the contributions of both genders throughout society. It protects and reinforces the mother-father family, which is the basic social institution.

"When marriages are disregarded and trivialized by public officials, as by the judges in the Brown and Kitchen rulings, that weakens the institution of marriage and subverts the integrity of the relationship of marriage.

"Societies in which marriage is weakened and trivialized suffer severe consequences. History shows that the dependent, the young, the weak, and the aged pay a heavy price when marriage is weakened. . . .

"That some federal judges might have personal views about 'modernizing' Utah’s marriage law to embrace novel forms of marriage and diminish the meaning of marriage is not surprising. However, that they would abuse the power of their office to rewrite Utah’s marriage laws to impose those views upon the people of this state is wrong and deeply troubling.

"It is truly unfortunate that the judges in these two cases forgot basic principles on which our constitutional system is predicated. Those principles include not only respect for gender-integrating marriage but also for judicial self-restraint.

"In both cases, the courts displayed a remarkable disrespect for the institution of marriage. Both judges severely abused judicial power. Because marriage matters, state and county officials should vigorously and effectively appeal the unjustified."

("Op-Ed: Illegitimate and Wrong Marriage Rulings," by Lynn D. Wardle, "Salt Lake Tribune," 4 January 2014, at: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57347336-219/marriage-rulings-judges-constitutional.html.csp)
_____


I have a reliable source who is acquainted with Lynn Wardle. I spoke with this individual today and asked this individual, based on their personal experience and interaction with Wardle, to describe him. (Note: This individual has allowed me to quote them verbatim, reviewed with me what I am now reporting here on RfM and knows it is being posted on RfM).

This individual noted that they have been "acquainted" with Wardle, both personally and professionally. over a period "of several years."

Wardle was described as being “an a**” and “arrogant,” as well as being “dismissive of points of view that disagree with his own."

This person said that they were "disappointed that in public statements, he [Wardle] often relies on assertions rather than on real arguments."

Wardle was further described as a someone who "doesn’t[ fit in to social situations where people have differing views from his."

This person also noted that Wardle operated on "pre-determined" conclusions unrelated to new information and facts.
_____


Surprised, anyone?

Welcome to Mormonism: the Kingdom of the Clueless.

(related RfM link at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1129690)



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 07:35PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: resipsaloquitur ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 06:09PM

That exactly matches the impressions I formed of him when I took his family law course, except that I think your source greatly understated it.

I also found his perseveration on abortion and gay rights to be disquieting and alarming. It was intense, energetic hatred of gays and women.

On a personal level, I found his total disregard for the subject matter of the class in favor of spending all the class time on his obsessions to be, frankly, discourteous to the students. We had a genuine interest in learning family law to benefit our future practices, but he did not teach the subject we were there for. He saw the class as an opportunity to indoctrinate us. Most of the students were very put out.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 06:23PM by resipsaloquitur.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 06:15PM

It's an individual of professional stature in their given field who is known for calling it as they see it (albeit, when necessary, in carefully-crafted sorts of ways). In this case, given their locale, they requested anonymity, not wishing to experience distractions from distracters.

That said, the source evidenced, in definitive term and tone, absolutely no love lost for Wardle.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 06:23PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: resipsaloquitur ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 06:33PM

My god i haven't thought about Wardle for years.

I just remembered that I often witnessed him bully students during class. If a student expressed any sort of dissenting opinion, even in a devil's advocate sort of way (law school, Socratic method, anyone?) he would berate them, humiliate them in an ad hominem way. There was no argumentation or dialogue. It was brute force to make them conform.

