NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a start anyway. Also, please consider filing a complaint with the IRS--details at bottom of page.

Inquiry Set on Mormon Aid for California Marriage Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html?ref=us)

California officials will investigate accusations that the Mormon Church neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions — including phone banks, a Web site and commercials — on behalf of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.

Roman Porter, the executive director of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees California campaign finance laws, signed off on the investigation after reviewing a sworn complaint filed on Nov. 13.

The complaint, filed by Fred Karger, founder of the group Californians Against Hate, asserted that the church’s reported contributions — about $5,000, according to state election filings — vastly underestimated its actual efforts in passing Proposition 8, which amended the state’s Constitution to recognize only male-female marriage.

Broadly speaking, California state law requires disclosure of any money spent or services provided to influence the outcome of an election.

Mr. Porter said the announcement of the investigation was not “a determination on the validity of the claims or the culpability of the individuals,” but that the claims had been reviewed by a lawyer for the commission and its chief of enforcement and deemed worth pursuing.

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement Tuesday saying it had received the complaint and would cooperate with the investigation. Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the leading group behind Proposition 8, said the accusations were baseless and made by a “rogue group.”

Responding to a plea from Mormon Church leaders to “become involved in this important cause,” members contributed millions of dollars and volunteered for countless hours on behalf of Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed with 52 percent of the vote, leading to protests and boycotts of supporters of the proposition, including some Mormon temples and businesses.

Mr. Karger’s complaint paints a sweeping picture of the involvement by the church leadership, and raises questions about who paid for out-of-state phone banks and grass-roots rallies in California before the Nov. 4 vote.

“Who paid for the buses, travel costs, meals and other expenses of all the Mormon participants?” the complaint reads. “No contributions were reported.”

The complaint also touches on a five-state simulcast from church leaders to Mormon congregations, as well as a Web site, preservingmarriage.org, that featured a series of videos advocating passage of the ballot measure and is labeled “an official Web site” of the Mormon Church.

Ms. Farah said the church had no comment on the particular accusations in the complaint.

If found in violation of election laws, the church could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Mr. Porter said. Bigger fines could also be levied by a civil court.

Mr. Karger said he respected the right of Mormons to vote in line with their religious beliefs, but added “if they’re going to play politics, then they need to play by the rules.”

The California Supreme Court agreed last week to review the constitutionality of the measure, with a ruling expected next year.

In addition to the above, at issue are other non-monetary contributions, including telephone bank operations allegedly organized by the LDS Church in Rexburg, Idaho, where Brigham Young University has a campus, and in Utah. link (http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_11071952)

On a related note: How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint Against The Church of Latter-day Saints (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/)

It should be interesting to see how this plays out. Comments, outraged denunciations, etc?

you live in california. do you think it will end up in massive fines against the church?

you live in california. do you think it will end up in massive fines against the church?

Can't really say until more facts are known, but it seems possible. I would love to see that happen -- assuming the allegations are true.

Tax-exempt organization complaint (Referral) Form no:13909, hell ya! The IRS have a form for fracking everything.

Can't really say until more facts are known, but it seems possible. I would love to see that happen -- assuming the allegations are true.
i would like to see a boatload of churches get slapped for political involvement.

you know Utah will block the investigation. and Idaho is a 50/50 toss up.

you know Utah will block the investigation. and Idaho is a 50/50 toss up.

WTF? How?

meh we've been around for 200 years, we've had a million chances to fail, have we? No. I'm not worried

Good news.

meh we've been around for 200 years, we've had a million chances to fail, have we? No. I'm not worried

Come again? Perhaps with something that makes sense?

Tax-exempt organization complaint (Referral) Form no:13909, hell ya! The IRS have a form for fracking everything.

Tax dollars at work. Gotta love a bureaucracy :tongue:

meh we've been around for 200 years, we've had a million chances to fail, have we? No. I'm not worried
Whaaaaa? :confused:

meh we've been around for 200 years, we've had a million chances to fail, have we? No. I'm not worriedNot having failed for the time prior to the present (aka "the past") is a prerequisite for being able to fail in the present or future. So I'm puzzled as to who "you" are and why being around to fail is a protection against failure.

i would like to see a boatload of churches get slapped for political involvement.
Same here. It's past time we repaired and reinforced that wall of separation.

Also, I get a kick of the LDS. They openly acknowledged their efforts to pump millions of dollars worth of money and services into promoting Prop 8, yet they have the nerve now to stand on a mere $5000 of reported contributions?

Same here. It's past time we repaired and reinforced that wall of separation.

Also, I get a kick of the LDS. They openly acknowledged their efforts to pump millions of dollars worth of money and services into promoting Prop 8, yet they have the nerve now to stand on a mere $5000 of reported contributions?

balls of fucking steel.

Or, since it's LDS, should I say balls of gold, that only one person has seen and nobody can seem to find now?

Damn, at first I read "LSD Church". It would have been soooo '70s.

balls of fucking steel.

Or, since it's LDS, should I say balls of gold, that only one person has seen and nobody can seem to find now?
Nearly made me fall off my desk chair. :D Good one!

Go thread! I got to 1181 on my thread (surpassed NSG Fossils, though Nederlandske was way beyond reach) before it was closed (on the indisputable grounds that the posts kept getting further and further from the topic of what to do about the Mormons).

Well if there is a silver lining to this whole thing perhaps it will be a strict review of a church's tax exempt status and what responsibilities and expectations that carries.

WTF? How?

Because it is only a state level search started by California. Most if not all of the evidence is in Utah. The LDS runs Utah and their judges will block warrants and rule evidence inadmissible. This is nothing new for the LDS church they get involved in politics often and they know as long as all bread crumbs lead into Utah they cant be touched.

Props to the LDS Church for standing up for their beliefs and refusing to be silent.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORMON."

And I stand against those who legislate hatred of the gay community into the Constitution denying them equal protection. There is nothing bigoted about wanting equal rights for everyone.

And I stand against those who legislate hatred of the gay community into the Constitution denying them equal protection. There is nothing bigoted about wanting equal rights for everyone.

Seconded!

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORON."

fixed

Props to the LDS Church for standing up for their beliefs and refusing to be silent.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORMON."
Oh, don't give us that. Had proposition 8 failed and the opposition were suspected of campaigning illegally, you'd be up in arms. If the Mormon Church wants to become a political organisation over and above what they say at the pulpit, they should follow the law, disclose all donations and aid to political campaigns and lose their tax exempt status.

Props to the LDS Church for standing up for their beliefs and refusing to be silent.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORMON."

If standing up for your rights, including the use of legal action against those who seek to deny you of them illegally, makes you a bigot, this non-bigot joins those who say "I AM A BIGOT."

Where does separation of church and State play into this?

Are churches not allowed to pump money into promotion of their religion(s)?

Where does separation of church and State play into this?

Are churches not allowed to pump money into promotion of their religion(s)?

Churches aren't permitted to push a political agenda without endangering their tax exempt status. Also California has their own rules. Also weren't you leaving?

Oh, don't give us that. Had proposition 8 failed and the opposition were suspected of campaigning illegally, you'd be up in arms. If the Mormon Church wants to become a political organisation over and above what they say at the pulpit, they should follow the law, disclose all donations and aid to political campaigns and lose their tax exempt status.

If standing up for your rights, including the use of legal action against those who seek to deny you of them illegally, makes you a bigot, this non-bigot joins those who say "I AM A BIGOT."

New Mitanni's just a bitter Bushevik who can only find comfort in petty cheap shots such as cheerleading Proposition 8. The more he bitches and whines the better the world is doing, keep that in mind. Hell, if he gets together with Potato Boy and Miami Shores they can form an emo band together.

If the church is trying to control state laws that affect people who do not subscribe to their religion, then I would say that the separation of church and state clearly plays into this conversation.

Promote your bigoted religions all you want, but try to keep the church laws limited to your church members.

Churches aren't permitted to push a political agenda without endangering their tax exempt status.
Is it a political "agenda" or promtion of their religion?

Also California has their own rules.
So there could be 50 different rules concerning this situation?

Also weren't you leaving?
Irrelevant and off topic.

Hm... anything else think this is going to seriously help Romney's street cred among with the evangelicals?

Where does separation of church and State play into this?

Are churches not allowed to pump money into promotion of their religion(s)?

Promoting their religion, fine. Once it's influencing elections there are strict laws involved. You can't have a church acting like a tax exempt 501 to shield its contributions and do an end run around campaign financing laws. The church has a special status as a church, if it acts politically, even under the guise of 'promoting their religion,' they have to operate under a different set of laws involving elections, which means they have to give up their church status.

That is, in fact, very much a part of the separation of church and state. You can't promote your religion through the state.

Is it a political "agenda" or promtion of their religion?
If it's on a ballot, agenda.


So there could be 50 different rules concerning this situation?
Yep. Welcome to a nation that's really just a collection of states. Especially when it's for deciding a state law or a matter of the state constitution.

Hm... anything else think this is going to seriously help Romney's street cred among with the evangelicals?

Anyone else note the irony of a bunch of forcibly reformed polygamists bitching about traditional marriage?

If the church is trying to control state laws that affect people who do not subscribe to their religion, then I would say that the separation of church and state clearly plays into this conversation.
What if the advertising was meant as information for their membership?

Promote your bigoted religions all you want, but try to keep the church laws limited to your church members.
See above.

What if the advertising was meant as information for their membership?


See above.


Have you seen the ads they funded?

Is it a political "agenda" or promtion of their religion?

Even assuming it's merely "promotion of religion," the very fact that the end result was the passage of a bill that eliminates a specific civil right for homosexuals makes this a flagrant violation of Separation of Church and State.

So there could be 50 different rules concerning this situation?

Red herring, since this involves California and Proposition 8 specifically.

Irrelevant and off topic.

No, really, weren't you posting a big emo-sturbation about how you were leaving and "forgiving" everyone who called you on the "It Should Have Been Hillary Now It'll Be 4 More Years of Republicanism I Told You So, Waaaaaah"?

Promoting their religion, fine. Once it's influencing elections there are strict laws involved. You can't have a church acting like a tax exempt 501 to shield its contributions and do an end run around campaign financing laws. The church has a special status as a church, if it acts politically, even under the guise of 'promoting their religion,' they have to operate under a different set of laws involving elections, which means they have to give up their church status.

That is, in fact, very much a part of the separation of church and state. You can't promote your religion through the state.
Was the LDS church encouraging only their membership to vote for the Proposition, or were they aiming at all religious organizations?

Have you seen the ads they funded?
No I haven't and that is why I am asking the generic questions. Got any links?

No I haven't and that is why I am asking the generic questions. Got any links?

Plenty of them on YouTube, here's one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM

Oh, and weren't you leaving?

When you believe in Christ, you magically gain the power to decide for those who do not or do wrongly (according to your immaculate and, of course, superior interpretation of the Bible). Trying to monopolize the institution of marriage as a purely Christian and heterosexual concept is just the first step.

Was the LDS church encouraging only their membership to vote for the Proposition, or were they aiming at all religious organizations?
You really should research the topic before plowing in needing everyone to give a primer.

Anyone else note the irony of a bunch of forcibly reformed polygamists bitching about traditional marriage?
Few things are quite so fervent as a recent convert with something to prove.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

Are you seriously trying the "I'm not a hater, YOU are!" schtick?

All anyone has to do is see your myriad of honestly hateful, bigoted posts - ones referring to gays as "deviants", or any of your posts referring to Muslims, black people, or any of the other groups you spew your cliched vitriol at, to see how ludicrous this accusation is. Sorry dude, "I'm rubber you're glue" ceased to work as an effective debating tactic sometime before puberty. For most of us anyway.

Those who are 'born again' usually tend to be rather fanatical, probably to make up for all those godless years in which they did unspeakable acts of depraved debauchery and other fun stuff.

Props to the LDS Church for standing up for their beliefs and refusing to be silent.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORMON."

goody for you. if and when the Church is fined for breaking campaign finance laws, perhaps you can get fined too. :eek::p

Regardless, defining equality and liberty as bigotry took chutzpah the first few times, now it is just old and pathetic.

You really should research the topic before plowing in needing everyone to give a primer.
Well, you see, I am from a country that has already legalized same sex marriage across the land, and from Province to Province, so trying to understand 50 different State viewpoints is somewhat difficult. Bear with me.

Where does separation of church and State play into this?

Are churches not allowed to pump money into promotion of their religion(s)?

Separation of church and state plays no role in any organization -- religious or not -- having to obey California's campaign finance laws.

Separation of church and state does play a role in the issue of the LDS Church's tax exempt status -- as that is a status not required, by is allowed, by the First Amendment and is contingent on no substantial activities to influence legislation. See 26 USC 501(c)(3).

As for whether the LDS Church was simply promoting their religion or were taking sides on legislative issue, the following letter (http://lds501c3.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/lds-california-letter.pdf) was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore
the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

Well, you see, I am from a country that has already legalized same sex marriage across the land, and from Province to Province, so trying to understand 50 different State viewpoints is somewhat difficult. Bear with me.

You have the internet. Coming into a discussion about horses and asking, "Don't they have stripes?" is irritating to those already caught up who now have to spin their wheels while someone asks groundless questions.

Because it is only a state level search started by California. Most if not all of the evidence is in Utah. The LDS runs Utah and their judges will block warrants and rule evidence inadmissible. This is nothing new for the LDS church they get involved in politics often and they know as long as all bread crumbs lead into Utah they cant be touched.Then they could lose the right to operate in California, which they would not want to do.

Is it a political "agenda" or promtion of their religion?

Promotion of a religion would be, "Hey, it's great to be Mormon! Come join us!"

Attempting to get a law passes is pretty clearly a political agenda.

What if the advertising was meant as information for their membership?

Then it would have been kept in their church.

Was the LDS church encouraging only their membership to vote for the Proposition, or were they aiming at all religious organizations?
They were aiming at everyone in California: they sent people out to knock door to door.

Separation of church and state plays no role in any organization -- religious or not -- having to obey California's campaign finance laws.

Separation of church and state does play a role in the issue of the LDS Church's tax exempt status -- as that is a status not required, by is allowed, by the First Amendment and is contingent on no substantial activities to influence legislation. See 26 USC 501(c)(3).

As for whether the LDS Church was simply promoting their religion or were taking sides on legislative issue, the following letter (http://lds501c3.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/lds-california-letter.pdf) was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008:

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore
the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
Thanks for that.

Perhaps the focus of the pro same sex marriage forces should not be on retribution to the various religious organizations, but a legal challenge at the SCOTUS level?

Perhaps the focus of the pro same sex marriage forces should not be on retribution to the various religious organizations,

Why not? If your opponents don't follow the rules, why shouldn't you call them on it?

but a legal challenge at the SCOTUS level?

This has been heavily discouraged so far, because the fear is that they'll lose and solidify precedent against them.

Why not? If your opponents don't follow the rules, why shouldn't you call them on it?
Getting into a mud fight with the Church seems to me as being counter productive, and the consequences may be worse?

This has been heavily discouraged so far, because the fear is that they'll lose and solidify precedent against them.
Then pouring resources into hiring a good Constitutional lawyer and promoting same sex marriage at the federal level might be more prudent?

Getting into a mud fight with the Church seems to me as being counter productive
Since the Church started throwing mud at us, we are ALREADY in a mud fight with them. It would be counterproductive not to fight to win.

Getting into a mud fight with the Church seems to me as being counter productive, and the consequences may be worse?
If the implications were isolated, yes. But they are not. The laws are meaningless unless they are enforced.


Then pouring resources into hiring a good Constitutional lawyer and promoting same sex marriage at the federal level might be more prudent?
It is not the same organizations doing each. The State of California is investigating the violations of its electoral laws and opponents of the bill are trying it as illegal because it is a revision of the constitution that has to go through the state assembly first.

Most people can manage more than one thing at a time. An organization of people, they can manage a whole lot of things.

Getting into a mud fight with the Church seems to me as being counter productive, and the consequences may be worse?

It's quite possible that it will discourage religious institutions from getting involved in the future.

Then pouring resources into hiring a good Constitutional lawyer

Wouldn't make much of a difference on the margin.

and promoting same sex marriage at the federal level

Marriage is a state matter. The federal government can repeal DOMA and grant federal rights to state same-sex unions; nothing else. And the LGBT rights activists are already on that.

Since the Church started throwing mud at us, we are ALREADY in a mud fight with them. It would be counterproductive not to fight to win.
At the end of the day, will it mean a re-vote on the issue or just retribution against the Churches? If it is just retribution against the Church, then that could be counter productive to the charities that they support.

How about an appeal at the State level by those who already have been married since the law was overturned earlier?

Since the Church started throwing mud at us, we are ALREADY in a mud fight with them. It would be counterproductive not to fight to win.

"Win"? Screw "win", let's OBLITERATE them!

At the end of the day, will it mean a re-vote on the issue or just retribution against the Churches? If it is just retribution against the Church, then that could be counter productive to the charities that they support.

At the end of the day, the issue is whether the Church cheated in its support of Proposition 8. Why should the Church be allowed to cheat simply because it is a church?

How about an appeal at the State level by those who already have been married since the law was overturned earlier?

Already being done.

It's quite possible that it will discourage religious institutions from getting involved in the future.

Wouldn't make much of a difference on the margin.

