I agree with this. The protestors actions aren't likely to be highly effective, except to the extent Mormons are intimidated and then stop promoting Prop 8 to the same extent as prior to the intimidation (which may be their goal). Regardless of whether or not the protestors acts are effective, however, they are certainly defensible (so long as they are legal assemblies and not violent).

From the perspective of the protestors, the people going into the temple aren't sweet old ladies heading off to worship. They are part of the political machine fighting against something the protestors hold dear.

Are you sure about that? Do you ever go to the temple?

???

I don't know what you are suggesting here.

View this from the perspective of protestors. This is what they see:

The Mormon church making public statements about Prop 8 and spurring its members to take action;

Huge donations from church members in support of Prop 8;

Members showing up at their doors (2 at a time, like the missionaries), asking people to support Prop 8;

Members calling them on their phones asking for support for Prop 8;

News reports that the church will ask members throughout the US to support Prop 8.

The church and its members begin to very much appear like a monolithic voting bloc on Prop 8, and it is very easy to see how they then assume that people attending the temple (which is viewed as the Mormon Mecca, so to speak), are participating in Prop 8 political movements. So the protestors target those individuals entering the temple, while also making a statement directed to the broader public outside of the temple that the Mormon involvement is inappropriate/incorrect.

I see this as a logical response to the church's actions. The church can hardly get this involved in political affairs and then claim that they are exempt from political speech directed at the church or its members in retribution.

Ok, maybe I skimmed too quickly. In any event, the protestor's perspective is not necessarily accurate, although the right to deonstrate and protest reasonably and lawfully or, more accurately (I hope) to advocate, should be protected.

Is that what you think people take away from these protests?

Is someone in the church claiming to be exempt?

I had observed that the Yes on Prop 8 folks were kicking butt.....way more organized, highly visible TV ads and radio spots, etc.....the No on Prop 8 effort was hardly noticeable.

I noticed 3 days ago all of a sudden the No on Prop 8 commercials and ads popping up. I wonder if they are waiting until these final 2 weeks to bombard everyone with their ads? I was under the impression that they had received significant funding so they have to be doing something with all that cash.

So the protestor's perspective may not necessarily be accurate. So? It is still their perspective, and the church's actions, along with the members' actions, have clearly fed into that perspective. Is it reasonable to think there will be no political blowback for the church's position? Of course not. If the worst blowback the church gets is from some protestors acting peacefully outside the temple grounds, the church should be relieved. I would imagine at some point the church becomes the focus of intense media scrutiny and criticism for their stance and strong advocacy. I assume people will complain about that too, if and when it happens.

How about you take a position. Any position.

Is it improper for protestors to peacefully demonstrate outside the temple? If so, why?

It's in poor taste, and neither "turnabout" nor "fair play."