By the end of the semester, no one bothered trying to contribute to the class, or even to listen to him anymore.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 06:34PM by resipsaloquitur.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: rationalist01 ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 06:14PM

There really aren't very many gay marriages, so it's not a threat to anything. Gay isn't catching. A guy who thinks like this is simply a bigot who wants to make the laws follow his religious beliefs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: NYCGal ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 06:49PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 06:52PM

"A guy who thinks like this is simply a bigot who wants to make the laws follow his religious beliefs."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: adoylelb ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:42PM

That's true, those couples who did get married were in relationships that have lasted longer than many heterosexual marriages have.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: otedge ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 08:42PM

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

>
> This individual noted that they have been
> "acquainted" with Wardle, both personally and
> professionally. over a period "of several years."
>
> Wardle was described as being “an a**” and
> “arrogant,” as well as being “dismissive of
> points of view that disagree with his own."
>
> This person said that they were "disappointed that
> in public statements, he often relies on
> assertions rather than on real arguments."
>
> Wardle was further described as a someone who
> "doesn’t[ fit in to social situations where
> people have differing views from his."
>
> This person also noted that Wardle operated on
> "pre-determined" conclusions unrelated to new
> information and facts.
> _____
>
>

This sounds like most of the posters on this board (and on pro-TSCC boards, too -- of course).

So your long and oft-edited conclusion is that he doesn't play well with others?

Really ground-breaking research!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 08:53PM

If that's not a problem for you, then take another one of his classes. ( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1129690,1129759#msg-1129759 ) As others have noted, just go along with his ignorance to get along and you might end up pulling down a pretty good grade in Mormon Moronics 101 ( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1130501,1130576#msg-1130576
and http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1130501,1130576#msg-1130576 )

By the way, my source was acquainted with Wardle in both educational and personal settings.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 09:02PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: otedge ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:04PM

Took his class. A few actually. No recollection of what grades I got.

I get that you disagree with him (I DO TOO!!!) but to say he doesn't think or research well is factually incorrect. He is well respected in many professional circles and a "go-to" guy for the "traditional marriage" folks -- he must be doing something right. Long before SSM came along, he was involved in other issues. He is well-published in the legal field.

Look, a lot of GREAT attorneys have clients in jail or on death row. You can only work with what you got. He is on the losing side of a battle -- absolutely -- but he is not dumb and he is not incapable of research -- he just has a stinker of a case.

I am not really sure why I care -- I haven't seen the guy in over a decade.


Edited NO times!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:07PM

On matters of the alleged immense historical damage wrought upon society by same-sex marriage, adultery and cohabitation, Wardle is demonstrably wrong. Moreover, he is apparently not familiar with (or doesn't care about) the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on matters involving same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and sexual conduct between privately-consenting adults.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 09:21PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:57PM

. . . stinking arguments.

I have no sympathy for wobbly Wardle's plight, since he is the one who chooses his employer (the Mormon Church)--and for whom he is willing to defend "stinking cases" that are bereft of substantive evidence or citation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: otedge ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:09PM

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that's not a problem for you, then take another
> one of his classes. (
> http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1129690,1129
> 759#msg-1129759 ) As others have noted, just go
> along with his ignorance to get along and you
> might end up pulling down a pretty good grade in
> Mormon Moronics 101 (
> http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1130501,1130
> 576#msg-1130576
> and
> http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1130501,1130
> 576#msg-1130576 )
>
> By the way, my source was acquainted with Wardle
> in both educational and personal settings.

Seriously???? You edited your post 6 freaking times while I was typing a response. Talk about "can't think or research"??? Maybe you should have your posts peer-reviewed befor you hit the submit button???


Edited NO times.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:13PM

Hell, you admit you don't remember much of what Wardle taught you or what kind of grades you got. Seems like you and him had a great teacher-student relationship: He didn't teach you very much and you didn't listen very much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 09:13PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: otedge ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:28PM

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hell, you admit you don't remember much of what
> Wardle taught you or what kind of grades you got.
> Seems like you and him had a great teacher-student
> relationship: He didn't teach you very much and
> you didn't listen very much.


Not sure I said I don't remember what he taught me (although I probably don't remember). Can you please provide a citation for me? Or draw me a picture?