Marriage is a state matter. The federal government can repeal DOMA and grant federal rights to state same-sex unions; nothing else. And the LGBT rights activists are already on that.
Marriage may be a "state matter", but prohibiting same sex marriage might be a violation of the Constitution?

Here in Canada, the federal government passed the same sex marriage laws due to the fact that several Provincial appeal courts ruled that prohibiting same sex marriages violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/).

Canadians have greater rights then Americans in this regard?

Marriage may be a "state matter", but prohibiting same sex marriage might be a violation of the Constitution?

As I already noted, while this argument could theoretically be made, the same-sex marriage advocacy groups have shied away from making it at the federal level, because they think they'll lose with the current composition of the Supreme Court.

At the end of the day, the issue is whether the Church cheated in its support of Proposition 8. Why should the Church be allowed to cheat simply because it is a church?
Whether the Church "cheated" or not, fighting them just for the sake of retribution makes little sense. If the fight could lead to invalidating the results of the Prop. then by all means, push forward.

Already being done.
Figured as much but wasn't sure.

That should be the primary focus?

Marriage may be a "state matter", but prohibiting same sex marriage might be a violation of the Constitution?

Here in Canada, the federal government passed the same sex marriage laws due to the fact that several Provincial appeal courts ruled that prohibiting same sex marriages violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/).

Canadians have greater rights then Americans in this regard?

Arguably prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution in two ways: (1) it denies same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry and (2) it denies same-sex couples equal protection under the law by discriminating on the basis of gender.

Unfortunately, although several state supreme courts have held that denying same-sex marriage violates state constitutions, federal courts haven't stepped up the plate. And given the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court (and lower courts) after all the years of a Republican administration, it is far from clear the issue would be decided in favor of same-sex marriages. Thus, a state-level strategy has been pursued.

(Also, I should note the national political climate is such that even the Democratic Party is not as supportive of same-sex marriage as they should be.)

As I already noted, while this argument could theoretically be made, the same-sex marriage advocacy groups have shied away from making it at the federal level, because they think they'll lose with the current composition of the Supreme Court.
So an appeal at that level will probably take many years?

Honestly, there are so many more important things to be worrying about that petty social issues.

Whether the Church "cheated" or not, fighting them just for the sake of retribution makes little sense. If the fight could lead to invalidating the results of the Prop. then by all means, push forward.

Fighting them so they don't cheat again on future issues makes perfect sense.

Regardless, do we only punish wrongdoers if it will undo the wrong or do we seek justice?

That should be the primary focus?

Multi-tasking is possible. Especially since the number of people that can file briefs before the California Supreme Court is more limited than the number of people that can complain to the IRS or California Fair Political Practices Commission.

(Also, I should note the national political climate is such that even the Democratic Party is not as supportive of same-sex marriage as they should be.)
That could be the greatest pitfall.

Honestly, there are so many more important things to be worrying about that petty social issues.

Just curious: Would a law preventing Jews or those related to Jews from getting married be a "petty social issue" beneath your concern?

That could be the greatest pitfall.

What? What pitfall?

At the end of the day, will it mean a re-vote on the issue or just retribution against the Churches? If it is just retribution against the Church, then that could be counter productive to the charities that they support.
Al Capone also made charitable contributions. I'm not sure what the logic in having the cross be a get out jail free card.

How about an appeal at the State level by those who already have been married since the law was overturned earlier?
Again, multitasking. People do it, organizations do it.

Just curious: Would a law preventing Jews or those related to Jews from getting married be a "petty social issue" beneath your concern?

Or whites, why not.

Just curious: Would a law preventing Jews or those related to Jews from getting married be a "petty social issue" beneath your concern?
Appropriate reply!!

Anyone else note the irony of a bunch of forcibly reformed polygamists bitching about traditional marriage?

Hey, there's no marriage more traditional than polygamy.

Anyone else note the irony of a bunch of forcibly reformed polygamists bitching about traditional marriage?

It's the Cycle of Abuse. Victims always forget how bad it really is when it's their turn to dish out the abuse.

What? What pitfall?
If the Democratic Party is not as supportive of the issue as it should be, then it becomes that more difficult to achieve the stated goal.

Props to the LDS Church for standing up for their beliefs and refusing to be silent.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORMON."

Are you seriously trying the "I'm not a hater, YOU are!" schtick?

All anyone has to do is see your myriad of honestly hateful, bigoted posts - ones referring to gays as "deviants", or any of your posts referring to Muslims, black people, or any of the other groups you spew your cliched vitriol at, to see how ludicrous this accusation is. Sorry dude, "I'm rubber you're glue" ceased to work as an effective debating tactic sometime before puberty. For most of us anyway.

Ladies and gentlemen, Classic Bushevik Cognitive Dissonance and Projectionism for your viewing displeasure, courtesy of New Mitanni.

They were aiming at everyone in California: they sent people out to knock door to door.
Oh god, don't remind me. We had one or two really obnoxious ones try and badger my household to vote yes on that church-backed end-run around the court ruling.

Instead of trying to politely tell them to go away, we ultimately ended up scaring them off- it was more efficient, more entertaining, and less stressful. Talking about blood sacrifices to Satan that they're interrupting seems to generally shut door-to-door religious salespeople up and send them running preeeeeetty quick. =p

"I AM A MORMON."

Good to know you're finally coming to terms with...

Wait. MORMON. Right. Never mind.

Anyways, gays will get the right to marry soon. And then people who wanted it denied to them will sigh in their impotence. And then I'll laugh. And laugh. That's how it'll go.

I am a member of the LDS church, and even I wasn't fully supportive of the church's backing of a political issue like this. However, just looking at this thread makes me think. Yes, it seems like they may have broken the rules, and they should be punished if so. Yes, many view homosexual marriage as a fundamental "right", and they have good reason to think so. HOWEVER, the number of negative comments being directed at the church in this thread alone is simply absurd. Here are just a few examples:

i would like to see a boatload of churches get slapped for political involvement.

Promote your bigoted religions all you want, but try to keep the church laws limited to your church members.

Anyone else note the irony of a bunch of forcibly reformed polygamists bitching about traditional marriage?
More on this one in a minute.

When you believe in Christ, you magically gain the power to decide for those who do not or do wrongly (according to your immaculate and, of course, superior interpretation of the Bible).
This one is just plain funny. And no, not because I think he's right.

Those who are 'born again' usually tend to be rather fanatical
I'm pretty sure you know better than to think of us as "born again".

Since the Church started throwing mud at us, we are ALREADY in a mud fight with them. It would be counterproductive not to fight to win.

Back to the polygamy thing, that is something we took as a commandment from God, and thus something that was right. And before you say that was because the church leaders were perverts who wanted that, I can prove that false if necessary. And as you said, we only stopped because the Lord told us it was more important to obey the law than to have a somewhat superfluous ceremony such as plural marriage. In relation to the gay question, we can oppose homosexual marriage and promote plural marriage simply because we view them as two very separate things. I, personally, view homosexuals to be as deviant as pedophiles and zoophiles. Even then, I don't oppose homosexuals lifestyle choices, but rather their trying to force us to accept them. Not just tolerate, but accept. And that is precisely what they are doing in this case, by forcing us to accept their marriage as legal. Honestly, I think that marriage should be removed from the legal sphere altogether and made a purely religious institution, but that's a different discussion
In short, I don't think that my church made the best decisions, but I stand by it nonetheless. Even if I didn't, the words being directed towards the church are simply appalling.

I, personally, view homosexuals to be as deviant as pedophiles and zoophiles.

Yeah, and we're just so mean calling you and people like you bigots... :rolleyes:

Even then, I don't oppose homosexuals lifestyle choices,

Your generosity and tolerance is deeply moving.

but rather their trying to force us to accept them. Not just tolerate, but accept. And that is precisely what they are doing in this case, by forcing us to accept their marriage as legal.

You can accept someone's civil right to marry whoever he or she chooses to without agreeing with his or her particular choice. It's not the government's job to enforce someone's personal religious notion of virtue.

In short, I don't think that my church made the best decisions, but I stand by it nonetheless. Even if I didn't, the words being directed towards the church are simply appalling.

Because what the church did isn't? It tried and succeeded to take away rights of PEOPLE. I am not trying to prevent Brother Joe Whitetrash and his five wives from having fun, you don't get to prevent Adam and Steve from having it either. THAT. MOTHERFUCKING. SIMPLE.

I, personally, view homosexuals to be as deviant as pedophiles and zoophiles.

I, personally, view Mormons to be as deviant as Nazis and rapists.

What? Not so funny when YOU are the oppressed one?

You can accept someone's civil right to marry whoever he or she chooses to without agreeing with his or her particular choice. It's not the government's job to enforce someone's personal religious notion of virtue.

Ok, I see what you're saying. However, if I were to own a business, and a homosexually married man were to want benefits for his spouse if he were married, I would have to give them to him if I hired him, and if I didn't hire him based on that, I would almost certainly be sued. And you think that is right? Also, there is no such thing as a right to marry. The word "right" is thrown about far too loosely.

Because what the church did isn't? It tried and succeeded to take away rights of PEOPLE. I am not trying to prevent Brother Joe Whitetrash and his five wives from having fun, you don't get to prevent Adam and Steve from having it either. THAT. MOTHERFUCKING. SIMPLE.

Again, I fail to see that the "right" to marry is a fundamental civil right. Again, I think we should make marriage a purely religious aspect because of things like this. By the way, I think that using words like fuck really shows your intelligence and boosts your argument.

I, personally, view Mormons to be as deviant as Nazis and rapists.

What? Not so funny when YOU are the oppressed one?

I have personally met people who think that way, and you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. However, I can give reasons as to why I think the way I do, while you, sir, cannot. You are merely attempting to discredit me through unfounded analogies, and honestly, you are failing miserably.

Ok, I see what you're saying. However, if I were to own a business, and a homosexually married man were to want benefits for his spouse if he were married, I would have to give them to him if I hired him, and if I didn't hire him based on that, I would almost certainly be sued. And you think that is right?
Yes, I think it's right.

Just as if you discriminated against hiring married women, you'd get sued. Or black people. Or Irish Catholics. Etc. Of course, not everybody provides benefits for spouses. It's one of those optional things that makes your company more worth working for and a competitive edge in hiring people.

Of course, the odds are you could come up with a plausible excuse for not hiring him that relies on some flimsy thing or other that has nothing to do with being gay... provided your business was small, you'd probably manage to get away with it if you kept your mouth shut.

However, if I were to own a business, and a homosexually married man were to want benefits for his spouse if he were married, I would have to give them to him if I hired him, and if I didn't hire him based on that, I would almost certainly be sued.

That's right. You have no right to discriminate. That also has nothing to do with approval. Employers aren't allowed to fire people for being Mormons either.

And you think that is right?

Yes.

Also, there is no such thing as a right to marry.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And regardless of whether or not there is a right to marry, there is a right to equal protection. If you let opposite-sex couples marry, you must let same-sex couples marry as well, absent some good reason to make the distinction--which no one has yet come up with.

I am a member of the LDS church,
I'm sorry
Even then, I don't oppose homosexuals lifestyle choices, but rather their trying to force us to accept them. Not just tolerate, but accept. And that is precisely what they are doing in this case, by forcing us to accept their marriage as legal. Honestly, I think that marriage should be removed from the legal sphere altogether and made a purely religious institution, but that's a different discussion
Get over it, marriage is a civil affair as well as a religious one, you don't like it? Too bad.

Oh god, don't remind me. We had one or two really obnoxious ones try and badger my household to vote yes on that church-backed end-run around the court ruling.

Instead of trying to politely tell them to go away, we ultimately ended up scaring them off- it was more efficient, more entertaining, and less stressful. Talking about blood sacrifices to Satan that they're interrupting seems to generally shut door-to-door religious salespeople up and send them running preeeeeetty quick. =p

Did you have someone inside the house yell that they needed new sacrifices because the current one died too fast?

Ok, I see what you're saying. However, if I were to own a business, and a homosexually married man were to want benefits for his spouse if he were married, I would have to give them to him if I hired him, and if I didn't hire him based on that, I would almost certainly be sued. And you think that is right?

Very much so.

Also, there is no such thing as a right to marry. The word "right" is thrown about far too loosely.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), and I think I'm going to take their opinion over yours.

Again, I fail to see that the "right" to marry is a fundamental civil right. Again, I think we should make marriage a purely religious aspect because of things like this.

So, then, you think spouses shouldn't have the legal right to visit one another in the hospital? You think they shouldn't have the right to share custody of children? You think we should abolish spouses' next-of-kin status for medical decisions? They shouldn't inherit their spouse's property, they shouldn't be able to file jointly for bankruptcy, they shouldn't be able to transfer property from one to the other without paying taxes, or adopt jointly, or be protected by spousal privilege in court cases? I could go on...

I am a member of the LDS church, and even I wasn't fully supportive of the church's backing of a political issue like this. However, just looking at this thread makes me think. Yes, it seems like they may have broken the rules, and they should be punished if so. Yes, many view homosexual marriage as a fundamental "right", and they have good reason to think so. HOWEVER, the number of negative comments being directed at the church in this thread alone is simply absurd. Here are just a few examples:

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
i would like to see a boatload of churches get slapped for political involvement.
What's so bad about this one? First of all, she is not singling out the LDS. Second of all, there is a thing called separation of church and state in the US, and the LDS is by far not the only church to cross that line. I agree wiht Ashmoria that there a quite a few churches that I would like to see get slapped -- i.e. be penalized as appropriate -- for breaking the rules limiting political involvement by churches. They are out of line. They need to be put back into line. It's for their own good as well as everybody else's -- remember, half the point of separating church and state is to keep the state out of the churches' business, too.


Back to the polygamy thing, that is something we took as a commandment from God, and thus something that was right. And before you say that was because the church leaders were perverts who wanted that, I can prove that false if necessary. And as you said, we only stopped because the Lord told us it was more important to obey the law than to have a somewhat superfluous ceremony such as plural marriage. In relation to the gay question, we can oppose homosexual marriage and promote plural marriage simply because we view them as two very separate things. I, personally, view homosexuals to be as deviant as pedophiles and zoophiles. Even then, I don't oppose homosexuals lifestyle choices, but rather their trying to force us to accept them. Not just tolerate, but accept. And that is precisely what they are doing in this case, by forcing us to accept their marriage as legal. Honestly, I think that marriage should be removed from the legal sphere altogether and made a purely religious institution, but that's a different discussion
In short, I don't think that my church made the best decisions, but I stand by it nonetheless. Even if I didn't, the words being directed towards the church are simply appalling.
I have little to say about the rest of your explanation about how you loathe and despise gays and equate them to sex criminals, but you'd still let them get married if it was up to you -- and gosh, what a shame it isn't, huh? But I would like to comment on this:
Honestly, I think that marriage should be removed from the legal sphere altogether and made a purely religious institution, but that's a different discussion
Funny, but I take the exact opposite view. I would like to see marriage removed from the religious sphere altogether and made a purely legal institution. Let people get their legal marriages blessed by their god(s) as well, if they like, but let the state NOT be in the business of granting legal recognition of religious rituals as if they were activities of government.

Also funny, but in a different way, considering that your church is so adamantly against gay marriage, how can you reconcile your wish to have marriage be totally religious with your stated position in favor of equal rights for gays? Are you saying you would be happy to let the government grant rights to gays, just so long as your church reserved the power to deny those rights anyway?

Ok, I see what you're saying. However, if I were to own a business, and a homosexually married man were to want benefits for his spouse if he were married, I would have to give them to him if I hired him, and if I didn't hire him based on that, I would almost certainly be sued. And you think that is right?

If I own a business and you applied for a job, and I refused to hire you because you are Mormon, I would almost certainly be sued.

Do you think that's right?

For some reason, I get the feeling you're just fine with me not being allowed to discriminate against you because of your religion.

The LDS Church should not only be fined, it should definitely surrender its tax-exempt status. Allowing a religious organization to make fundamental changes to our constitution is offensive and dangerous. Civil rights should not be granted at the discretion of the group with the most money.

Few things are quite so fervent as a recent convert with something to prove.

That's not quite how my mom used to phrase that particular adage, but it's true.

Good to know you're finally coming to terms with...

Wait. MORMON. Right. Never mind.

Anyways, gays will get the right to marry soon. And then people who wanted it denied to them will sigh in their impotence. And then I'll laugh. And laugh. That's how it'll go.

And then they'll start marrying dogs and trees and computers and civilization will crumble, just like when they legalized interracial marriage.

I hope this isn't religious discrimination.

I hope this isn't religious discrimination.

Depends, to what are you referring?

Even if I didn't, the words being directed towards the church are simply appalling.

I'm sorry... the words being directed towards your church appall you?

How about the words coming from your church? Forget that--how about the words coming from you? Homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia? Finding love with a consenting adult of the same gender is comparable to raping a child?

Respect is earned. The Mormon church has lost all of mine.

I'm sorry... the words being directed towards your church appall you?

How about the words coming from your church? Forget that--how about the words coming from you? Homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia? Finding love with a consenting adult of the same gender is comparable to raping a child?

Respect is earned. The Mormon church has lost all of mine.

I can't believe I'm defending him...

