California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The first amendment most certainly does apply. It is incorporated against the states through the 14th.

though I hate to use wikipedia it appears you are probably are right:

Right to petition for redress of grievances

It appears that no one case incorporates this right individually. However, dicta in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) suggests that this right is incorporated along with all the other First Amendment guarantees.

so I stand corrected,

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are going after the Mormans because it is a much easier target then going after the minority population which is extremely homophobic.


Of course, go after the white people that ran ads, instead of the people who actually went in the booth and cast the votes. Silly libs.

Are you trying the 'hurr hurr it's the fault of black people' line again?

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention to... well... literally every single election ever, but did you ever notice that when people oppose the policies of the Democrats, they attack say... Obama as opposed to attacking every single one of the people that voted for him?

Once you figure out the mystery to why that is, you will understand why those 'silly libs' are attacking the Mormon church.

Oh i've already figured it out. They cant go after blacks and catholic Mexicans, because those are their base. They go after people out of state who ran TV ads.

Swing and a miss!

Social liberals are attacking the Mormon church, not the Democratic party. Care to hazard another guess?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yet another good reason why ALL churches should lose the "tax exempt" status that most enjoy.

Permitting people to take tax deductions for contributions to churches is akin to governmental support of those churches...and shifting the tax burden for those untaxed dollars to everyone else.

I can think of a lot of other causes I'd rather support with my tax dollars than the churces...

There is a justifiable reason not to tax churches I think. If you start taxing churches, then you're going to get the government going through the books, the business, the etc. of a lot of religious groups, and you're going to create the potential for a lot of problems. In that respect sometimes I think it's better to just stay out of the mess all together.

Yep. Separation of church and state works both ways.

I don't see this as a "Separation of Church and State" issue...I see it as government support of religious organizations by allowing people to tax tax deductions for (at least part) the monies they donate to these organizations.

SHOULD the churches books be audited by the IRS? Perhaps...it might be an interesting read.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: brandonbull
So the vote didn't go their way and now they are having the government harass people?

You really believe that the electorate can vote to take away another group of peoples rights?

This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

You are probably some snot nosed little kid with nothing more to do that make stopid ignorant statements!!

What "rights" were taken away? In the entire history of California no gays were allowed to marry, except for a few months period in 2008 when activist judges changed law.

Prop 8 is the exact same proposition as one that passed in California in 2000 that nobody protested back then. And something that also passed by vote in all 30 other states that had some form of marriage definition on the ballot.

Get a sense of reality before you start "flaming" others.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are going after the Mormans because it is a much easier target then going after the minority population which is extremely homophobic.


Of course, go after the white people that ran ads, instead of the people who actually went in the booth and cast the votes. Silly libs.

More like silly ranting poster.

Punishing people for voting would be contrary to the most basic premises of liberalism.

The modern Mormon church is largely Hispanic BTW, particularly in California, which is also the same group that voting overwhelmingly for Prop 8. I think the church has gotten an unfair rap over all this (representing less than 2% of the state's population), but the issue here in this thread is did the church act improperly in supporting the ballot measure?

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
They are going after the Mormons because it is a much easier target then going after the minority population which is extremely homophobic.


Of course, go after the white people that ran ads, instead of the people who actually went in the booth and cast the votes. Silly libs.

you can't realistically go after the actual people that voted, all they can do is try and educate the people who voted for prop 8 and hope they can see past their hate

the money trail on the other hand is much easier to follow and target, and there are laws governing this

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No gay marriage is not denying these rights. :roll:

Seriously, how dumb can this forum be?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yet another good reason why ALL churches should lose the "tax exempt" status that most enjoy.

Permitting people to take tax deductions for contributions to churches is akin to governmental support of those churches...and shifting the tax burden for those untaxed dollars to everyone else.

I can think of a lot of other causes I'd rather support with my tax dollars than the churces...