Your friend describes him as arrogant, dismissive of points of view that disagree with his own, relies on assertions, and pre-determined conclusions, eh?

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

Cheers.


Edited NO times.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:31PM

Speaking of arrogant, I see that you're bragging in capital letters about making NO edits.

You also make no citations.

Heh,

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:36PM

. . . enjoy the read, assuming you learned how to do that in college:

Rabid SSM Opponent Teaches at BYU Law School Named After Rabid Anti-Semite

We are talking about Mormon General Authority J. Reuben Clark, who himself was not only deeply anti-Semitic, he was also:

--a pro-Aryan Hitler sympathizer (who was investigated by the U.S. government as a possible pro-Nazi national security risk); and, if that wasn't enough

--a notorious anti-blood-mixing, anti-Black bigot.

The Mormon Church certainly has a perverse and predictable way of continuing its legacy of antipathy toward certain classes of despised minorities. As a former educator at BYU recently told me, in J. Reuben Clark's case, his name today adorns the BYU law school because he was a high-ranking, First Presidency-situated LDS Church leader--forget about his appallingly prejudiced personal history,

A review of D. Michael Quinn's biography, "Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark" (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002), offers this brutal assessment of the man, accurately described as Clark's "seamier side":

"As a Jew, I found his [Clark's] views utterly contemptible: 'There was one group . . . for whom Reuben expressed lifelong dislike and distrust–the Jewish people. In a 1942 letter to Herbert Hoover, he said the Jews 'are brilliant, they are able, they are unscrupulous, and they are cruel.’ Part of this explanation for his anti-Semitism was personal and part political. He expressed contempt for ‘the foul sewage of Europe’ in his 1898 valedictory, yet Mormons had traditionally gotten along very well with the small population of Jews in Utah” (p. 325). He never passed up an opportunity to express his contempt for Jews. After serving more than 10 years in the First Presidency, he wrote, 'I long ago ceased reading his [Walter Lippmann's] stuff, because he veers like a weather-vane, but I am sure always true when the wind blows from Jew-ward' (p. 328).

"In February 1941, the 'New York Times' reported that Berlin’s Nazi Party newspaper referred to the necessity of 'eliminating all Jews.' This was an echo of the LDS newspaper’s headline in 1938, 'Death for 700,000 Jews Threatened: Semites Must Get Out or Die, Nazis Declare.' Even this stark Utah report gave less than one-tenth of Adolf Hitler’s goal of killing every Jew in Europe. During the balance of 1941 and increasingly thereafter, newspapers in every major American city reported specific examples of the mass execution of Jews throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. In apparent response to such reports, LDS author N. L. Nelson wrote a book against Hitler in the early months of 1941 and referred to the Nazi 'butchery' of the Jews:

"'In his June reply to Nelson’s manuscript, Reuben defended Hitler and added, “There is nothing in their history which indicates that the Jewish race have [sic] either free-agency or liberty. ‘Law and order’ are not facts for the Jews”' (p. 335).

"Clark’s attitudes toward Blacks was equally reprehensible. Along with others of his time, he opposed intermarriage and supported the common practice of segregating blood supplies in hospitals to ensure that no white person would be infused with blood from a Black person, and thus either invalidate his priesthood or disqualify him from future priesthood. But as time progressed, so did his attitude toward Blacks. As the Church extended its missionary efforts into South America and determining blood lines became more difficult, he came to something of an accommodation in the case of some Brazilians, even 'wondering whether we could not work out a plan, while not conferring the priesthood as such upon them, we could give them opportunity to participate in the work certainly of the Aaronic Priesthood grades. (p. 354).'

"His vision of an enlarged priesthood exceeded that of Brigham Young’s. He saw a time when Blacks would hold full priesthood privileges (and not necessarily subject to Young’s prediction that this would not happen until every worthy white male received the priesthood).