I don't believe that he was directly comparing the two (3 if you count beastiality) more accurately he was saying that they all seem equally inappropriate to him. An attitude that I can live with, assuming the person can keep it on a personal level and not try to force his views upon society.

Also, there is no such thing as a right to marry. The word "right" is thrown about far too loosely.


Let's see. The U.S. Constitution guarantees both a fundamental right to marry and equal protection under the law. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) also guarantees both equal protection of the law (Art. 7) and the right to marry (Art. 16).

I guess you don't use the word right very accurately.

BTW, would you object to a law that said Mormons couldn't marry? On what grounds? How about a law that said only same-sex couples could marry?

Tax-exempt organization complaint (Referral) Form no:13909, hell ya! The IRS have a form for fracking everything.

Yes. We do. I work for the IRS, and I have a notepad for when I interview taxpayers. Each page of that that notepad is form number F13033.

We have more forms than Hallmark has cards.

If I own a business and you applied for a job, and I refused to hire you because you are Mormon, I would almost certainly be sued.

Do you think that's right?

For some reason, I get the feeling you're just fine with me not being allowed to discriminate against you because of your religion.

There are plenty of companies owned by Mormons where a condition of your employment is that you give half your pay to the LDS church. Which makes me wonder why they don't just offer half the pay and donate the rest themselves.

Yes. We do. I work for the IRS, and I have a notepad for when I interview taxpayers. Each page of that that notepad is form number F13033.

We have more forms than Hallmark has cards.

wait, wait, let me make sure I understand this. The pages of your blank notebook have form numbers?

There are plenty of companies owned by Mormons where a condition of your employment is that you give half your pay to the LDS church.

How have they avoided getting their asses sued off?

Yes, I think it's right.

Just as if you discriminated against hiring married women, you'd get sued. Or black people. Or Irish Catholics. Etc. Of course, not everybody provides benefits for spouses. It's one of those optional things that makes your company more worth working for and a competitive edge in hiring people.

Of course, the odds are you could come up with a plausible excuse for not hiring him that relies on some flimsy thing or other that has nothing to do with being gay... provided your business was small, you'd probably manage to get away with it if you kept your mouth shut.

You're right, of course. I was using far too specific of an example. My opinion is that companies should be allowed to hire or not hire whomever they want, and I was using that opinion to convey my point. So no, I wouldn't sue a company for discriminating against me for being a Mormon, for example. It's really funny, everyone's assuming that I'm some weak bastard who wants to oppress others, but bitches when I'm on the wrong side. I guess it's hard to imagine someone with real integrity, eh?

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And regardless of whether or not there is a right to marry, there is a right to equal protection. If you let opposite-sex couples marry, you must let same-sex couples marry as well, absent some good reason to make the distinction--which no one has yet come up with.

If that's the only problem you have with it, then just don't give married couples any extra legal benefits. Like I said, it should just be a religious institution, the government should get the hell out of it, and those who are married should not be treated any differently under the law than those who are not. And about that Supreme Court decision, just remember that they're not exactly a shining example of moral decisions. Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson anyone?

Get over it, marriage is a civil affair as well as a religious one, you don't like it? Too bad.

You're right, of course. That's never going to change, but I can always wish, eh?

So, then, you think spouses shouldn't have the legal right to visit one another in the hospital? You think they shouldn't have the right to share custody of children? You think we should abolish spouses' next-of-kin status for medical decisions? They shouldn't inherit their spouse's property, they shouldn't be able to file jointly for bankruptcy, they shouldn't be able to transfer property from one to the other without paying taxes, or adopt jointly, or be protected by spousal privilege in court cases? I could go on...

That can all be changed with the appropriate legislation. In fact, we should change that. Why should we discriminate against those who love each other and live with each other, but decided not to get married?

What's so bad about this one? First of all, she is not singling out the LDS. Second of all, there is a thing called separation of church and state in the US, and the LDS is by far not the only church to cross that line. I agree wiht Ashmoria that there a quite a few churches that I would like to see get slapped -- i.e. be penalized as appropriate -- for breaking the rules limiting political involvement by churches. They are out of line. They need to be put back into line. It's for their own good as well as everybody else's -- remember, half the point of separating church and state is to keep the state out of the churches' business, too.

You're spot on, and I agree with you completely. I was quoting her, not for the purpose of disagreeing with her, but for the purpose of showing the anti-religious undertone inherent in this thread.


I have little to say about the rest of your explanation about how you loathe and despise gays and equate them to sex criminals, but you'd still let them get married if it was up to you -- and gosh, what a shame it isn't, huh?

Hoo boy. You have me there, eh? Now I'm completely discredited, what with my gay-hating and foaming at the mouth irrationality. You see, isn't it possible that I can view homosexuality as being somewhat, shall we say, less than desirable? Isn't it possible that I look at homosexuality and see nothing other than a natural desire directed at the wrong source? After all, is there really so much wrong with zoophilia? After all, you could obtain the animals consent merely by seeing whether it enjoyed sexual contact with humans. Why can't we do that, don't want to discriminate against those who just want to love the way they want to love, after all.

Funny, but I take the exact opposite view. I would like to see marriage removed from the religious sphere altogether and made a purely legal institution. Let people get their legal marriages blessed by their god(s) as well, if they like, but let the state NOT be in the business of granting legal recognition of religious rituals as if they were activities of government.

Also funny, but in a different way, considering that your church is so adamantly against gay marriage, how can you reconcile your wish to have marriage be totally religious with your stated position in favor of equal rights for gays? Are you saying you would be happy to let the government grant rights to gays, just so long as your church reserved the power to deny those rights anyway?


You are correct yet again, sir. Or is it madam? Anywho, you did point out an unfortunate contradiction of mine, although I get the feeling you took my words slightly out of context. You see, I never said that I was for them getting married. I merely said I wanted them to have the same legal rights. You may say, Aha, I have you! However, taking into account my opinion concerning marriage being converted into a purely religious institution, this would not discriminate against homosexuals at all, in a legal manner. In other words, I do not support them getting married, but I do support equal right, and thus, marriage should not be a legal institution in my mind. And I don't mind my church doing so. As a matter of fact, I myself cannot get married currently, because I'm involved in, shall we say, immoral behavior at the moment. I still support my church, however, because they do not discriminate against sinners, they try to help them. But that doesn't mean we can just give them the same privileges as our righteous members.

For some reason, I get the feeling you're just fine with me not being allowed to discriminate against you because of your religion.

Why not? It's your business, after all.

I'm sorry... the words being directed towards your church appall you?

How about the words coming from your church? Forget that--how about the words coming from you? Homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia? Finding love with a consenting adult of the same gender is comparable to raping a child?

Respect is earned. The Mormon church has lost all of mine.

I'm sorry to hear that. I merely espouse my beliefs, not all of which are the church's. The church certainly doesn't compare the two, that's my personal conviction. And my definition of pedophilia is not raping a child, but merely having sexual relations with a minor. In short, I was comparing the consensual marriage between two homosexuals to a man gaining the consent of the parents and the consent of a fully informed and consenting child, who is capable of understanding, to have sexual relations with that child. And that's the way I see it.

There are plenty of companies owned by Mormons where a condition of your employment is that you give half your pay to the LDS church. Which makes me wonder why they don't just offer half the pay and donate the rest themselves.

Now that is something I want to see some evidence for.

*Remember, if you don't agree with them, they'll come get you!

I'm sorry to hear that. I merely espouse my beliefs, not all of which are the church's. The church certainly doesn't compare the two, that's my personal conviction. And my definition of pedophilia is not raping a child, but merely having sexual relations with a minor. In short, I was comparing the consensual marriage between two homosexuals to a man gaining the consent of the parents and the consent of a fully informed and consenting child, who is capable of understanding, to have sexual relations with that child. And that's the way I see it.


Intruiging. IIRC the Church of the Latter Day Saints often appears in the news with "marriages" between adults and several minors. Do I interpret you correctly when you say you *approve* of such marriages ?

Actually its the FLDC they broke away some odd years ago...:eek:

Hoo boy. You have me there, eh? Now I'm completely discredited, what with my gay-hating and foaming at the mouth irrationality. You see, isn't it possible that I can view homosexuality as being somewhat, shall we say, less than desirable? Isn't it possible that I look at homosexuality and see nothing other than a natural desire directed at the wrong source?

Of course you can. Just as you could hold the view that <insert race here> are little better than animals.

Both make you a bigot.

I hope this thread didn't end i want it to entertain me until its 1am my time so i won't have to log on "tomorow". :fluffle:

awww I think it did :(

fixed

Fuck you. Beat me to it.


Anyway, good. This needs to happen. As Busheviks have been saying for 7 years now, if they have nothing to be hide why care?

EDIT: I also do love the teeth gnashing of some of our more ludacris members. All the usual suspects are here...well, minus one.

And my definition of pedophilia is not raping a child, but merely having sexual relations with a minor. In short, I was comparing the consensual marriage between two homosexuals to a man gaining the consent of the parents and the consent of a fully informed and consenting child, who is capable of understanding, to have sexual relations with that child. And that's the way I see it.

Then we have either two different definitions of pedophilia, or two different definitions of "child". A child, by legal definition, can not be fully informed, capable of understanding and consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult. The United States sets the age of majority at 18; mental development is not complete before that time (nor is it complete at that time, but that's another argument). Using the qualifiers in your hypothetical, the person in question is then not a child, but a person who is mentally, physically and emotionally developed enough to understand and consent to sexual relations, in which case there is no problem.

Then we have either two different definitions of pedophilia, or two different definitions of "child". A child, by legal definition, can not be fully informed, capable of understanding and consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult. The United States sets the age of majority at 18; mental development is not complete before that time (nor is it complete at that time, but that's another argument). Using the qualifiers in your hypothetical, the person in question is then not a child, but a person who is mentally, physically and emotionally developed enough to understand and consent to sexual relations, in which case there is no problem.

Technically you both seem to have wrong definitions of pedophilia as it's not an act but a desire.

Edit: Note that this is not intended as a defense of pedophilia.

Did you have someone inside the house yell that they needed new sacrifices because the current one died too fast?
I think my favorite was when they came around when we were preparing dinner one night. Imagine the look on the poor guy's face when the person who answers the door looks wild-eyed, ratted up hair, a slightly demented grin... and holding a big ol' unidentifiable slab of some sort of uncooked impaled on a kitchen knife.

And then after a moment of awkward attempt at making the vote yes pitch, I peek around the edge of the hallway, and call in a sinister sort of voice that "mind if I lop off the next one's head, or do you want to?"

That one actually RAN from the door after that. :D

EDIT to add: And I was talking about a head of lettuce.

Technically you both seem to have wrong definitions of pedophilia as it's not an act but a desire.

This is true. To clarify my position, then, I was arguing solely about acting on the desire to have sexual relations with minors. Fantasizing about anyone--children, people of the same sex, long-horned sheep, your cousin--does not violate the rights of that person. Acting on that desire does not violate the rights of consenting adults; it does violate the rights of minors because they are unable to give informed consent. The big-horned sheep are up for debate.

After all, you could obtain the animals consent merely by seeing whether it enjoyed sexual contact with humans.

First, you're being silly and I think you know it. Animals can't give consent. Second, what you're describing here would be rape (assuming consent were somehow possible), as consent must be given prior to the sexual act.

I think my favorite was when they came around when we were preparing dinner one night. Imagine the look on the poor guy's face when the person who answers the door looks wild-eyed, ratted up hair, a slightly demented grin... and holding a big ol' unidentifiable slab of some sort of uncooked impaled on a kitchen knife.

And then after a moment of awkward attempt at making the vote yes pitch, I peek around the edge of the hallway, and call in a sinister sort of voice that "mind if I lop off the next one's head, or do you want to?"

That one actually RAN from the door after that. :D

EDIT to add: And I was talking about a head of lettuce.

That's quite a bit of brilliance there. My own encounters were rather plain. The last batch tried to hand me some pamphlets to convince me. I took it, thanked them for the free toilet paper and closed the door. They've not come back since then and that was years ago.

That's quite a bit of brilliance there. My own encounters were rather plain. The last batch tried to hand me some pamphlets to convince me. I took it, thanked them for the free toilet paper and closed the door. They've not come back since then and that was years ago.
Admittedly, my mom and I both have a rather cruel sense of humor when it comes to dealing with irritating people. The ones that come to the door and just take no for an answer and leave we don't mess with. The ones that just don't learn when to quit... they make themselves targets :D

Admittedly, my mom and I both have a rather cruel sense of humor when it comes to dealing with irritating people. The ones that come to the door and just take no for an answer and leave we don't mess with. The ones that just don't learn when to quit... they make themselves targets :D

I have a black ski mask and a mil-sim marker. How much legal trouble am I in if I put up that getup and yell "Allah Akhbar!" when answering the door to these types? :p

Good, hope they get pwned.

That's a very good question, I'm not sure. You might get nailed for making threats of violence. Our instance with the food could be argued because the commentary (and the knife) were not directed at the guy =p

Promote your bigoted religions all you want, but try to keep the church laws limited to your church members.

Also, on a theological layer, what would be more liked in the eyes of the deity? Merely following the law of the State just as any atheist, or following the law of the State PLUS some higher moral tenets?

Oh, and a good article I found:

New Yorker.. (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/12/01/081201taco_talk_hertzberg)

If that's the only problem you have with it, then just don't give married couples any extra legal benefits.

This is, first, a bad idea (the law should not pretend that people in intimate, committed relationships are no different from people who are strangers) and, second, rather irrelevant.

Nobody is going to eliminate legal marriage. It's politically impossible and most people simply aren't interested. So we have to figure out how, if we're going to have legal marriage, how to have it fairly. And that requires granting marriage equality to same-sex couples.

And about that Supreme Court decision, just remember that they're not exactly a shining example of moral decisions.

Which does not affect the independent merits of their decisions. And, again, whatever you think of Loving v. Virginia, the equal protection argument is still fairly unassailable.

In fact, we should change that. Why should we discriminate against those who love each other and live with each other, but decided not to get married?

Precisely because they choose not to get married.

You see, isn't it possible that I can view homosexuality as being somewhat, shall we say, less than desirable?

Of course it's possible. It also makes you a bigot.

Isn't it possible that I look at homosexuality and see nothing other than a natural desire directed at the wrong source?

See above.

After all, is there really so much wrong with zoophilia? After all, you could obtain the animals consent merely by seeing whether it enjoyed sexual contact with humans.

Most humans generally enjoy sexual contact with other humans. That does not mean that rape is consensual. Animals lack both the mental capacity and the communicative skills to have any clear assurance that they substantively consent to sexual relations with humans, so zoophilia is a morally ambiguous area at best.

This potential lack of consent is the only thing wrong with zoophilia. If you could somehow guarantee informed consent from animals, there would be no moral problem with sexual relations with them.

In short, I was comparing the consensual marriage between two homosexuals to a man gaining the consent of the parents and the consent of a fully informed and consenting child, who is capable of understanding, to have sexual relations with that child.

I have no problem with this hypothetical relationship with a mythical child. I think it is about as immoral as heterosexuality.

(Of course, you were still deliberately clouding the picture by simply stating "pedophilia" without clarifying that you meant some hypothetical perfect case of it rather than the actual reality.)

Also, on a theological layer, what would be more liked in the eyes of the deity? Merely following the law of the State just as any atheist, or following the law of the State PLUS some higher moral tenets?

Mormons believe it is their duty to make the law of the state reflect the higher moral tenets. If you doubt this go to Utah sometime (shudders)

I have personally met people who think that way, and you're certainly entitled to your own opinion. However, I can give reasons as to why I think the way I do, while you, sir, cannot. You are merely attempting to discredit me through unfounded analogies, and honestly, you are failing miserably.

1- Nazis also wanted to discriminate in rights against a certain subsect of people.

2- Your church includes forced marriage, tantamount to rape, amongst its beliefs.

Feel free to explain to me why homosexuality between two CONSENTING ADULTS is tantamount to pedophilia (not an adult) or zoophilia (not consenting).

And keep the tentacles of your goddamned church out of the state.

Mormons believe it is their duty to make the law of the state reflect the higher moral tenets. If you doubt this go to Utah sometime (shudders)

Can't we just kick Utah out?

Can't we just kick Utah out?

^Seconded.

Can't we just kick Utah out?

Why not just disallow them to vote on the Federal level? Get all the other states to vote for a federal amendment to the constitution defining Utah as a morally unacceptable state, and disallow it from having any federal rights. Claim that your religious beliefs mandate that you to disallow Utahians from having rights.

It is exactly the same logic that the Mormon church used to pass proposition 8, so they should be fine with it, right?

Why not just disallow them to vote on the Federal level? Get all the other states to vote for a federal amendment to the constitution defining Utah as a morally unacceptable state, and disallow it from having any federal rights. Claim that your religious beliefs mandate that you to disallow Utahians from having rights.

It is exactly the same logic that the Mormon church used to pass proposition 8, so they should be fine with it, right?

Can we do it to Georgia if they reelect Saxby Chambliss?

It's really funny, everyone's assuming that I'm some weak bastard who wants to oppress others, but bitches when I'm on the wrong side. I guess it's hard to imagine someone with real integrity, eh?

Someone with real integrity doesnt oppress others in the first place.

I guess it's hard to imagine someone with real integrity, eh?

Let's gamble, then, shall we?