There is a justifiable reason not to tax churches I think. If you start taxing churches, then you're going to get the government going through the books, the business, the etc. of a lot of religious groups, and you're going to create the potential for a lot of problems. In that respect sometimes I think it's better to just stay out of the mess all together.

Yep. Separation of church and state works both ways.

I don't see this as a "Separation of Church and State" issue...I see it as government support of religious organizations by allowing people to tax tax deductions for (at least part) the monies they donate to these organizations.

SHOULD the churches books be audited by the IRS? Perhaps...it might be an interesting read.

You're confused. Govt support would be if tax dollars were used to fund religious organizations. Which was BTW exactly the situation in colonial America that prompted Jefferson and the founding fathers to create the separation of church and state in the 1st amendment.
Failure to tax does not constitute govt support in and of itself provided that a religious organization sticks to the businesses of religion and religious charity ONLY. Once a church starts getting involved in for-profit business or political influence however, then it has crossed the line.

Once again, separation of church and state works both ways. Read the 1st amendment again.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No gay marriage is not denying these rights. :roll:

Seriously, how dumb can this forum be?

considering your argument has been presented and debunked in many many anti-gay marriage threads in the past I'd say the people in this forum represent an intelligence level that you have yet to acheive..Although I'm basing this opinion strictly on the old and debunked argument you pose in this thread.

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No gay marriage is not denying these rights. :roll:

Seriously, how dumb can this forum be?

the vagueness of the Constitution is a blessing and a curse, it allows it to be flexible, but also allows people to read whatever they want out of it.

I am 100% ok with gay marriage because it affects me in no way that I can think of, but I laugh everytime someone makes the you aren't a "real" american statement, its just pure emotional stupidity at best.

 

[badnewcastle]

Personally, I don't care if gays marry or not but the issue was put to voters before and the outcome was the same.

My issue with the entire thing is that this has more to do with the court essentially making the first vote invalid and it's another attempt to legislate from the bench.

I also do not believe that this is not a civil rights issue and thus it is not uncostitutional for marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

We already have civil unions in CA which afford gays the same benefits. With this alternative they get the same rights and I believe it takes seperation of church and state off the table.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No gay marriage is not denying these rights. :roll:

Seriously, how dumb can this forum be?

Ignoring McOwen's usual ignorant trolling that you responded to, the Declaration of Independence is not the law in this country, nor would Jefferson have ever agreed that those 3 rights were the only unalienable rights.
Read it again, it says "... that among these are... " implying that there are more unalienable rights than just life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Beyond that though, this is all open to debate among the people. Which is exactly what that paragraph in the DoI goes on to say. Government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," meaning that people have unalienable rights, but exactly what those are depends -- within reason and the rule of law -- upon the democratic decisions of the people themselves. So IOW, this isn't going away. Which is why I think govt should get itself out of the business of marriage entirely.

 

[dlx22]

maybe this will help further the discussion, ripped from the CA state constitution:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Personally, I don't care if gays marry or not but the issue was put to voters before and the outcome was the same.

My issue with the entire thing is that this has more to do with the court essentially making the first vote invalid and it's another attempt to legislate from the bench.

I also do not believe that this is not a civil rights issue and thus it is not uncostitutional for marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

We already have civil unions in CA which afford gays the same benefits. With this alternative they get the same rights and I believe it takes seperation of church and state off the table.

This is very reasonable. It would IMO be just as wrong to force (for example) the Mormon church to marry gays against its will as it would be to deny gay couples the legal benefits of marriage against their will.

The problem surrounding this issue is that IMO there are few reasonable people on both sides, but instead we have 2 sides with unreasonable black and white views. On one side, you have people saying it's bigotry if certain churches don't want to marry gays and that govt should force them to perform and/or recognize such marriages. That's not right or reasonable. However, OTOH you have people saying that gay couples should be denied any of the legal benefits involved with govt performing and recognizing marriages. And that's not right or reasonable.
The simple solution is to let churches marry or not marry whoever they want, while having govt recognize any and all civil unions between any and all consenting adult couples. And what exactly is so wrong about that?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Personally, I don't care if gays marry or not but the issue was put to voters before and the outcome was the same.