"No such growth is seen in his attitude toward Jews. He remained a steadfast anti-semite until his death. And in the case of Blacks and other racial minorities, Clark argued for the civil rights of such folk, without also arguing their spiritual equality. Quinn ends this chapter in much the same way he ends other chapters. But in this case, I was disturbed: 'J. Reuben Clark was clearly a product of the 19th century. He alternately accepted and resisted the 20th century’s changing views of race and ethnicity. But supreme to him were the majesty of the law, the principle of justice for all humanity, and the expansiveness of the latter-day gospel' (p. 360).

"Given Clark’s refusal to condemn the attempted extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany, it seems that his view of 'justice for all humanity' was somewhat constricted. I would have appreciated this exception being noted in Quinn’s too-broad, in my view, statement."

(Jeff Needle, under "Reviews--'A Biography of J. Reuben Clark Elder Statesman'" at: http://signaturebooks.com/2010/06/reviews-elder-statesman-a-biography-of-j-reuben-clark/)


As Germany rose to a position of regained strength prior to World War II (after its disastrous defeat in World War I as the war's instigating aggressor, whereupon it was punished severely by the Treaty of Versailles), it did not help matters that Clark--a former Undersecretary of State in the Calvin Coolidge administration and a high-ranking General Authority--was such a virulent anti-Semite. Among other indicators of his deep anti-Semitic bias, Clark eventually passed along some notorious anti-Jewish propaganda to my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson:

"April 24, 1939--First Counselor J. Reuben Clark requests U.S. department of State to assist immigration of two Mormons: 'She and her husband are Aryan natives and nationals of Switzerland.' In contrast, Clark privately urges State Department not to help Jewish children to leave Nazi Germany if their parents are trying to send them to United States. . . .

"June 24, 1941--Counselor J. Reuben Clark advises Mormon 'against your assuming as truth the most of the criticism you see leveled against Hitler and his regime in Germany. I visited Germany twice within the last half-dozen years . . . Hitler is undoubtedly bad from our American point of view, but I think the Germans like him.' Because of such statements, federal intelligence agencies investigate Clark in Utah as possible pro-Nazi subversive. . . .

February 5, 1949--First Counselor J. Reuben Clark recommends anti-Semitic 'PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION' to Ernest L. Wilkinson, soon to be president of Brigham Young University. In Dec. 1957 Clark makes similar recommendation to Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. This may be reason Benson organizes secret surveillance of employees (especially Jews) in U.S. Department of Agriculture."

(see repost of RFM contributor "baura," entitled "On This Day in Mormon History," at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,420695,421669#msg-421669)


More on Clark's anti-Black prejudice:

"Utah's racial discrimination did not occur by happenstance nor did it continue into modern times by accident. It was promoted by the highest leaders of the state's dominant church. As late as 1941, Counselor J. Reuben Clark used the word [rhymes with 'trigger'] in his First Presidency office diary."

"In 1953, a First Presidency secretary informed a white Mormon that '[t]he L.D.S. Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood.' According to presidency counselor J. Reuben Clark, this policy of segregating African-American blood from the blood donated by so-called 'white people' was intended 'to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church.'"

(D. Michael Quinn, "Prelude to the National "Defense of Marriage” Campaign: Civil Discrimination Against Feared or Despised Minorities," originally published in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 33:3, pp. 1-52," reproduced with permission at: http://www.affirmation.org/against_marriage_equality/prelude.shtml)
_____


So, Brigham Young University (itself named after a rabid racist and Mormon Church president/"prophet") names its law school after J. Reuben Clark, another high-ranking Mormon Church leader and rabid hater of despised minorities.

From that law school we now hear tirades against gays being spewed by paid Mormon-Church employees. Inveighing against same-sex marriage, Wardle writes in his bigoted, Mormon-believer broadside:

"The [recent] Brown decision [against Utah's anti-cohabitation law] departs from both constitutional history and deeply rooted social mores. Nothing in the Constitution (not its text or history or precedents) forbids states to ban adulterous cohabitation.