Regret the hand you'll be dealt!

***7th Flush***

Seven sentences with the same beginning, all with the same point.

It's not integrity when you simply want to see people you "disapprove of" but that aren't harming you suffer.

It's not integrity when you claim some sort of higher authority in an attempt to make others conform to your views.

It's not integrity when you try to force others to submit to your own prejudices.

It's not integrity when you compare those different from you to sexual deviants without anything to back it up in order to foster intollerance against them.

It's not integrity when you back up an organization whose sole "achievement" was to try and make other people feel miserable out of a sadistic need for control.

It's not integrity when you claim you'll be "generous" enough to allow the continued (marginalized) existence of the group you disapprove of because of... because.

It's not integrity when you cowardly attack a minority that is only trying to get the same rights as everybody else and try to prevent that minority from achieving said rights for no reason.

So go right ahead and tell me with a straight face about the real integrity you have. I'll be laughing my ass off at the poor spectacle you make of it.

Of course you can. Just as you could hold the view that <insert race here> are little better than animals.

Both make you a bigot.

But that's a purely physical, unchangeable attribute. Sexual preference is a mental attribute, and is thus changeable. You may say, why would they want to change their sexual preference? Because homosexuality is, in my mind, less than desirable. I, myself, have felt less than desirable urges, and recognizing them for what they were, I eliminated them. Very hard, but certainly doable. Perhaps this does not excuse my "bigotry", but that's the way I see it.

Then we have either two different definitions of pedophilia, or two different definitions of "child". A child, by legal definition, can not be fully informed, capable of understanding and consenting to sexual intercourse with an adult. The United States sets the age of majority at 18; mental development is not complete before that time (nor is it complete at that time, but that's another argument). Using the qualifiers in your hypothetical, the person in question is then not a child, but a person who is mentally, physically and emotionally developed enough to understand and consent to sexual relations, in which case there is no problem.

Hmmm... Very interesting. So if we were to refer to your above statement in bold type, what would the implications be for that? If we, as a society, decided that mental development were not complete at 18, how would we resolve to solve that problem? Perhaps we should require mandatory testing of all who wish to have sexual relations, in order to determine whether they are mentally capable of doing so. And if we did so, what if we were to find that a large portion of those over 18 were mentally incapable of fully understanding the concept and consequences of sexual relations? Should we deny them the right to sex?

Technically you both seem to have wrong definitions of pedophilia as it's not an act but a desire.

True, but more a matter of semantics than anything else. I am merely ignorant of the word describing the acting out of such desires.

First, you're being silly and I think you know it. Animals can't give consent. Second, what you're describing here would be rape (assuming consent were somehow possible), as consent must be given prior to the sexual act.

Indeed, I didn't phrase my argument very well. Yes, I was being silly, but I was trying to make a point. To rephrase it, what if were to test the animals in such a way prior to sexual relations with humans and check as to whether they found the idea appealing?

This is, first, a bad idea (the law should not pretend that people in intimate, committed relationships are no different from people who are strangers) and, second, rather irrelevant.

Nobody is going to eliminate legal marriage. It's politically impossible and most people simply aren't interested. So we have to figure out how, if we're going to have legal marriage, how to have it fairly. And that requires granting marriage equality to same-sex couples.

Finally, someone hits the flaw in my argument! Excellent work. Now to answer it. If we were to examine homosexual mindsets and discover that they were homosexual because of severe mental issues, that would be grounds to declare homosexuals non compis mentis and thus unfit for marriage. And that is precisely how I view homosexual marriage, a union of two mentally unfit individuals acting on a psychologically unnatural urge. Perhaps there is proof against that statement, but I would need to see some.



Which does not affect the independent merits of their decisions. And, again, whatever you think of Loving v. Virginia, the equal protection argument is still fairly unassailable.

If you were to actually read the case, you would see that it applied only to race-based marriages. Perhaps you could use the equal protection clause in order to allow for homosexual marriage, but that would require you to prove that homosexuals were denied "equal protection under the laws" by not being allowed to marry.


Precisely because they choose not to get married.

You have me there.


Of course it's possible. It also makes you a bigot.

Now, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, I'm going to ask that you define precisely how you are using the word bigot, a.k.a. define it for me.

Most humans generally enjoy sexual contact with other humans. That does not mean that rape is consensual. Animals lack both the mental capacity and the communicative skills to have any clear assurance that they substantively consent to sexual relations with humans, so zoophilia is a morally ambiguous area at best.

This potential lack of consent is the only thing wrong with zoophilia. If you could somehow guarantee informed consent from animals, there would be no moral problem with sexual relations with them.

If it truly is consent that is the only problem you have with that situation, you have some severe ethics issues. There's more to such things than mere consent, and you have to know that.

I have no problem with this hypothetical relationship with a mythical child. I think it is about as immoral as heterosexuality.

(Of course, you were still deliberately clouding the picture by simply stating "pedophilia" without clarifying that you meant some hypothetical perfect case of it rather than the actual reality.)

Refer to my above point, and multiply it by 100.

1- Nazis also wanted to discriminate in rights against a certain subsect of people.

2- Your church includes forced marriage, tantamount to rape, amongst its beliefs.

Feel free to explain to me why homosexuality between two CONSENTING ADULTS is tantamount to pedophilia (not an adult) or zoophilia (not consenting).

And keep the tentacles of your goddamned church out of the state.

First off, the Nazis clearly violated the rights of millions of people, while our church has done nothing of the sort, despite what your twisted paradigm may dictate. Second, if you truly think that we FORCE marriage on anyone, you are either ignorant or deliberately malicious, neither of which helps your case. Also, refer to my other point concerning pedophilia above. What gives us the right to determine who is mentally capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual relations? And as to bestiality, we could obtain consent through scientific tests. But as I also said, those who find such an obviously depraved craving to be perfectly alright as long as their is "consent" on both sides, sincerely terrify me.

Why not just disallow them to vote on the Federal level? Get all the other states to vote for a federal amendment to the constitution defining Utah as a morally unacceptable state, and disallow it from having any federal rights. Claim that your religious beliefs mandate that you to disallow Utahians from having rights.

It is exactly the same logic that the Mormon church used to pass proposition 8, so they should be fine with it, right?

This was not directed at me, but I feel the need to answer it nonetheless. First off, good luck actually having any luck in passing such an amendment. Secondly, Utah is not anywhere near the only state you'd have to do that for. You'd also have to do it for California, Arizona, and Florida. They're the ones who actually passed the laws, believe it or not. And lastly, you really think that you have the right to declare entire states unfit for equal representation on the basis that a church that's headquartered there used democracy to their advantage? If they did cheat the system, then yes, that is bad. But until it's proven, I'm afraid you are the discriminator here. And by the way, the church may have opposed it on moral grounds, but that's what the 1st amendment is for, a.k.a. to stop people from oppressing religion because they disagree with it.

Let's gamble, then, shall we?

Regret the hand you'll be dealt!

***7th Flush***

Seven sentences with the same beginning, all with the same point.

It's not integrity when you simply want to see people you "disapprove of" but that aren't harming you suffer.

It's not integrity when you claim some sort of higher authority in an attempt to make others conform to your views.

It's not integrity when you try to force others to submit to your own prejudices.

It's not integrity when you compare those different from you to sexual deviants without anything to back it up in order to foster intollerance against them.

It's not integrity when you back up an organization whose sole "achievement" was to try and make other people feel miserable out of a sadistic need for control.

It's not integrity when you claim you'll be "generous" enough to allow the continued (marginalized) existence of the group you disapprove of because of... because.

It's not integrity when you cowardly attack a minority that is only trying to get the same rights as everybody else and try to prevent that minority from achieving said rights for no reason.

So go right ahead and tell me with a straight face about the real integrity you have. I'll be laughing my ass off at the poor spectacle you make of it.

I'm the coward? I'm the only one fighting y'all, and frankly, it's quite amusing to hear the majority scream coward at their only opponent. Now, to answer your point. First off, you'd have to prove that denying homosexuals the right to marry is making them "suffer". Next, you'd have to demonstrate that I was forcing ANYONE to conform to my views. Third, how the hell was I fostering intolerance by explaining that I find homosexuals to be sexual deviants? It's not like anyone here agrees with me. Fourth, I feel the need to defend my church because: One, I find my church to be the best example of morality and purified individualism; and second, I despise the likes of you, in other words, fervent, zealous adherents to the sect of lets-hate-organized-religions-for-no-apparent-reason-other-than-having-principles-that-they-try-to-support, no less fanatic than any christian I've ever met. And no, my church's sole purpose is not to "make other people feel miserable out of a sadistic need for control", and there is no evidence to boot. And to answer your overall purpose of attempting to show that I have no integrity, I'm going to show precisely what I meant by that. According to a definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, integrity means "the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness". And I feel I hold to that definition very well. I'm never going to sway from my position, I'm going to always defend it, and that, my fine friend, is integrity.

Someone with real integrity doesnt oppress others in the first place.

I have oppressed no one, and I fail to see where you get such an idea.

I'm never going to sway from my position, I'm going to always defend it, and that, my fine friend, is integrity.

Actually, inability to change a position has another name, but I don't feel like flaming you.

Sexual preference is a mental attribute, and is thus changeable.

Mental attributes are not inherently changeable. The scientific consensus on this issue is that sexual orientation is innate and that therapy and the like cannot alter it.

If we were to examine homosexual mindsets and discover that they were homosexual because of severe mental issues,

Trouble is, this examination has already happened, and the conclusion is that, no, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals do not have "severe mental issues"--or, if some of us do, it has nothing to do with our sexual orientation.

Perhaps there is proof against that statement, but I would need to see some.

*sigh*

From the American Psychological Association:

"No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder."

Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality (http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#ishomo)

If you were to actually read the case, you would see that it applied only to race-based marriages.

This is not how precedent is interpreted. What is important is not just the precise law that is overturned or upheld, but also the principles and standards according to which the decision was made. Loving ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and that equal protection forbade the use of race classification even when everyone has an equal right to marry someone of his or her own race. Both of these elements are applicable to same-sex marriage, with the second being applied to sex classifications.

Perhaps you could use the equal protection clause in order to allow for homosexual marriage, but that would require you to prove that homosexuals were denied "equal protection under the laws" by not being allowed to marry.

Denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is blatantly and outrightly discriminatory. That argument almost writes itself. The burden is on supporters of marriage discrimination to explain what good reason they have for such discrimination.

Now, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, I'm going to ask that you define precisely how you are using the word bigot, a.k.a. define it for me.

One who is prejudiced against a particular group of people on arbitrary bases.

If it truly is consent that is the only problem you have with that situation, you have some severe ethics issues.

Ad hominem fallacy.

There's more to such things than mere consent, and you have to know that.

If this is so obvious, you could surely elaborate. Well? What "more" is there to it?

Refer to my above point, and multiply it by 100.

I'm expecting 100 times more of a justification, then.

Come on, present an actual argument. Or does your disgust and repulsion prevent you from thinking rationally about sexual matters at all? Strangely enough, that seems to be the general case for opponents of LGBT rights....

I'm never going to sway from my position, I'm going to always defend it, and that, my fine friend, is integrity.

No, that is the height of irrationality and close-mindedness. Integrity does not only mean that you stand up for what you believe in; it also means that you are willing to change your mind when compelling reasons are presented for you to do so.

did anyone else read that as lsd church at first?

hehehehe church of acid

with any luck this church will be fined tonnes of money for corruption

I honestly hope this goes to helping rebuild the wall between politics and religion.

I respect the right of religious groups to hold strange viewpoints based on reaction, ignorance and intolerance and live by these church laws but at what point did they gain the right to impinge these rules on the rest of us? especially as all major psychological organisations have concluded based on extensive research that there is no link between homosexuality/bisexuality and insanity

marriage is just a word meaning the bonding of two people who are in love, there is nothing in the bible about gay marriage anyway, why on earth should we stop people who love each other from taking their commitment further. I would call that one of the worst kinds of discrimination.

But that's a purely physical, unchangeable attribute. Sexual preference is a mental attribute, and is thus changeable.

You know, whenever I hear someone make this kind of claim, it always makes me realize that you're afraid that someone will make you "go gay" or brainwash you into "turning gay," and it makes me wonder if maybe that's the root of the waves of bigotry you've demonstrated.

Frankly, I don't even know how you can delude yourself into believing your own argument, let alone expect anyone else to swallow it. You've got two assumptions here - one that physical attributes are unchangeable, another that all mental attributes are changeable.

This leads to your erroneous conclusion that people can just change their sexuality simply because sexuality is a "mental attribute."

Furthermore your claim is not supported by any evidence at all. Studies, etc., that might show that yes, sexuality can be changed? Nope, just your own false conclusions based on your own rather amusing premises.

You may say, why would they want to change their sexual preference? Because homosexuality is, in my mind, less than desirable. I, myself, have felt less than desirable urges, and recognizing them for what they were, I eliminated them.

I don't know why but you've reminded me of General Jack T. Ripper here.

It also reminds me distinctly of what is called a reaction formation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation)

Finally, someone hits the flaw in my argument! Excellent work. Now to answer it. If we were to examine homosexual mindsets and discover that they were homosexual because of severe mental issues, that would be grounds to declare homosexuals non compis mentis

1. It's really not that hard to find the flaw(s) in your argument.
2. No, it wouldn't. There is no legal precedent whatsoever for "declaring homosexuals," or declaring any broad and general class of people, mentally unfit. Furthermore you don't just declare someone mentally unfit if they have 'severe mental issues,' particularly given how weaselly it's obvious your usage of that phrase is.

And that is precisely how I view homosexual marriage, a union of two mentally unfit individuals acting on a psychologically unnatural urge. Perhaps there is proof against that statement, but I would need to see some.

Why bother disproving what you haven't proven? Your own silly arguments, bias and faulty reasoning do not require disproving.




[quote]
First off, the Nazis clearly violated the rights of millions of people, while our church has done nothing of the sort, despite what your twisted paradigm may dictate. Second, if you truly think that we FORCE marriage on anyone, you are either ignorant or deliberately malicious, neither of which helps your case. Also, refer to my other point concerning pedophilia above. What gives us the right to determine who is mentally capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual relations? And as to bestiality, we could obtain consent through scientific tests. But as I also said, those who find such an obviously depraved craving to be perfectly alright as long as their is "consent" on both sides, sincerely terrify me.

Yes, you didn't have to open up and share and tell us how you're incredibly afraid. That much was obvious.

But you seem to be harping on comparing homosexuality (only 'obviously depraved' in your own viewpoint, not illegal, not unethical, and involving two consenting adults) with pedophilia (illegal, unethical, involving the abuse and harming of a child by an adult) or bestiality (illegal, unethical, involving the abuse and harming of an animal).

Sorry - no matter how much you love the comparison, it's flawed. It doesn't work. It's just offensive. If your only point is to scream in ignorance that, according to your own insecurity and bigotry, homosexuality is an evil ideology comparable with fucking children or raping dogs - by all means keep it up. That's all that analogy is good for.

This is a start anyway. Also, please consider filing a complaint with the IRS--details at bottom of page.

In order to have your complaint acted on, wouldn't you have to at least interacted with the LDS over Prop 8? The form does require a little personal information that someone living in, say, Ohio, wouldn't necessarily know.

Second, why is the LDS activity different from any other church that recommends a particular political action?

May they lose their tax exempt status and be crushed under the weight of taxes.

They overstepped there bounds and should pay the price.

In order to have your complaint acted on, wouldn't you have to at least interacted with the LDS over Prop 8? The form does require a little personal information that someone living in, say, Ohio, wouldn't necessarily know.

Second, why is the LDS activity different from any other church that recommends a particular political action?

It isn't, at least not necessarily. Any church which acts as the mormons did with Prop 8 should be investigated.

But that's a purely physical, unchangeable attribute. Sexual preference is a mental attribute, and is thus changeable.

Complete opinion and not demonstrably supported by scientific fact one way or the other. If it was scientifically determined to be genetic would this alter your view?



Hmmm... Very interesting. So if we were to refer to your above statement in bold type, what would the implications be for that? If we, as a society, decided that mental development were not complete at 18, how would we resolve to solve that problem?

Your making a non issue an issue. We decide mental competency for consent as a society the exact same way we determine the competency for drinking alcohol, or joining the Military or going to kindergarden, or buying a gun or voting or entering contracts or the age to drive or qualifying for Social Security and on and on and on. This seems to be a method roundly accepted by our society. Why are you trying to make this any different?



To rephrase it, what if were to test the animals in such a way prior to sexual relations with humans and check as to whether they found the idea appealing?

And what if we get Santas Elves to administer the test because neither exists in the real world.



If we were to examine homosexual mindsets and discover that they were homosexual because of severe mental issues, that would be grounds to declare homosexuals non compis mentis and thus unfit for marriage. And that is precisely how I view homosexual marriage, a union of two mentally unfit individuals acting on a psychologically unnatural urge. Perhaps there is proof against that statement, but I would need to see some.

You have the cart before the horse. Its not the onus of someone to prove hes mentally fit, its your onus to prove hes mentally unfit. Since proof of homosexality being a mental disease does not actually exist anywhere in the scientific community, you seem to have a problem with your position.

Now, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, I'm going to ask that you define precisely how you are using the word bigot, a.k.a. define it for me.