My issue with the entire thing is that this has more to do with the court essentially making the first vote invalid and it's another attempt to legislate from the bench.

I also do not believe that this is not a civil rights issue and thus it is not uncostitutional for marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

We already have civil unions in CA which afford gays the same benefits. With this alternative they get the same rights and I believe it takes seperation of church and state off the table.

This is very reasonable. It would IMO be just as wrong to force (for example) the Mormon church to marry gays against its will as it would be to deny gay couple the legal benefits of marriage against their will.

The problem surrounding this issue is that IMO there are few reasonable people on both sides, but instead have 2 sides with unreasonable black and white views. On one side, you have people saying it's bigotry if certain churches don't want to marry gays and that govt should force them to perform and/or recognize such marriages. That's not right or reasonable. However, OTOH you have people saying that gay couples should be denied any of the legal benefits involved with govt performing and recognizing marriages. And that's not right or reasonable.
The simple solution is to let churches marry or not marry whoever they want, while having govt recognize any and all civil unions between any and all consenting adult couples. And what exactly is so wrong about that?

This.

 

[palehorse]

OK, this star-studded video says it all...
http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...illy-and-rashida-jones

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Personally, I don't care if gays marry or not but the issue was put to voters before and the outcome was the same.

My issue with the entire thing is that this has more to do with the court essentially making the first vote invalid and it's another attempt to legislate from the bench.

I also do not believe that this is not a civil rights issue and thus it is not uncostitutional for marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

We already have civil unions in CA which afford gays the same benefits. With this alternative they get the same rights and I believe it takes seperation of church and state off the table.

This is very reasonable. It would IMO be just as wrong to force (for example) the Mormon church to marry gays against its will as it would be to deny gay couple the legal benefits of marriage against their will.

The problem surrounding this issue is that IMO there are few reasonable people on both sides, but instead have 2 sides with unreasonable black and white views. On one side, you have people saying it's bigotry if certain churches don't want to marry gays and that govt should force them to perform and/or recognize such marriages. That's not right or reasonable. However, OTOH you have people saying that gay couples should be denied any of the legal benefits involved with govt performing and recognizing marriages. And that's not right or reasonable.
The simple solution is to let churches marry or not marry whoever they want, while having govt recognize any and all civil unions between any and all consenting adult couples. And what exactly is so wrong about that?

This.

x2.

To add to this, no disrespect to anyone on either side of the issue, but we have FAR more important things to worry about in our country today.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Personally, I don't care if gays marry or not but the issue was put to voters before and the outcome was the same.

My issue with the entire thing is that this has more to do with the court essentially making the first vote invalid and it's another attempt to legislate from the bench.

I also do not believe that this is not a civil rights issue and thus it is not uncostitutional for marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

We already have civil unions in CA which afford gays the same benefits. With this alternative they get the same rights and I believe it takes seperation of church and state off the table.

This is very reasonable. It would IMO be just as wrong to force (for example) the Mormon church to marry gays against its will as it would be to deny gay couples the legal benefits of marriage against their will.

The problem surrounding this issue is that IMO there are few reasonable people on both sides, but instead we have 2 sides with unreasonable black and white views. On one side, you have people saying it's bigotry if certain churches don't want to marry gays and that govt should force them to perform and/or recognize such marriages. That's not right or reasonable. However, OTOH you have people saying that gay couples should be denied any of the legal benefits involved with govt performing and recognizing marriages. And that's not right or reasonable.
The simple solution is to let churches marry or not marry whoever they want, while having govt recognize any and all civil unions between any and all consenting adult couples. And what exactly is so wrong about that?