"Laws prohibiting adultery are deeply rooted not only in American legal and moral tapestry but in the legal and social fabric of most civilized societies. Sexual fidelity to one’s spouse is a core, basic element of marriage, and has been for millennia, not merely in American law but in virtually all cultures and societies in the world.

"While those values at times have been honored in the breach rather than the observance, they have persisted as deeply important principles of not just family and social organization but as foundational constitutional values. The form part of the moral substructure upon with our constitutional superstructure is based.

"Likewise, marriage has required the union of man and woman for millennia. In fact, it is only in the past 15 years (and only in a handful of jurisdictions) that marriage has been redefined to allow same-sex marriage. Today, only 16 of 193 sovereign nations (8%) have legalized same-sex marriage--it is forbidden and legally rejected in nearly 92% of the nations of the world.

"There is an important reason why gender-integration has been a core component of marriage in all societies across all time. It lays the foundation for the equality of both genders and for equal respect for the contributions of both genders throughout society. It protects and reinforces the mother-father family, which is the basic social institution.

"When marriages are disregarded and trivialized by public officials, as by the judges in the Brown and Kitchen rulings, that weakens the institution of marriage and subverts the integrity of the relationship of marriage.

"Societies in which marriage is weakened and trivialized suffer severe consequences. History shows that the dependent, the young, the weak, and the aged pay a heavy price when marriage is weakened. . . .

"That some federal judges might have personal views about 'modernizing' Utah’s marriage law to embrace novel forms of marriage and diminish the meaning of marriage is not surprising. However, that they would abuse the power of their office to rewrite Utah’s marriage laws to impose those views upon the people of this state is wrong and deeply troubling.

"It is truly unfortunate that the judges in these two cases forgot basic principles on which our constitutional system is predicated. Those principles include not only respect for gender-integrating marriage but also for judicial self-restraint.

"In both cases, the courts displayed a remarkable disrespect for the institution of marriage. Both judges severely abused judicial power. Because marriage matters, state and county officials should vigorously and effectively appeal the unjustified."

("Op-Ed: Illegitimate and Wrong Marriage Rulings," by Lynn D. Wardle, "Salt Lake Tribune," 4 January 2014, at: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57347336-219/marriage-rulings-judges-constitutional.html.csp )
_____


Wardle speaks of honoring history when it comes to societal customs, mores, law and precedent. Perhaps he is unaware of the fact that as part of Nazi Germany's "moral purification" program, Hitler's henchmen--in the name of societal customs, mores, law and precedent-- rounded up gays and sent them to concentration camps:

"The Nazis posed as moral crusaders who wanted to stamp out the 'vice' of homosexuality from Germany in order to help win the racial struggle. Once they took power in 1933, the Nazis intensified persecution of German male homosexuals. Persecution ranged from the dissolution of homosexual organizations to internment in concentration camps.

"The Nazis believed that male homosexuals were weak, effeminate men who could not fight for the German nation. They saw homosexuals as unlikely to produce children and increase the German birthrate. The Nazis held that inferior races produced more children than 'Aryans,' so anything that diminished Germany's reproductive potential was considered a racial danger.

"SS chief Heinrich Himmler directed the increasing persecution of homosexuals in the Third Reich. . . . [T]he Nazis generally did not target non-German homosexuals unless they were active with German partners. In most cases, the Nazis were prepared to accept former homosexuals into the 'racial community,' provided that they became 'racially conscious' and gave up their lifestyle.

"On May 6, 1933, students led by Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung; SA) broke into the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin and confiscated its unique library. Four days later, most of this collection of over 12,000 books and 35,000 irreplaceable pictures was destroyed along with thousands of other 'degenerate' works of literature in the book burning in Berlin's city center. The remaining materials were never recovered. Magnus Hirschfeld, the founder of the Institute and a pioneer in the scientific study of human sexuality, was lecturing in France at the time and chose not to return to Germany.