You have access to the entire worlds data base at your fingertips. Stop being lazy. The meaning of the word bigot is fairly straightforward. Or do you want to debate the meaning of "is" too?



If it truly is consent that is the only problem you have with that situation, you have some severe ethics issues. There's more to such things than mere consent, and you have to know that.

No i dont know that, please explain what "more to such things" are for example?

First off, the Nazis clearly violated the rights of millions of people, while our church has done nothing of the sort, despite what your twisted paradigm may dictate.

So your church would be in the clear if it didnt actually join the Nazi party but just knocked door to door telling everyone that they should adopt their policies and running ads in papers supporting them?(not saying Mormons support Nazis but paralleling their behavior against homosexuals)

Also, refer to my other point concerning pedophilia above. What gives us the right to determine who is mentally capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual relations?

See my point above regarding the age of consent for absolutely everything else we do in society.

And as to bestiality, we could obtain consent through scientific tests.

The Elves are busy right now but they will have plenty of time to administer the consent of animals tests after Xmas.

But as I also said, those who find such an obviously depraved craving to be perfectly alright as long as their is "consent" on both sides, sincerely terrify me.

Obvious to who? You and you only? Be careful about a myopic vision of whats "obvious" to you. If it is obvious then enlighten us as to why.

I'm the coward? I'm the only one fighting y'all, and frankly, it's quite amusing to hear the majority scream coward at their only opponent.

Maybe you should consider why everyone is against you, might tip you off to something important.

One, I find my church to be the best example of morality and purified individualism;

What does purified individualism mean? Mormons are one of the most homogenous, similarly looking, acting, hive minded religions ive run across somewhat on parallel with Scientologists.

And no, my church's sole purpose is not to "make other people feel miserable out of a sadistic need for control"

So its just a side hobby?

and there is no evidence to boot.

My girlfriend lived in Utah for several years. If your not Mormon forget about getting any job of any significance. Period. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. They are worse then Mobsters because they try to cover their stink in a perfume of piety. Least the Mob is upfront about it. The State of Utah is a legally sanctioned Mormon Mafia.

Props to the LDS Church for standing up for their beliefs and refusing to be silent.

I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hate-8 bigots -- yes, BIGOTS -- who are desperate to silence anyone who disagrees with their HATE.

President Kennedy once said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Well, this Catholic joins those who say, "I AM A MORMON."
This one doesn't. And it's bigotry to say, "People should be allowed to do as they please in their own homes," or "OH GOD, NO!!! THE ICKY GAYS CAN'T DO THAT!"

It's not an issue of rights, it's an issue of whether the government should endorse homosexual marriage. Gay people can still do whatever they want with each other, regardless, but the gov. should only support it (by giving tax cuts, etc., recognizing it as "marriage") if it's proven to be beneficial to society.

What if the advertising was meant as information for their membership?


See above.
It's impinging on the rights of non-Mormons, now isn't it?

Honestly, there are so many more important things to be worrying about that petty social issues.
Unless of course it's YOUR social issue that's to worry about.

This one doesn't. And it's bigotry to say, "People should be allowed to do as they please in their own homes," or "OH GOD, NO!!! THE ICKY GAYS CAN'T DO THAT!"

You know, I just realized the irony of him quoting Kennedy while making a argument to legalize bigotry.

And, the point about getting a good job in Utah w/out being a mormon isn't right. I know plenty of non mormon people who live in Utah and have jobs paying six digits.

Regardless, this debate should be about whether what the LDS Church did stepped beyond its boundaries included by being a tax exempt organization. If you want to start a "I hate the mormons" thread, feel free to create one.

But that's a purely physical, unchangeable attribute. Sexual preference is a mental attribute, and is thus changeable.

Every single word in this statement is false.


Indeed, I didn't phrase my argument very well. Yes, I was being silly, but I was trying to make a point. To rephrase it, what if were to test the animals in such a way prior to sexual relations with humans and check as to whether they found the idea appealing?

Crack is bad, mk?



Finally, someone hits the flaw in my argument! Excellent work. Now to answer it. If we were to examine homosexual mindsets and discover that they were homosexual because of severe mental issues, that would be grounds to declare homosexuals non compis mentis and thus unfit for marriage. And that is precisely how I view homosexual marriage, a union of two mentally unfit individuals acting on a psychologically unnatural urge. Perhaps there is proof against that statement, but I would need to see some.


Oh sweet Jesus. The fact that the whole scientific and psychological communiy does not view it as a mental illness isnt enough for you?

How about this? I think that believing in God is the mark of a severe mental illness. You are essentially talking to an all powerful imaginary friend. Thus, the religious are now unfit to be married because theyre mentally ill.

Let me lay something out for you. What you find icky is irrelevent. We have this thing called the 14th ammendment.


If you were to actually read the case, you would see that it applied only to race-based marriages. Perhaps you could use the equal protection clause in order to allow for homosexual marriage, but that would require you to prove that homosexuals were denied "equal protection under the laws" by not being allowed to marry.


Better legal minds than I have layed this case out, so Ill just trust you to actually do some research.


Now, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, I'm going to ask that you define precisely how you are using the word bigot, a.k.a. define it for me.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I think you qualify.

If it truly is consent that is the only problem you have with that situation, you have some severe ethics issues. There's more to such things than mere consent, and you have to know that.


Like what? Appeals to your morality and the metaphysical are of no interest to me.


First off, the Nazis clearly violated the rights of millions of people, while our church has done nothing of the sort, despite what your twisted paradigm may dictate.

You actively worked to take away peoples rights.

Second, if you truly think that we FORCE marriage on anyone, you are either ignorant or deliberately malicious, neither of which helps your case. Also, refer to my other point concerning pedophilia above. What gives us the right to determine who is mentally capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual relations? And as to bestiality, we could obtain consent through scientific tests. But as I also said, those who find such an obviously depraved craving to be perfectly alright as long as their is "consent" on both sides, sincerely terrify me.


Again, what scares you and what you think is depraved is totally irrelevent to the law. Again, I think you mormons are depraved and you terrify me. Missouri and Illinois at one point said you have no right to exist.

This was not directed at me, but I feel the need to answer it nonetheless. First off, good luck actually having any luck in passing such an amendment. Secondly, Utah is not anywhere near the only state you'd have to do that for. You'd also have to do it for California, Arizona, and Florida. They're the ones who actually passed the laws, believe it or not. And lastly, you really think that you have the right to declare entire states unfit for equal representation on the basis that a church that's headquartered there used democracy to their advantage? If they did cheat the system, then yes, that is bad. But until it's proven, I'm afraid you are the discriminator here. And by the way, the church may have opposed it on moral grounds, but that's what the 1st amendment is for, a.k.a. to stop people from oppressing religion because they disagree with it.

Yeah, but see, we have this thing called a law. And that law says that when your church gets too political, they loose their tax exempt status. Clearly the IRS found that its possible you may have gotten too political.


I'm the coward? I'm the only one fighting y'all, and frankly, it's quite amusing to hear the majority scream coward at their only opponent. Now, to answer your point. First off, you'd have to prove that denying homosexuals the right to marry is making them "suffer".

Not being allowed to be with the one you love and gain all the legal benefits, like visitation, insurane, etc is pretty big.

Next, you'd have to demonstrate that I was forcing ANYONE to conform to my views.

Thats essentially what enshrining your narrow minded views into law does...


Third, how the hell was I fostering intolerance by explaining that I find homosexuals to be sexual deviants? It's not like anyone here agrees with me.


Are you on drugs?


Fourth, I feel the need to defend my church because: One, I find my church
to be the best example of morality and purified individualism;

BUWHAHAHAHA


and second, I despise the likes of you, in other words, fervent, zealous adherents to the sect of lets-hate-organized-religions-for-no-apparent-reason-other-than-having-principles-that-they-try-to-support, no less fanatic than any christian I've ever met.

So you hate thos of us who push for equal rights and dont tolerate religious groups forcing their religious beliefs into law? This is not suprising.

I personally despise the likes of you. So I think we're even. I think the world would be a better place without your kind.

I'm never going to sway from my position, I'm going to always defend it, and that, my fine friend, is integrity.

We call that being stubborn, as well as a whole host of other, less kind things.


I have oppressed no one, and I fail to see where you get such an idea.

You personally? Probably not. Your church? Oh, yes it has.

I don't understand how this would be legalizing bigotry... the government can endorse and not endorse whatever it wants. If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it. Of course, that would be a mistake on the government's part. But it's not an issue of rights because gay people can still do whatever they want in their personal lives.

But that's a purely physical, unchangeable attribute. Sexual preference is a mental attribute, and is thus changeable. You may say, why would they want to change their sexual preference?

No, what I'm going to say is you are either misinformed or flat out lying. The statement that sexual orientation is changeable is factually incorrect.

I don't understand how this would be legalizing bigotry... the government can endorse and not endorse whatever it wants. If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it.



This is wrong.


I hate when idiots who have clearly never read the Constitution invoke said Constitution.

14th amendment kiddo. Section one.

True, but more a matter of semantics than anything else. I am merely ignorant of the word describing the acting out of such desires.

Child Molestation and/or rape. Why are you unaware of these words, is English your second language?

And, the point about getting a good job in Utah w/out being a mormon isn't right. I know plenty of non mormon people who live in Utah and have jobs paying six digits.

Regardless, this debate should be about whether what the LDS Church did stepped beyond its boundaries included by being a tax exempt organization. If you want to start a "I hate the mormons" thread, feel free to create one.
If I'm not mistaken, people were speaking about working for Mormon businesses. Surely not every business in the state is a Mormon business?

If I'm not mistaken, people were speaking about working for Mormon businesses. Surely not every business in the state is a Mormon business?

Frankly, after this comment:
If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it.

I dont think anything this poster ever says can ever be taken seriously again. And this was only his third post too.

It's not an issue of rights, it's an issue of whether the government should endorse homosexual marriage. Gay people can still do whatever they want with each other, regardless, but the gov. should only support it (by giving tax cuts, etc., recognizing it as "marriage") if it's proven to be beneficial to society.

And yet you don't seem to demand that the same criteria be applied to straight marriage.

Why?

I don't understand how this would be legalizing bigotry... the government can endorse and not endorse whatever it wants. If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it. Of course, that would be a mistake on the government's part. But it's not an issue of rights because gay people can still do whatever they want in their personal lives.

As I already pointed out once in this thread, the Supreme Court disagrees with you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia), and I think I'm going to take their opinion over yours, given that, you know, they actually have some idea what the hell they're talking about.

I don't understand how this would be legalizing bigotry... <SNIP nonsense>

Translation: It's not bigotry if I agree with it

If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it.

Of course there would be. It would be (and was ruled to be, in Loving v. Virginia) a violation of equal protection.

But it's not an issue of rights because gay people can still do whatever they want in their personal lives.

Rights extend beyond doing "whatever they want in their personal lives." We all have the right to equality under law: to be granted the same rights under the law as everyone else.

See, ban religion, and get rid of "charitable" organizations. This is what I have been saying all along.

But if you don't like that. Then you have to live with things like this.

^Seconded.

You're not an American, you don't get a vote in whether Utah stays. :tongue:

I don't understand how this would be legalizing bigotry... the government can endorse and not endorse whatever it wants. If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it. Of course, that would be a mistake on the government's part. But it's not an issue of rights because gay people can still do whatever they want in their personal lives.

That's not how it works. The government has a very specific set of rules regarding laws that exist solely on the basis of bigotry and discrimination; there has to be a compelling, and I mean life-or-death compelling reason for those kinds of laws to exist, and if that reason is not present the law has no basis and will be struck down.

I think it is likely this will be the route used to argue against the DOMA and other legislation; it would be the task of its supporters to clearly and unequivocally prove that legislating discrimination would be necessary to ensure a compelling state interest is preserved. That's one hell of a high standard to meet, so it's unlikely these laws will hold up in court for long.

I do not agree with the actions taken by the Mormon church, but that being said, there are a series of questions that remain unanswered before legal remedies can be used:

1) Is the freedom of religion clause a part of the Bill of Rights that is always applied to states? I would note that in the argumentation of Gideon v. Wainright, they were quite clear that Hugo Black's position that if it's in the Bill of Rights, it automatically applies to the states as part of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is the minority position; the majority have applied components of the Bill of Rights on a piecemeal basis. So while the freedom of religion clause is a part of the Bill of Rights, it does not automatically apply to the states; I'm unsure of where the Supreme Court has determined that the freedom of religion clause applies to the state law and constitutions.

2) What exactly are the state and federal rules involving contributions by religious organizations to political groups and causes that the Mormon Church is guilty of violating? Simply put, no matter how detestable I may personally find the Mormon Church's views, that detestable quality does not equate to illegality unless they have specifically violated a section of California or federal statute or regulation. Having looked over the thread so far, I haven't seen any link to what provision specifically was violated; it's thus far been more along the lines of "obviously, church involvement with a political campaign of this magnitude violates the seperation of church and state interpretation of the freedom of religion clause of the 1st Amendment" which, as noted above, only applies given specific circumstances, and moreover, only applies in the face of a violation of statute or regulation.

This gets me into the larger question:

3) Given that the entire theme of the campaign for Yes on 8 revolves around "The Gays will Persecute You Once They Get Control", how does our current efforts, in the absence of any clear enunciation of what specifically the LDS church did that was illegal, not play precisely into this admittedly paranoid worldview?

Look, the reason we lost isn't ultimately because of blacks, or because of Mormons, or because of Venusians. Mormons just provided the money, not the votes. The votes came because old people came out in large numbers, and they voted overwhelmingly for Prop. 8. This isn't a racial or religious fight; it's a generational fight, and we happened to lose this round. That should be seen as a delay on justice, however, not a defeat, because to put it bluntly, time is on our side. Old people die, and young people, a contingent that voted by 30-point margins against Prop. 8, take their place in the electorate. We will win this fight. What will delay victory is stunts like this, that alienate Mormons young and old from seeing gays as just another part of the electorate as deserving of civil marriage rights as any other.

3) Given that the entire theme of the campaign for Yes on 8 revolves around "The Gays will Persecute You Once They Get Control", how does our current efforts, in the absence of any clear enunciation of what specifically the LDS church did that was illegal, not play precisely into this admittedly paranoid worldview?
This ↑↑↑↑↑↑

Well maybe it is 'playing into their paranoid worldview,' but you know, we can't go walking on eggshells for fear that unreasonable, bigoted persons are going to (gasp shock horror) hold unreasonable, bigoted views! They'll believe how they believe no matter what, and it's best to just dismiss them rather than trying to appease them somehow.

I do not agree with the actions taken by the Mormon church, but that being said, there are a series of questions that remain unanswered before legal remedies can be used:

1) Is the freedom of religion clause a part of the Bill of Rights that is always applied to states? I would note that in the argumentation of Gideon v. Wainright, they were quite clear that Hugo Black's position that if it's in the Bill of Rights, it automatically applies to the states as part of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment is the minority position; the majority have applied components of the Bill of Rights on a piecemeal basis. So while the freedom of religion clause is a part of the Bill of Rights, it does not automatically apply to the states; I'm unsure of where the Supreme Court has determined that the freedom of religion clause applies to the state law and constitutions.

2) What exactly are the state and federal rules involving contributions by religious organizations to political groups and causes that the Mormon Church is guilty of violating? Simply put, no matter how detestable I may personally find the Mormon Church's views, that detestable quality does not equate to illegality unless they have specifically violated a section of California or federal statute or regulation. Having looked over the thread so far, I haven't seen any link to what provision specifically was violated; it's thus far been more along the lines of "obviously, church involvement with a political campaign of this magnitude violates the seperation of church and state interpretation of the freedom of religion clause of the 1st Amendment" which, as noted above, only applies given specific circumstances, and moreover, only applies in the face of a violation of statute or regulation.

This gets me into the larger question:

3) Given that the entire theme of the campaign for Yes on 8 revolves around "The Gays will Persecute You Once They Get Control", how does our current efforts, in the absence of any clear enunciation of what specifically the LDS church did that was illegal, not play precisely into this admittedly paranoid worldview?

Look, the reason we lost isn't ultimately because of blacks, or because of Mormons, or because of Venusians. Mormons just provided the money, not the votes. The votes came because old people came out in large numbers, and they voted overwhelmingly for Prop. 8. This isn't a racial or religious fight; it's a generational fight, and we happened to lose this round. That should be seen as a delay on justice, however, not a defeat, because to put it bluntly, time is on our side. Old people die, and young people, a contingent that voted by 30-point margins against Prop. 8, take their place in the electorate. We will win this fight. What will delay victory is stunts like this, that alienate Mormons young and old from seeing gays as just another part of the electorate as deserving of civil marriage rights as any other.

Before answering your questions, particularly regarding separation of Church and State, let's recognize that the focus here is whether the LDS Church complied with California state campaign finance laws and with federal laws regarding their tax exempt status. Neither raises a separation of Church and State issue.

There is a moral element of the ideals of Church and State separation that some may say is violated by the LDS Church's involvement in legislative matters, but no actual legal issue of the First Amendment is involved.