"The destruction of the Institute was a first step toward eradicating an openly gay or lesbian culture from Germany. Police closed bars and clubs such as the "Eldorado" and banned publications such as 'Die Freundschaft' ('Friendship'). In this early stage, the Nazis drove homosexuals underground, destroying their networks of support. In 1934, the Gestapo (secret state police) instructed local police forces to keep lists of all men engaged in homosexual activities. Police in many parts of Germany had in fact been doing this for years. The Nazis used these 'pink lists' to hunt down individual homosexuals during police actions.

"On June 28, 1935, the Ministry of Justice revised [Germany's anti-homosexual law known as ] Paragraph 175. The revisions provided a legal basis for extending Nazi persecution of homosexuals. Ministry officials expanded the category of 'criminally indecent activities between men' to include any act that could be construed as homosexual. The courts later decided that even intent or thought sufficed.

"On October 26, 1936, Himmler formed within the Security Police the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality. Josef Meisinger, executed in 1947 for his brutality in occupied Poland, led the new office. The police had powers to hold in protective custody or preventive arrest those deemed dangerous to Germany's moral fiber, jailing indefinitely--without trial--anyone they chose. In addition, homosexual prisoners just released from jail were immediately re-arrested and sent to concentration camps if the police thought it likely that they would continue to engage in homosexual acts.

"From 1937 to 1939, the peak years of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the police increasingly raided homosexual meeting places, seized address books, and created networks of informers and undercover agents to identify and arrest suspected homosexuals. On April 4, 1938, the Gestapo issued a directive indicating that men convicted of homosexuality could be incarcerated in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the police arrested an estimated 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most of the 50,000 men sentenced by the courts spent time in regular prisons, and between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps.

"The Nazis interned some homosexuals in concentration camps immediately after the seizure of power in January 1933. Those interned came from all areas of German society, and often had only the cause of their imprisonment in common. . . . Prisoners marked by pink triangles to signify homosexuality were treated harshly in the camps. According to many survivor accounts, homosexuals were among the most abused groups in the camps.

"Because some Nazis believed homosexuality was a sickness that could be cured, they designed policies to "cure" homosexuals of their 'disease' through humiliation and hard work. Guards ridiculed and beat homosexual prisoners upon arrival, often separating them from other inmates. Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, wrote in his memoirs that homosexuals were segregated in order to prevent homosexuality from spreading to other inmates and guards. Personnel in charge of work details in the Dora-Mittelbau underground rocket factory or in the stone quarries at Flossenbürg and Buchenwald often gave deadly assignments to homosexuals.

"Survival in camps took on many forms. Some homosexual inmates secured administrative and clerical jobs. For other prisoners, sexuality became a means of survival. In exchange for sexual favors, some Kapos protected a chosen prisoner, usually of young age, giving him extra food and shielding him from the abuses of other prisoners. Homosexuals themselves very rarely became Kapos due to the lack of a support network. Kapo guardianship was no protection against the guards' brutality, of course. In any case, the Kapo often tired of an individual, sometimes killing him and finding another on the next transport. Though individual homosexual inmates could secure a measure of protection in some ways, as a group homosexual prisoners lacked the support network common to other groups. Without this help in mitigating brutality, homosexual prisoners were unlikely to survive long.

"One avenue of survival available to some homosexuals was castration, which some criminal justice officials advocated as a way of "curing" sexual deviance. Homosexual defendants in criminal cases or concentration camps could agree to castration in exchange for lower sentences. Later, judges and SS camp officials could order castration without the consent of a homosexual prisoner.

"Nazis interested in finding a 'cure' for homosexuality expanded this program to include medical experimentation on homosexual inmates of concentration camps. These experiments caused illness, mutilation, and even death, and yielded no scientific knowledge.

"There are no known statistics for the number of homosexuals who died in the camps."

("Persecution of Homosexuals in the Third Reich," under "Holocaust Encyclopedia," presented by the United States Holocaust Museum, at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005261)


And, finally, did you know that both the Mormon Church and many of its rank-and-file members supported Hitler's rise to power?

(For a history of Mormon German support of Hitler and the Nazis, see: "All in Favor, So Manifest by "Sieg Heil!": Church-Encouraged LDS German Support of the Nazis During World War II, Parts 1 and 2," by Steve Benson, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 10 September 2012, at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fexmormon.org%2Fphorum%2Fread.php%3F2%2C632848&ei=iVPMUo-PHcTfrQHmzIGYAw&usg=AFQjCNGXOSq3AyKaU_xl_FIHzgrvqpfH4w&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWM)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 09:15PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: January 08, 2014 12:04AM

Or don't care much.

Except about how much someone edits their post.

Why would that matter to anyone?

As an editor, it indicates to me that a person cares enough about their work/writing to be accurate and consistent, both good qualities.

I care if they care.

(So now I've edited this tiny little post, because I'm persnickety about details; iow, I care).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2014 07:03AM by Nightingale.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: January 08, 2014 01:03AM

You have personally notified me when you spot typos in my posts, knowing that I appreciate that kind of bird-dogging in my behalf and that I will move quickly to correct the mistakes. (I tend to type fast, which tends to lead to typos).

I also sometimes rephrase sentences to better convey meaning (but I do not alter posts to substantially change meaning when someone is responding directly to a point in the original post that needs to remain standing in order for their point to be relevant and contextual).

Sometimes I will add major elements to my posts as I come across new and relevant information. That new data sometimes comes from readers on this site, which I very much appreciate. In certain situations, I make specific note (in the edited post or in the thread in which the original post appears), providing a heads-up that I have wrapped in more data.

I also like to link, cite or otherwise make reference to important informational sources that I have employed in my postings and often will add or amplify on links for interested readers to track.

I regard editing as crucial to accurate composition and conveyance of important information. Ironically, I find that good editing can be more challenging of a task than doing the initial writing.

Finally, editing is a compositional software option provided by RfM administrators for the benefit of users of this site--so I use it. If some critics don't like that, then to quote what I once heard Christopher Hitchens say, they "can take a number and pull my thumb." So there.
_____


*(Edited 287 times; Correction: make that 288, now that you can count the automatic edit notice at the bottom of this post)

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2014 01:11AM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: reuben ( )
Date: January 07, 2014 11:30PM

According to Sen. Larry Craig, Wardle has a wide stance. It explains his vehement anti gay persona.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Anonymous User ( )
Date: January 08, 2014 10:33PM

I tried to post this in the original thread, but it was closers while I was trying to post.

How in the hell was this guy ever allowed to teach? OK I know BYU is a screwed up place, but who in the hell is allowing this guy to be a law "expert"? If he were from any other state & teaching at any other school (well except for maybe Bob Jones), he would be fired & laughed out of the profession.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: shakinthedust ( )
Date: January 09, 2014 09:42AM

The "weakened and trivialized" language really got to me. In Salt Lake there were gay couples who have been together 5-40 years. Compare this with RMs getting married after knowing someone a week.

Trivialized, you say?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: notnewatthisanymore ( )
Date: January 09, 2014 11:13AM

So wait, his big defense against SSM is that it hasn't been done before? We can't break from tradition? No science to back up WHY it shouldn't be done we just shouldn't do it? I could go on about how silly that is for over 1000 pages without repeating a single argument. Even his religion is founded on breaking from tradition. How utterly hypocritical and myopic of him.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******   **     **  **     **  **     **  ******** 
 **    **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **       
 **        **     **  **     **  **     **  **       
 **        **     **  **     **  *********  ******   
 **         **   **    **   **   **     **  **       
 **    **    ** **      ** **    **     **  **       
  ******      ***        ***     **     **  **