Note: Churches have a tax-exempt status because they are considered charities and SCOTUS has allowed such status on the grounds that the fact that it aids religion is incidental. See, e.g., Walz v. Tax Comm'n (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=664), 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The First Amendment does not require that church activities or property be tax exempt. See, e.g., Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California Bd. of Equalization (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=493&invol=378), 493 U.S. 378 (1990); Hernandez v. Commissioner (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=490&invol=680), 490 U.S. 680 (1989).
In fact, a sales tax exemption specifically for religious publications has been held to violate the Establishment Clause. See Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=489&invol=1), 489 U.S. 1 (1989).

1) Having established that your first question is essentiallly irrelevant, I'll nonetheless answer it. What you are referring to is selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states pursuant to the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)), link (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm). The First Amendment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause have long been held to apply to the states through incorporation. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947). From time to time a stray conservative like Justice Thomas has made noises that the Establishment Clause shouldn't be incorporated, but even those objections seem to recognize the issue has been decided emphatically the other way. See, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500#concurrence2), 545 U.S. 677, ___ -___ (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

2) The OP (or at lest links in the OP) tried to lay out what statutes and regulations are at issue. First, there is a California state campaing finance law. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/) has announced they will be investigating the LDS Church's reporting of contributions in support of Prop. 8. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html?ref=us) "Broadly speaking, California state law requires disclosure of any money spent or services provided to influence the outcome of an election." And the allegation is that the Church's reported $5,000 contribution doesn't include all of the vast non-monetary and indirect contributions made by the LDS Church in favor of Prop. 8.

Second, the LDS Church is currently tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501(c).html). This status requires an organization to not be an action organization or a group that attempts to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities, according to the IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (Publication 1828 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf)). The IRS decides what constitutes substantial. According to Publication 1828, they look at various factors including time devoted and expenditures. See generally, IRS website (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=179750,00.html). Obviously, the argument is that the LDS Church's activities were substantial. See, e.g., link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/18/politics/uwire/main4613144.shtml), link (http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/), link (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/).

3) As to your third point, I think I have answered the question of whether this is just a vague grudge against the LDS Church. The bottom-line question is whether in the face of evidence that the LDS Church cheated by not following campaign finance laws or by violating their tax exempt status, should we turn a blind eye? You seem to suggest we should so as not to alienate Mormons. In addition to being questionable tactics regardless, that ignores the overwhelming support that Mormons provided for Proposition 8.

Sorry, but the LDS Church started this war and it appears they fought dirty. Calling them on that is both just and tactically smart.

This was not directed at me, but I feel the need to answer it nonetheless. First off, good luck actually having any luck in passing such an amendment. Secondly, Utah is not anywhere near the only state you'd have to do that for. You'd also have to do it for California, Arizona, and Florida. They're the ones who actually passed the laws, believe it or not. And lastly, you really think that you have the right to declare entire states unfit for equal representation on the basis that a church that's headquartered there used democracy to their advantage? If they did cheat the system, then yes, that is bad. But until it's proven, I'm afraid you are the discriminator here. And by the way, the church may have opposed it on moral grounds, but that's what the 1st amendment is for, a.k.a. to stop people from oppressing religion because they disagree with it.

I'm just talking about using democracy to my advantage.

You think your church has any right to declare an entire group of people disgusting and then try and take away their legal rights?

And I'm not discriminating. I'm simply trying to legislate my religious belief that Mormon's are disgusting people who need help and should have their rights taken away until they choose the correct belief (my belief). This is IN NO WAY different from what the LDS church did in California to gays. NO WAY DIFFERENT. It is EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Taking away rights from a group of people based on religious idealogies. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So, when I propose to take away rights from a different group of people based on different religious idealogies, you try and call me on it? You are a hypocrite. Either we are both discriminating, or neither of us are.

I wonder what Obama's opinion on this issue would be? After all, he is the one that talks about unifying the country, whilst this issue would appear to be a new wedge.

There has to be a better solution?

I wonder what Obama's opinion on this issue would be? After all, he is the one that talks about unifying the country, whilst this issue would appear to be a new wedge.

There has to be a better solution?

How about deporting the Mormons?


OK, I guess Neo B can stay...

How about deporting the Mormons?


OK, I guess Neo B can stay...
Yeah, that would work!!! :tongue:

I wonder what Obama's opinion on this issue would be? After all, he is the one that talks about unifying the country, whilst this issue would appear to be a new wedge.

There has to be a better solution?

He told the black voters to vote NO on it, or so I heard, could be wrong on this.

As a CA Resident - why is Utah telling us what to do? What right does Utah have in interfearing with our elections? Next time Utah has an election, I say we start pumping money in for the Progressive Candidates, and see how Utah likes that.

He told the black voters to vote NO on it, or so I heard, could be wrong on this.

As a CA Resident - why is Utah telling us what to do? What right does Utah have in interfearing with our elections? Next time Utah has an election, I say we start pumping money in for the Progressive Candidates, and see how Utah likes that.
Nah, 2 (possibly) illegal acts aren't the way to go...
Yeah, that would work!!! :tongue:
OK, we'll send them to Canada

So, when I propose to take away rights from a different group of people based on different religious idealogies, you try and call me on it? You are a hypocrite. Either we are both discriminating, or neither of us are.

Oh, do not be silly. Did you not notice that some people like to redefine words with a negative connotation so they do not apply to them ?

It is like people claiming they are not racists because they think discriminating people with a black skin is silly - while spitting at yellow.

It is like people claiming they oppose pedosexuality - but have no objections if a 50 year old man consummates his marriage with a 9 year old child.

The list is long.

He told the black voters to vote NO on it, or so I heard, could be wrong on this.
I doubt that considering this:

Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html)

Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights."
Perhaps you have a different link to support your claim?

I doubt that considering this:

Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html)


Perhaps you have a different link to support your claim?

90% of every politician gives this exact same answer, because to say you support gay marriage atm is political suicide.

At least he didnt champion the DOMA...


EDIT: As an aside, the link to support his claim is in your link. He says he opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban

Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Thus, by default, he opposes it and its not inconcievable that he would have fought against it.

Try again CH.

90% of every politician gives this exact same answer, because to say you support gay marriage atm is political suicide.

At least he didnt champion the DOMA...

In all honesty, initially Californians were against Proposition 8, but the pro-Proposition 8 Ads just plain kicked ass. I'm sorry if that sounds mean, but you gotta realize why you were defeated; compare say this excellent (in cold-blooded political ads) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiX5APGCroU&NR=1 with this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiuMo6RihHw&feature=related and if you don't see the difference, ask a political strategist. Sorry if it sounds mean, but that's what happened.

edit: As an aside, the link to support his claim is in your link. He says he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.



Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thus, by default, he opposes it and its not inconcievable that he would have fought against it.

Try again ch.

win!

I don't understand how this would be legalizing bigotry... the government can endorse and not endorse whatever it wants. If the government didn't recognize interracial marriages because it felt they were detrimental to society, there would be nothing unconstitutional about it. Of course, that would be a mistake on the government's part. But it's not an issue of rights because gay people can still do whatever they want in their personal lives.

Have you ever read even a little bit of the Constitution? Because that's not even close to what it says.

90% of every politician gives this exact same answer, because to say you support gay marriage atm is political suicide.

At least he didnt champion the DOMA...

EDIT: As an aside, the link to support his claim is in your link. He says he opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Thus, by default, he opposes it and its not inconcievable that he would have fought against it.

Try again CH.
You are dancing around the issue. He clearly supports "civil unions" complete with all the legal ramifications. He does not support "same sex marriages" due to the rligious conotations:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/25/sot.obama.gay.marriage.wls

Therefore your claim is hypothetical at best.

You are dancing around the issue. He clears supports "civil unions" complete with all the legal ramifications. He does not support "same sex marriages" due to the rligious conotations:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/25/sot.obama.gay.marriage.wls

Therefore your claim is hypothetical at best.

What?


Someone said "He asked black people to vote against Prop 8".


You posted a link of him saying that he is opposed to a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage, and then claimed this somehow negated the claim that Obama is against Prop 8.

When, in reality, your own fucking link shows he would have been against Prop 8.

Really CH, I had hoped that after the election, youd have become slightly reasonable.


EDIT: The issue is not does "Obama support same sex marriages". That is clear. He gave the same cop out answer every politician gives.

The issue raised was "What can Obama do about the divide caused by Prop 8 and does he support it?"

Which your own link shows he doesnt.

90% of every politician gives this exact same answer, because to say you support gay marriage atm is political suicide.

At least he didnt champion the DOMA...


EDIT: As an aside, the link to support his claim is in your link. He says he opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.



Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Thus, by default, he opposes it and its not inconcievable that he would have fought against it.

Try again CH.You are dancing around the issue. He clearly supports "civil unions" complete with all the legal ramifications. He does not support "same sex marriages" due to the rligious conotations:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/25/sot.obama.gay.marriage.wls

Therefore your claim is hypothetical at best.

He has stated though that he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, therefore there is actually support for believing (as does KoL) that he would oppose Prop 8. What evidence do you have that he wouldn't oppose it?

What evidence do you have that he wouldn't oppose it?

He isnt Hillary Clinton.


Who, amussingly, championed the DOMA.

He isnt Hillary Clinton.


Who, amussingly, championed the DOMA.

Well, yes, we both know that this is another case of CH trying to bash Obama based on the fact that he isn't HRC, its still fun to call him on it though.

What?


Someone said "He asked black people to vote against Prop 8".
No, someone claimed:

Originally Posted by Shofercia
He told the black voters to vote NO on it, or so I heard, could be wrong on this.

You posted a link of him saying that he is opposed to a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage, and then claimed this somehow negated the claim that Obama is against Prop 8.
You are putting words in my mouth....I stated:

I doubt that considering this:

Barack Obama link
Perhaps you have a different link to support your claim?


When, in reality, your own fucking link shows he would have been against Prop 8.
It doesn't do that at all. It states that he opposes same sex marriages but opposes a constitutional ban, which is kinda catch 22 situation?

Really CH, I had hoped that after the election, youd have become slightly reasonable.
Stick with the argument and don't attack the poster, and we can work this out?

No, someone claimed:




You are putting words in my mouth....I stated:





It doesn't do that at all. It states that he opposes same sex marriages but opposes a constitutional ban, which is kinda catch 22 situation?


Stick with the argument and don't attack the poster, and we can work this out?


*sigh*


Once again.

Obama opposes Constitutional Bans on same sex marriage.
Therefore, any reasonable person can deduce that Obama opposes Prop 8. It is also feesable to assume that he would have encouraged people to vote against it.


What, exactly, is your point?

EDIT: Here. End of debate.

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307
Dear Friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pridc Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

s

Barack Obama


From the horse's mouth.

It doesn't do that at all. It states that he opposes same sex marriages but opposes a constitutional ban, which is kinda catch 22 situation?

Not really, one addresses his personal feelings about the issue, and the other addresses how he feels it should be handled legally.

He opposes a constitutional ban, therefore he would be opposed to Prop 8

I wonder what Obama's opinion on this issue would be? After all, he is the one that talks about unifying the country, whilst this issue would appear to be a new wedge.

There has to be a better solution?

You, of all people, have some nerve appealing to the idea of unity under Obama.

It is true gay marriage can be used by the right as a wedge issue -- just as they used to use race and desegration. That makes our task harder, but not less just.

Finally, for someone who has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about the issues raised in this thread, your suggestions that we must find a "better solution" is just plain irritating.

Not really, one addresses his personal feelings about the issue, and the other addresses how he feels it should be handled legally.

He opposes a constitutional ban, therefore he would be opposed to Prop 8

And by "personal feelings", let's be honest--it addresses the personal feelings of people who might have voted for him. I don't believe Obama is against gay marriage any more than I believe Clinton was when he signed DOMA into law. Politics, however, is an ugly, ugly business.

And by "personal feelings", let's be honest--it addresses the personal feelings of people who might have voted for him. I don't believe Obama is against gay marriage any more than I believe Clinton was when he signed DOMA into law. Politics, however, is an ugly, ugly business.

Indeed although we really only have his public statements on the issue to go by

You, of all people, have some nerve appealing to the idea of unity under Obama.
Perhaps you misunderstood my question in regards to this post:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14254012&postcount=169

By "issue", I was referring to the topic at hand.

It is true gay marriage can be used by the right as a wedge issue -- just as they used to use race and desegration. That makes our task harder, but not less just.
Understandable, however, attacking LDS or other religious organizations might make the task even more difficult or complicated?

Finally, for someone who has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about the issues raised in this thread, your suggestions that we must find a "better solution" is just plain irritating.
I don't think that is a fair and justified critique. I am doing my best to understand the situation and I don't think I am doing too bad for a Canadian. And if your "solution" is to shout down one of the contributers for his suggestions, then you should check your motives.

Well, yes, we both know that this is another case of CH trying to bash Obama based on the fact that he isn't HRC, its still fun to call him on it though.
I wasn't bashing Obama and this thread has zero to do with HRC.

Perhaps you misunderstood my question in regards to this post:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14254012&postcount=169

By "issue", I was referring to the topic at hand.


Understandable, however, attacking LDS or other religious organizations might make the task even more difficult or complicated?


I don't think that is a fair and justified critique. I am doing my best to understand the situation and I don't think I am doing too bad for a Canadian. And if your "solution" is to shout down one of the contributers for his suggestions, then you should check your motives.


If you really are trying to contribute, and I mean really are, your suggestions are welcome.

If you really are trying to contribute, and I mean really are, your suggestions are welcome.
Thanks. I would have voted NO on Prop 8. I just think that attacking the churches is the wrong way to proceed on this issue and that is why I asked this question:

I wonder what Obama's opinion on this issue would be? After all, he is the one that talks about unifying the country, whilst this issue would appear to be a new wedge.

Thanks. I would have voted NO on Prop 8. I just think that attacking the churches is the wrong way to proceed on this issue and that is why I asked this question:

So its wrong to investigate whether or not the way LDS church handled this broke any laws?

Perhaps you misunderstood my question in regards to this post:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14254012&postcount=169

By "issue", I was referring to the topic at hand.


Understandable, however, attacking LDS or other religious organizations might make the task even more difficult or complicated?


I don't think that is a fair and justified critique. I am doing my best to understand the situation and I don't think I am doing too bad for a Canadian. And if your "solution" is to shout down one of the contributers for his suggestions, then you should check your motives.

*sigh*

As I quoted that post in my response, I did not misunderstand your question or missapply my answer.

Obama was against Proposition 8. I think he has rather bigger fish to fry this moment than deal with the Prop. 8 aftermath. We are allowed to take action without express permission of our new leader.

Since you joined this thread, you have sought to suggest that the poor churches should be left alone and/or it would be counter-productive to challenge them? In repeating this mantra, you have added very little to conversation except a good bit of nonsense others have had to explain away for you.

But, I'll stick with the point I've already raised with you: If the LDS church cheated in its support for Prop. 8, isn't both just and wise tactically that they face the consequences for that cheating?

Thanks. I would have voted NO on Prop 8. I just think that attacking the churches is the wrong way to proceed on this issue and that is why I asked this question:

Common misconception. No one (worth listening to) is really "attacking" the LSD Church.

Many of us, however, are concerned that they may have overstepped and spent too much money on the Prop 8 campaign, which woul violate their tax exempt status by becoming to political.

Thats a problem we have in America. A lot of religious groups and figures donate too much money to political campagins. A church only gets its tax exempt status so long as they do not become a political organization as well (which is often measured by how much money they donate to a candidate or cause).

Its a common problem in America (Evangelicals do it the most). This, however, is the first time its been this public.

So its wrong to investigate whether or not the way LDS church handled this broke any laws?
I stated my thoughts on this earlier in the thread:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14250496&postcount=54

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14250560&postcount=56

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14250626&postcount=60

I stated my thoughts on this earlier in the thread:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14250496&postcount=54

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14250560&postcount=56

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14250626&postcount=60

And each of those posts received replies you have not answered.

Regardless, if 150 more posts have gone by and all you can add is "see what I said 150 posts ago" -- perhaps your contribution to the topic has run its course.

Common misconception. No one (worth listening to) is really "attacking" the LSD Church.

Many of us, however, are concerned that they may have overstepped and spent too much money on the Prop 8 campaign, which woul violate their tax exempt status by becoming to political.

Thats a problem we have in America. A lot of religious groups and figures donate too much money to political campagins. A church only gets its tax exempt status so long as they do not become a political organization as well (which is often measured by how much money they donate to a candidate or cause).

Its a common problem in America (Evangelicals do it the most). This, however, is the first time its been this public.
LSD Church KoL?

LSD Church KoL?Sign me up!
Yes, I'm joking.

LSD Church KoL?

Fuck you. Tired.


Sleeeeeeeeep.


Night all.

*kisses Dyakovo goodnight*

Fuck you. Tired.


Sleeeeeeeeep.


Night all.

*kisses Dyakovo goodnight*Are you sure you aren't a member?

Are you sure you aren't a member?

I'm thinking he probably is...

I'm thinking he probably is...He could be the patron saint. :p

He could be the patron saint. :p

Uh no, that's still Saint Leary.

Common misconception. No one (worth listening to) is really "attacking" the LSD Church.
No misconception. Heck you even started a thread about it:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=571686

Many of us, however, are concerned that they may have overstepped and spent too much money on the Prop 8 campaign, which woul violate their tax exempt status by becoming to political.
This may all be true, but declaring war is not the best solution?

Thats a problem we have in America. A lot of religious groups and figures donate too much money to political campagins. A church only gets its tax exempt status so long as they do not become a political organization as well (which is often measured by how much money they donate to a candidate or cause).
I can understand your situation, but churches also do a lot of charitable work. While their "agenda" might run counter to yours, exploring more conciliatory avenues might be more productive. Here in Canada, there were not any pitched battles against the churches, even though they had the same "agenda".

Its a common problem in America (Evangelicals do it the most). This, however, is the first time its been this public.
That in my estimation is why I think moderation rather than all out warfare is a better solution.

Uh no, that's still Saint Leary.Hence the words 'could be'. :p

And each of those posts received replies you have not answered.

Regardless, if 150 more posts have gone by and all you can add is "see what I said 150 posts ago" -- perhaps your contribution to the topic has run its course.
I did answer the posts, and you are just being difficult. Just put me on ignore and you won't need to waste your efforts telling me that my efforts are unwelcome. :D

There was a rather interesting article about this in the San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1

For those too lazy to go read, here's the relevant part:

But interviews with experts and activists on the issue say Prop. 8 opponents should look elsewhere for reasons to criticize the measure's supporters.

"They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue. "While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives."

Generally speaking, churches, schools, and nonprofits that are 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities, Lynn said, noting that his organization is held to the same standard.

The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars - if not billions - to violate their tax-exempt status.
Given the rather large nature of the LDS church and their operations, I find it hard to figure that they spent either over 20% of their budget on this or the bulk of their time on prop 8.

Before answering your questions, particularly regarding separation of Church and State, let's recognize that the focus here is whether the LDS Church complied with California state campaign finance laws and with federal laws regarding their tax exempt status. Neither raises a separation of Church and State issue.

There is a moral element of the ideals of Church and State separation that some may say is violated by the LDS Church's involvement in legislative matters, but no actual legal issue of the First Amendment is involved.

Note: Churches have a tax-exempt status because they are considered charities and SCOTUS has allowed such status on the grounds that the fact that it aids religion is incidental. See, e.g., Walz v. Tax Comm'n (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=664), 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The First Amendment does not require that church activities or property be tax exempt. See, e.g., Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California Bd. of Equalization (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=493&invol=378), 493 U.S. 378 (1990); Hernandez v. Commissioner (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=490&invol=680), 490 U.S. 680 (1989).
In fact, a sales tax exemption specifically for religious publications has been held to violate the Establishment Clause. See Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=489&invol=1), 489 U.S. 1 (1989).

1) Having established that your first question is essentiallly irrelevant, I'll nonetheless answer it. What you are referring to is selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states pursuant to the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)), link (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm). The First Amendment Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause have long been held to apply to the states through incorporation. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=310&page=296), 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=1), 330 U.S. 1 (1947). From time to time a stray conservative like Justice Thomas has made noises that the Establishment Clause shouldn't be incorporated, but even those objections seem to recognize the issue has been decided emphatically the other way. See, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-1500#concurrence2), 545 U.S. 677, ___ -___ (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).

2) The OP (or at lest links in the OP) tried to lay out what statutes and regulations are at issue. First, there is a California state campaing finance law. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/) has announced they will be investigating the LDS Church's reporting of contributions in support of Prop. 8. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html?ref=us) "Broadly speaking, California state law requires disclosure of any money spent or services provided to influence the outcome of an election." And the allegation is that the Church's reported $5,000 contribution doesn't include all of the vast non-monetary and indirect contributions made by the LDS Church in favor of Prop. 8.

Second, the LDS Church is currently tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501(c).html). This status requires an organization to not be an action organization or a group that attempts to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities, according to the IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (Publication 1828 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf)). The IRS decides what constitutes substantial. According to Publication 1828, they look at various factors including time devoted and expenditures. See generally, IRS website (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=179750,00.html). Obviously, the argument is that the LDS Church's activities were substantial. See, e.g., link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/18/politics/uwire/main4613144.shtml), link (http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/), link (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/).

3) As to your third point, I think I have answered the question of whether this is just a vague grudge against the LDS Church. The bottom-line question is whether in the face of evidence that the LDS Church cheated by not following campaign finance laws or by violating their tax exempt status, should we turn a blind eye? You seem to suggest we should so as not to alienate Mormons. In addition to being questionable tactics regardless, that ignores the overwhelming support that Mormons provided for Proposition 8.

Sorry, but the LDS Church started this war and it appears they fought dirty. Calling them on that is both just and tactically smart.

Quite the contrary, TCT. I was against using the law as a remedy only provisionally until someone explained what statute or regulation they violated, and my points were specifically designed to tease out the constitutional and/or legislative and executive rules that the LDS church was supposed to have violated. The majority of the points I saw to that point in the thread seemed to take the violation of a statute or reg as given, which is a mistake.

Having said that, the evidence you've presented suggests only allegations. I'll grant that if a tenth of the things I've heard about the solicitations and buying of advertisements are true, then the allegations would in fact violate their status as a non-profit, but given that I think my fence-sitting position is quite appropriate. I'll also say that I'm not as convinced as you are that prosecution is the best of options even if the allegations are true; I won't insult your intelligence by describing the concept of prosecutorial discretion to you. Rather, I'll leave it at me not seeing as immediately as you how this ultimately furthers the cause that you and I evidently share, which is ultimately full and equitable treatment under law for gays and lesbians with respect to marriage, in California and everywhere else. From my standpoint, this will only encourage the LDS faithful to dig in even more fiercely next time and to convince themselves that they're a persecuted minority. Now granted, that will be a false conviction, but it will be real enough in their eyes, and the problem with this retrenchment is that it only adds to the number of people who we already have to write off if we want to win national support. Further, given the geographic concentration of Mormons in the Mountain and Southwest, it only compounds the alienation that those regions feel with respect to the rest of the country, and the less any part of the nation feels like they're just an occupied section of another country, the better.

To be clear, I could be wrong, and I could be persuaded. But that does seem to me to be a relevant and pertinent concern that should serve as a counterbalancing consideration to a mere look at whether or not the LDS church broke what their followers will doubtless see as an obscure finance provision that you aren't applying to other entities like the Catholic church.

You're not an American, you don't get a vote in whether Utah stays. :tongue:

Very well, but don't you DARE ship Utah off to Brazil. :p

Very well, but don't you DARE ship Utah off to Brazil. :p

We won't, just the Mormons

We won't, just the Mormons

Oh no you won't. :p

Oh no you won't. :p

What? We don't want them...

Your trash, yours to take care of. You could adapt that Issue decision in the game and send them off to space.

Your trash, yours to take care of. You could adapt that Issue decision in the game and send them off to space.

Not my trash, I refuse to take any responsibility for them... :p

Your trash, yours to take care of. You could adapt that Issue decision in the game and send them off to space.

Mormons in Space?!? Do we really want humanity's first contact with an alien race to be some dude in a white shirt and black tie knocking on it's door? :eek:

Quite the contrary, TCT. I was against using the law as a remedy only provisionally until someone explained what statute or regulation they violated, and my points were specifically designed to tease out the constitutional and/or legislative and executive rules that the LDS church was supposed to have violated. The majority of the points I saw to that point in the thread seemed to take the violation of a statute or reg as given, which is a mistake.

Having said that, the evidence you've presented suggests only allegations. I'll grant that if a tenth of the things I've heard about the solicitations and buying of advertisements are true, then the allegations would in fact violate their status as a non-profit, but given that I think my fence-sitting position is quite appropriate. I'll also say that I'm not as convinced as you are that prosecution is the best of options even if the allegations are true; I won't insult your intelligence by describing the concept of prosecutorial discretion to you. Rather, I'll leave it at me not seeing as immediately as you how this ultimately furthers the cause that you and I evidently share, which is ultimately full and equitable treatment under law for gays and lesbians with respect to marriage, in California and everywhere else. From my standpoint, this will only encourage the LDS faithful to dig in even more fiercely next time and to convince themselves that they're a persecuted minority. Now granted, that will be a false conviction, but it will be real enough in their eyes, and the problem with this retrenchment is that it only adds to the number of people who we already have to write off if we want to win national support. Further, given the geographic concentration of Mormons in the Mountain and Southwest, it only compounds the alienation that those regions feel with respect to the rest of the country, and the less any part of the nation feels like they're just an occupied section of another country, the better.

To be clear, I could be wrong, and I could be persuaded. But that does seem to me to be a relevant and pertinent concern that should serve as a counterbalancing consideration to a mere look at whether or not the LDS church broke what their followers will doubtless see as an obscure finance provision that you aren't applying to other entities like the Catholic church.
I concur with the majority of what you have posted here!!

Mormons in Space?!? Do we really want humanity's first contact with an alien race to be some dude in a white shirt and black tie knocking on it's door? :eek:

Did I say anything at all about shipping them off with any protection from the vacuum?

Did I say anything at all about shipping them off with any protection from the vacuum?Oh, you were suggesting mass murder?

Oh, you were suggesting mass murder?

Nope. I was suggesting mass shipping. They can stay in the vessel if they REALLY want the oxygen. :p

Mormons in Space?!? Do we really want humanity's first contact with an alien race to be some dude in a white shirt and black tie knocking on it's door? :eek:

I say we launch 'em into the Sun. Or Mars, need to terraform the latter anyways.

Oh, you were suggesting mass murder?

It was his 'final solution' to the Mormon problem.

It was his 'final solution' to the Mormon problem.

Again, they can stay in the vessel.

wait, wait, let me make sure I understand this. The pages of your blank notebook have form numbers?

Precisely. Strange as it sounds, that's exactly right.

Again, they can stay in the vessel.A vessel implies "protection from the vacuum."

No misconception. Heck you even started a thread about it:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=571686



Are you on crack? That thread was not about attacking anybody. It was about what we can do to try and reverse Prop 8.


This is what I get for trying to be nice...

There was a rather interesting article about this in the San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL&tsp=1

For those too lazy to go read, here's the relevant part:


Given the rather large nature of the LDS church and their operations, I find it hard to figure that they spent either over 20% of their budget on this or the bulk of their time on prop 8.

Excellent article. Very informative. Thanks.

If Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State says that the LDS church didn't violate their tax exempt status, they probably didn't.

I still think it is worth the few minutes it takes to file a complaint and the IRS should look into it. Political activity on the scale the LDS Church engaged in should at least be scrutinized.

There are also the violation of state campaign finance laws to consider. Although they will result in little more than fines (I think), they may have a better chance of suceeding.

Quite the contrary, TCT. I was against using the law as a remedy only provisionally until someone explained what statute or regulation they violated, and my points were specifically designed to tease out the constitutional and/or legislative and executive rules that the LDS church was supposed to have violated. The majority of the points I saw to that point in the thread seemed to take the violation of a statute or reg as given, which is a mistake.

Having said that, the evidence you've presented suggests only allegations. I'll grant that if a tenth of the things I've heard about the solicitations and buying of advertisements are true, then the allegations would in fact violate their status as a non-profit, but given that I think my fence-sitting position is quite appropriate. I'll also say that I'm not as convinced as you are that prosecution is the best of options even if the allegations are true; I won't insult your intelligence by describing the concept of prosecutorial discretion to you. Rather, I'll leave it at me not seeing as immediately as you how this ultimately furthers the cause that you and I evidently share, which is ultimately full and equitable treatment under law for gays and lesbians with respect to marriage, in California and everywhere else. From my standpoint, this will only encourage the LDS faithful to dig in even more fiercely next time and to convince themselves that they're a persecuted minority. Now granted, that will be a false conviction, but it will be real enough in their eyes, and the problem with this retrenchment is that it only adds to the number of people who we already have to write off if we want to win national support. Further, given the geographic concentration of Mormons in the Mountain and Southwest, it only compounds the alienation that those regions feel with respect to the rest of the country, and the less any part of the nation feels like they're just an occupied section of another country, the better.

To be clear, I could be wrong, and I could be persuaded. But that does seem to me to be a relevant and pertinent concern that should serve as a counterbalancing consideration to a mere look at whether or not the LDS church broke what their followers will doubtless see as an obscure finance provision that you aren't applying to other entities like the Catholic church.

First, you are welcome for my answering your many questions -- even the ones that were essentially irrelevant and you're now ignoring.

Second, do I have any slam-dunk evidence that the LDS Church violated either state campaign finance laws or their tax-exempt status? No. And I never claimed otherwise. I am calling for an investigation into these allegations. I'm quite open to the possibility that nothing will come of the investigations.

Third, I quess we just disagree on whether there is some danger of backlash so great that cheating by the LDS Church shouldn't even be investigated. Although there were some Mormons that prominently opposed Prop. 8, the majority of the LDS Church is already pretty fucking entrenched on the issue. I simply do not believe that there is this great likelihood they could be persuaded to support same-sex marriage, but we are squandering that chance by seeking to investigate campaign finance and tax exempt status laws.

Finally, these are neither "obscure provisions" nor am I saying they should not be applied to other entities like the Catholic Church. These are basic rules applying to tax-exempt status and state campaign finances. And it seems rather hypocritical of you to say "why not persecute the Catholic Church" at the same time you are saying we shouldn't even investigate substantive charges agains the LDS Church. If you have reason to believe another entity broke these (or similar laws) in supporting Prop. 8, then let's hear about it!!

A vessel implies "protection from the vacuum."

No...

A sturdy vessel implies "protection from the vacuum". A vessel implies just enough to get them out of Earth's orbit, then we don't care what happens to them.

Did I say anything at all about shipping them off with any protection from the vacuum?

That's not a nice thing to say.

That's not a nice thing to say.

I got tired of being nice. They want a culture WAR, don't they?

<snip>

You're spot on, and I agree with you completely. I was quoting her, not for the purpose of disagreeing with her, but for the purpose of showing the anti-religious undertone inherent in this thread.
Except that this "anti-religious undertone" was, until the latter pages, a figment of your imagination. But fortunately for your victim complex, you and others have managed to bring the religion-haters out in force. The fact of the matter is criticizing the LDS for doing wrong and calling for an investigation to confirm whether, in fact, they actually did do wrong is NOT "anti-religious."

Hoo boy. You have me there, eh? Now I'm completely discredited, what with my gay-hating and foaming at the mouth irrationality. You see, isn't it possible that I can view homosexuality as being somewhat, shall we say, less than desirable? Isn't it possible that I look at homosexuality and see nothing other than a natural desire directed at the wrong source? After all, is there really so much wrong with zoophilia? After all, you could obtain the animals consent merely by seeing whether it enjoyed sexual contact with humans. Why can't we do that, don't want to discriminate against those who just want to love the way they want to love, after all.
Bullshit posted in defense of an earlier insult does not make for a good argument. But keep talking. I enjoy it when my opponents do my work for me.

You are correct yet again, sir. Or is it madam? Anywho, you did point out an unfortunate contradiction of mine, although I get the feeling you took my words slightly out of context. You see, I never said that I was for them getting married. I merely said I wanted them to have the same legal rights. You may say, Aha, I have you! However, taking into account my opinion concerning marriage being converted into a purely religious institution, this would not discriminate against homosexuals at all, in a legal manner. In other words, I do not support them getting married, but I do support equal right, and thus, marriage should not be a legal institution in my mind. And I don't mind my church doing so. As a matter of fact, I myself cannot get married currently, because I'm involved in, shall we say, immoral behavior at the moment. I still support my church, however, because they do not discriminate against sinners, they try to help them. But that doesn't mean we can just give them the same privileges as our righteous members.
Oh, this BS, eh? Sorry, pal, but you don't hold the trademark on the word "marriage." The state defines a specific set of over 1000 legal rights, privileges and protections as defining and attaching to a legal status labeled "marriage," and the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate but equal" is not equal, therefore, if gays are getting the same legal rights as heteros, then either everyone is getting "married," or nobody is (and then ALL legally recognized personal household unions would be "civil unions" according to state laws, meaning that your precious religious "marriage" would have zero legal recognition or benefits).

I got tired of being nice. They want a culture WAR, don't they?
Sadly, however, I cannot respect low tactics, no matter who is engaging in them or why.

Precisely. Strange as it sounds, that's exactly right.
I want one of those IRS notepads. :D

Though, having the form number, I guess they must be official govmint forms, so using them for my own stuff would illegal.

I'll dummy up my own. *nods*

Are you on crack? That thread was not about attacking anybody. It was about what we can do to try and reverse Prop 8.
With all due respect, in your OP in that thread, you labelled the LDS as "our enemies", you talked about "battlegrounds", and suggested a "boycott" of their businesses. That is an attack against the LDS for sure.

This is what I get for trying to be nice...
I was relating factual information....surely that is acceptable and desired?

With all due respect, in your OP in that thread, you labelled the LDS as "our enemies", you talked about "battlegrounds", and suggested a "boycott" of their businesses. That is an attack against the LDS for sure.

Actually, the boycott could be argued as a political thing - trying to reduce the funding available for the opposing side of the ballot.

Actually, the boycott could be argued as a political thing - trying to reduce the funding available for the opposing side of the ballot.
Indeed. A boycott is a perfectly legitimate political action. No person is obligated to do business with any particular private entity, and if people choose to make their decisions about who they will do business with based on politics, they are within their rights. If I refuse to patronise LDS-controlled businesses because of my opposition to their political actions, how does that silence the LDS or prevent them from speaking politically? It does not. It just reminds them that free speech is not a free ride.

Indeed. A boycott is a perfectly legitimate political action. No person is obligated to do business with any particular private entity, and if people choose to make their decisions about who they will do business with based on politics, they are within their rights. If I refuse to patronise LDS-controlled businesses because of my opposition to their political actions, how does that silence the LDS or prevent them from speaking politically? It does not. It just reminds them that free speech is not a free ride.
Unfortunately, many boycotts can potentially cause harm to innocent parties, people such as employees, customers, and suppliers of those companies. Also, LDS donated $114 Million last year to those less fortunate than ourselves.

I believe that a boycott is not the way to promote your goals. Attacking the churches is not the way to go.

Another thing that I find perplexing is that all of this built up resentment seems to be focused against the LDS. I don't see or read anything about the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) in these threads, even though they too published pro Prop 8 ads.

Unfortunately, many boycotts can potentially cause harm to innocent parties, people such as employees, customers, and suppliers of those companies. Also, LDS donated $114 Million last year to those less fortunate than ourselves.
I am no more obligated to provide a living for a company's employees than for its owners.

Or would you suggest that, even absent a political issue, I should be buying at least one of every garment manufactured by every clothing company that sells goods in my country, in order to avoid taking money out of the pockets of workers? Maybe you think I should own one of every computer manufactured by every tech company? Perhaps, when I go on vacation, I should try to stay at least one night in every single hotel in a city?

Choosing who to do business with is MY concern, and my reasons for making such a decision are MINE. The only differences between a boycott and other kinds of selective consumer decisions are that the company being boycotted is usually informed of why you are withholding business from them and that, if the policy with which you have a problem is changed, the boycott will end.

I believe that a boycott is not the way to promote your goals. Attacking the churches is not the way to go.
Your opinion is noted.

Another thing that I find perplexing is that all of this built up resentment seems to be focused against the LDS. I don't see or read anything about the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) in these threads, even though they too published pro Prop 8 ads.
The only reason you find this perplexing is because you do not read the threads you post in, do not pay attention to what other people say, and cannot keep track of an issue over time. If you did do those things, you would know already that the reasons the LDS is being focused on more than other groups are:

A) The LDS is a church, and there are rules limiting church involvement in politics that do not apply to groups like the Knights of Columbus or local businesses, etc. It is believed the LDS broke the rules about churches and politics and for that reason, it deserves an investigation that the Knights of Columbus do not.

B) The Knights of Columbus did not raise millions of dollars and pump thousands of hours of volunteer work into not just supporting but pushing through Prop 8. The LDS had more effect, therefore it gets more attention.

C) The Knights of Columbus did not, as far as I know, reach across state lines to funnel millions of dollars and thousands of hours into the Prop 8 campaign. They did not turn California's state referendum into a national issue. They did not blur the boundaries of their much vaunted "states' rights," in effect, reaching in from Utah and other places in order to write bigotry into California's law. Because of that, as well as the other two items, the LDS's action is worse and has greater implications for other states and for national politics than the Knights of Columbus's actions.

Now, remind me, spanning the several threads that have dealt with this issue, how many times has this been explained, to you, to others, and in general? I'm guesstimating at least 30 times. How many more times would you like it explained?

Anyone else note the irony of a bunch of forcibly reformed polygamists bitching about traditional marriage? Yes, at least I hope everyone does.

Unfortunately, many boycotts can potentially cause harm to innocent parties, people such as employees, customers, and suppliers of those companies. Also, LDS donated $114 Million last year to those less fortunate than ourselves.

I believe that a boycott is not the way to promote your goals. Attacking the churches is not the way to go.

Another thing that I find perplexing is that all of this built up resentment seems to be focused against the LDS. I don't see or read anything about the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) in these threads, even though they too published pro Prop 8 ads.

But the purpose of the boycotts is to reduce the profits of the LDS businesses, as those profits go in part towards political financing. If people are faced with wage-cuts because of it, then that is the fault of both deregulating by the government, the people stupid enough to vote for a government which deregulates. Moreover, if someone gets fired because of the loss of profits, they can find another job. Simple. But if a large group of people lose rights and equality because of those profits being so high, then there is a problem.

But the purpose of the boycotts is to reduce the profits of the LDS businesses, as those profits go in part towards political financing. If people are faced with wage-cuts because of it, then that is the fault of both deregulating by the government, the people stupid enough to vote for a government which deregulates. Moreover, if someone gets fired because of the loss of profits, they can find another job. Simple. But if a large group of people lose rights and equality because of those profits being so high, then there is a problem.

Besides, the business won't DISAPPEAR, it will be TAKEN ELSEWHERE. That means other businesses will get to keep or protect employees that might get fired otherwise, or hire new ones.

This is a start anyway. Also, please consider filing a complaint with the IRS--details at bottom of page.

Inquiry Set on Mormon Aid for California Marriage Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/politics/26marriage.html?ref=us)

California officials will investigate accusations that the Mormon Church neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions — including phone banks, a Web site and commercials — on behalf of a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.

Roman Porter, the executive director of the Fair Political Practices Commission, which oversees California campaign finance laws, signed off on the investigation after reviewing a sworn complaint filed on Nov. 13.

The complaint, filed by Fred Karger, founder of the group Californians Against Hate, asserted that the church’s reported contributions — about $5,000, according to state election filings — vastly underestimated its actual efforts in passing Proposition 8, which amended the state’s Constitution to recognize only male-female marriage.

Broadly speaking, California state law requires disclosure of any money spent or services provided to influence the outcome of an election.

Mr. Porter said the announcement of the investigation was not “a determination on the validity of the claims or the culpability of the individuals,” but that the claims had been reviewed by a lawyer for the commission and its chief of enforcement and deemed worth pursuing.

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, issued a statement Tuesday saying it had received the complaint and would cooperate with the investigation. Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the leading group behind Proposition 8, said the accusations were baseless and made by a “rogue group.”

Responding to a plea from Mormon Church leaders to “become involved in this important cause,” members contributed millions of dollars and volunteered for countless hours on behalf of Proposition 8. The ballot measure passed with 52 percent of the vote, leading to protests and boycotts of supporters of the proposition, including some Mormon temples and businesses.

Mr. Karger’s complaint paints a sweeping picture of the involvement by the church leadership, and raises questions about who paid for out-of-state phone banks and grass-roots rallies in California before the Nov. 4 vote.

“Who paid for the buses, travel costs, meals and other expenses of all the Mormon participants?” the complaint reads. “No contributions were reported.”

The complaint also touches on a five-state simulcast from church leaders to Mormon congregations, as well as a Web site, preservingmarriage.org, that featured a series of videos advocating passage of the ballot measure and is labeled “an official Web site” of the Mormon Church.

Ms. Farah said the church had no comment on the particular accusations in the complaint.

If found in violation of election laws, the church could face fines of up to $5,000 per violation, Mr. Porter said. Bigger fines could also be levied by a civil court.

Mr. Karger said he respected the right of Mormons to vote in line with their religious beliefs, but added “if they’re going to play politics, then they need to play by the rules.”

The California Supreme Court agreed last week to review the constitutionality of the measure, with a ruling expected next year.

In addition to the above, at issue are other non-monetary contributions, including telephone bank operations allegedly organized by the LDS Church in Rexburg, Idaho, where Brigham Young University has a campus, and in Utah. link (http://www.mercurynews.com/localnewsheadlines/ci_11071952)

On a related note: How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint Against The Church of Latter-day Saints (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/)

It should be interesting to see how this plays out. Comments, outraged denunciations, etc?

I wouldn't waste my time on filling out the form. First, "tax exempt status" has only been taken away from 2 churches in the history of the IRS, and for reasons far worse than that in this story. Second, there's absolutely no difference between the entitlement the LDS enjoy as a church and the tax free status given to every non-profit organization in this country. Even if their status was changed by the IRS the church would simply convert to a non profit organization which they technically already are. It means absolutely nothing to them..

Besides, the business won't DISAPPEAR, it will be TAKEN ELSEWHERE. That means other businesses will get to keep or protect employees that might get fired otherwise, or hire new ones.

Exactly. One business suffers, and the others gain. If people stop buying computers from one company, the other companies see an increase in computer sales. As one company loses profits and fires employees, rivaling companies therefore gain profits and can afford to expand and hire employees.

Unfortunately, many boycotts can potentially cause harm to innocent parties, people such as employees, customers, and suppliers of those companies. Also, LDS donated $114 Million last year to those less fortunate than ourselves.

I believe that a boycott is not the way to promote your goals. Attacking the churches is not the way to go.

Another thing that I find perplexing is that all of this built up resentment seems to be focused against the LDS. I don't see or read anything about the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) in these threads, even though they too published pro Prop 8 ads.

LDS was much more prominent in the support for it...

I believe that a boycott is not the way to promote your goals. Attacking the churches is not the way to go.

Tell that to the Civil Rights movement.

First, you are welcome for my answering your many questions -- even the ones that were essentially irrelevant and you're now ignoring.

Second, do I have any slam-dunk evidence that the LDS Church violated either state campaign finance laws or their tax-exempt status? No. And I never claimed otherwise. I am calling for an investigation into these allegations. I'm quite open to the possibility that nothing will come of the investigations.

Third, I quess we just disagree on whether there is some danger of backlash so great that cheating by the LDS Church shouldn't even be investigated. Although there were some Mormons that prominently opposed Prop. 8, the majority of the LDS Church is already pretty fucking entrenched on the issue. I simply do not believe that there is this great likelihood they could be persuaded to support same-sex marriage, but we are squandering that chance by seeking to investigate campaign finance and tax exempt status laws.

Finally, these are neither "obscure provisions" nor am I saying they should not be applied to other entities like the Catholic Church. These are basic rules applying to tax-exempt status and state campaign finances. And it seems rather hypocritical of you to say "why not persecute the Catholic Church" at the same time you are saying we shouldn't even investigate substantive charges agains the LDS Church. If you have reason to believe another entity broke these (or similar laws) in supporting Prop. 8, then let's hear about it!!

Okay, you are right on one point: my apologies for not properly thanking you for taking the time to research the questions that I had.

But that being said, you seem to be seriously misunderstanding what my posts are about. I'm not trying to be argumentative, since I'm operating in a position of ignorance. I DON'T KNOW what the relevant legal facts of the matter are in this case, so of course I'm going to bring up considerations that are not on point. Rather, I'm trying to get someone, anyone to elaborate exactly what the legal argument for pressing this matter to its final conclusion of removing tax-exempt status from the LDS church is. Hence the procedural and descriptive cant to my questions. I ask "What is this thing in itself" because no one besides you seems to be taking this rather necessary step of actually seeing whether the law applies to the situation. It seems to be assumed in most of the posts that the Mormon Church did something morally evil, therefore we should punish by revoking non-profit status without of course taking the necessary steps to elaborate whether this moral evil is in fact illegal, whether it's the kind of illegal we think we should punish, whether revoking tax-exempt status is the proper means to do it, and whether and what kind of negative externalities fall out of it. To be quite frank, most of the thread has to my eyes been an exercise in underpants gnome logic, where we get a "Step One: Identify the Mormon Church as our enemy. Step Two: ??. Step Three: Punish the Mormon Church through legal sanctions" kind of thinking that serves neither the gay community nor liberalism nor our legal system very well.

It is in the spirit of the first point, whether it is in fact illegal, that I directed the first post. You answered that beyond satisfaction, and again, I thank you. The questions still remain, however, whether this action is the kind of action we should punish with the weight of law, whether revocation of tax-exempt status is the proper punishment, and whether there are negative externalities that should be weighed. In this, my stance as of yet isn't necessarily that we shouldn't, but rather that he who asserts must prove, and you and those advocating for revocation haven't proven any of these satisfactorily. I'm playing devil's advocate rather than opponent.

In that vein, let me point out that you've made a category mistake with respect to my prior post: my concern didn't deal with the LDS heirarchy so much as it does individual LDS members, and the two are, even in the LDS church, highly distinguishable. To elaborate, yes, the LDS officials that currently exist are adamantly opposed to gay marriage, and further that I am fully in agreement that this is a intellectual and a moral mistake on their part. I'll go even further in saying that I think that their theological positions require a misreading of the text of the Old and New Testament to oppose gay marriage, a strong statement indeed. But that being said, there is a way to win this fight even within the LDS church, and it involves using the civil law to make gay marriage legal, and eventually bringing the LDS through experience with openly gay families, something that does not exist right now in Idaho or Utah and exists only tenuously in places like suburban or rural Nevada, the nexis of the LDS community, to the same (relatively) enlightened position of knowledge that we share. But that process takes time, and it also requires that the LDS community not be put under seige. Threatening them with revocation does exactly this.

It is in this light that I discussed the Catholic Church, not because I think the Catholic Church did or did not go as far in actions that by your thinking should result in revocation, but simply because seige-mentality requires a perception of unfairness in how the law is applied, and to the average LDS member, who isn't going to know the particulars, they're going to look at the historical record and see dioceses of the Catholic Church doing a lot to help the cause, a lot of wards of the LDS church doing the same, resulting in punishment of the LDS church and no punishment of the Catholic Church. The consequence will be retrenchment not just among the LDS leadership, which is old and conservative and will die out to be replaced with younger and more liberal members, but among those very same younger and more liberal members. To my eyes, enforcing a law without the support of an important cultural leadership in an area is difficult but it can be done. Enforcing a law without the support of the entire community for a despised minority is nearly impossible without full commitment over a generational-span of years and will result in devastating regional problems down the road; just look at what the largely North vs. South culture wars have done to this country in the last 40 years.

So to be clear, I am not necessarily against using the law in the manner that you suggest, but I am deeply concerned that a lot of the long-term strategic thinking on this issue simply hasn't been done. It seems that a lot of people are reacting emotionally when they should treat this as just one battle lost, not critical, in a longer campaign. This is the Battle of the Wilderness rather than Gettysburg or Antietam or Vicksburg. The trouble with a defeat like this isn't that it points towards total defeat; like the Union in the Civil War, time alone means that we're going to win. Rather, it shakes up how we win, and we go for the emotionally-satisfying means of victory rather than the most effective. And in this, the desire to use the law to punish the LDS church seems to me to be emotionally-driven rather than by thinking through that this is the best application to which the law can be put. It will certainly be seen as such by the average member of the LDS church. And as seen in North-South relations since then, that has consequences.

I am no more obligated to provide a living for a company's employees than for its owners.
Of course you are not, but I believe that my point evades you? If you publicly promote a boycott of a company for whatever reason, you may "potentially cause harm to innocent parties" as a result of your actions. Also, you may "potentially cause harm" to the very people you are trying to help, especially if they receive income or assistance, directly or indirectly from LDS.

Or would you suggest that, even absent a political issue, I should be buying at least one of every garment manufactured by every clothing company that sells goods in my country, in order to avoid taking money out of the pockets of workers? Maybe you think I should own one of every computer manufactured by every tech company? Perhaps, when I go on vacation, I should try to stay at least one night in every single hotel in a city?
I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Your deviation does not support your argument.

Choosing who to do business with is MY concern, and my reasons for making such a decision are MINE.
Obviously.

The only differences between a boycott and other kinds of selective consumer decisions are that the company being boycotted is usually informed of why you are withholding business from them and that, if the policy with which you have a problem is changed, the boycott will end.
I completely understand the concept of boycotts, and that is why in this instance, I am suggesting that "a boycott is not the way to promote your goals".

Your opinion is noted.
At least I got my foot inside the door. :D

The only reason you find this perplexing is because you do not read the threads you post in, do not pay attention to what other people say, and cannot keep track of an issue over time.
All false assumptions on your part, and in fact, at least in this thread, those accusations actually apply to you. See point A below.

If you did do those things, you would know already that the reasons the LDS is being focused on more than other groups are:

A) The LDS is a church, and there are rules limiting church involvement in politics that do not apply to groups like the Knights of Columbus or local businesses, etc. It is believed the LDS broke the rules about churches and politics and for that reason, it deserves an investigation that the Knights of Columbus do not.
So your suggestion of boycotting LDS is based solely on speculation, which according to this post appears to be false (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14254330&postcount=210), and is totally discriminatory in nature.

Who is not reading this thread/paying attention to what others have posted?

B) The Knights of Columbus did not raise millions of dollars and pump thousands of hours of volunteer work into not just supporting but pushing through Prop 8.
How do you know what they did or didn't do behind the scenes. They certainly ran ads....possibly in the $ millions?

The LDS had more effect, therefore it gets more attention.
Still discriminatory in nature?

C) The Knights of Columbus did not, as far as I know, reach across state lines to funnel millions of dollars and thousands of hours into the Prop 8 campaign. They did not turn California's state referendum into a national issue. They did not blur the boundaries of their much vaunted "states' rights," in effect, reaching in from Utah and other places in order to write bigotry into California's law. Because of that, as well as the other two items, the LDS's action is worse and has greater implications for other states and for national politics than the Knights of Columbus's actions.
"As far as I know" = zero points. Freedom of speech is dependent upon State boundaries?

Now, remind me, spanning the several threads that have dealt with this issue, how many times has this been explained, to you, to others, and in general? I'm guesstimating at least 30 times. How many more times would you like it explained?
Debate without the personal attack is much more preferable, especially if the criticism is unjustified, and unwarranted?