Most supporters of same-sex marriage want to force religions to perform same-sex marriages? That's the first I've heard of this. The ACLU, which is of course against Prop 8, said it would be the first to defend a church if they were forced to perform same-sex marriages.

EDIT:

State recognition of same-sex marriage in no way requires a church or religious institution to recognize or even perform such ceremonies. Legalizing same-sex marriage in California never would never require the LDS church to perform same-sex marriages in its temples against its religious principals - just as Catholic priests never have been required to marry persons who are divorced and Orthodox rabbis have never been compelled to perform interfaith marriages. The ACLU would be the first to defend a religious institution from being forced by the government to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of its religious tenets.

Text

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
Most supporters of same-sex marriage want to force religions to perform same-sex marriages? That's the first I've heard of this. The ACLU, which is of course against Prop 8, said it would be the first to defend a church if they were forced to perform same-sex marriages.

EDIT:

State recognition of same-sex marriage in no way requires a church or religious institution to recognize or even perform such ceremonies. Legalizing same-sex marriage in California never would never require the LDS church to perform same-sex marriages in its temples against its religious principals - just as Catholic priests never have been required to marry persons who are divorced and Orthodox rabbis have never been compelled to perform interfaith marriages. The ACLU would be the first to defend a religious institution from being forced by the government to perform a marriage ceremony in violation of its religious tenets.

Text

I would also be surprised to learn that a lot of these supporters want to force the religious institutions to perform the marriages. That is especially true about the supporters that are actually gay. The vast majority of gay people I know would not have any interest in having their marriage ceremony performed at a church or most other religious institutions. They don't want to get married in a place or by a person that doesn't want to have anything to do with them any more than heterosexuals do. Why would anyone want that on their wedding day? Seems rather silly when you can just do it somewhere by someone that likes you.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...6.reDrjbxyZIBJjGk7Xs8F

SAN FRANCISCO ? California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.

Now wouldnt that be something if the Mormon Church did misrepresent it`s role in the campaign to ban.....we will see what transapires!!

Oooh, an investigation! That'll teach 'em! It could have been worse - California might have unleashed a blue-ribbon commission on the LDS church.

Oh, it will be worse. Anybody who thinks gay bashers will wind up different than the racists in the 60's hasn't been paying much attention to history. Future conversations in high school history class about civil liberties will put the anti-gay activists like the LDS church in the same basic category as the people shooting marching black folks with fire hoses decades ago. If history has taught us nothing else, it's that people fighting against civil rights don't end up looking too good in the long run. An investigation, if it turns up anything, will teach them not to break the law. History will teach than that legislative gay bashing is no better than the more physical type.

And just try to guess how the anti-gay apologists will look.

Uh, no.

No matter how much you may like to believe it, you can't equate the gay movement with the civil rights movement.

Discrimination against skin color is ignorant for the simple reason that skin color has no bearing on content of character. Homosexuality is seen by it's enemies as immoral behavior. There's nothing bigoted, hateful, or ignorant about opposing behavior you believe to be immoral.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

:thumbsup:

The rights of people are granted by nature, not the government. The government does not grant any rights, it merely protects those rights which people already have.

Roe Versus Wade is one massive mole on the face of that assertion.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

By labeling somebody a "bigot" and "hater" based on one statement, what does that make you?

We've established in a previous thread that there's nothing wrong with being bigoted against bigotry as long as you are right and you are sure they are wrong.

:disgust:

 

[aka1nas]

Is it illegal for out-of-state entities to provide political funding in a state-level election? As a Californian, it kind of bothers me to have an outside organization dumping that much money to influence our local elections (I would have felt the same way if the vote had gone the other way to due to an outside pro-gay organization pumping campaign money in).

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...6.reDrjbxyZIBJjGk7Xs8F

SAN FRANCISCO ? California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.

Now wouldnt that be something if the Mormon Church did misrepresent it`s role in the campaign to ban.....we will see what transapires!!

Oooh, an investigation! That'll teach 'em! It could have been worse - California might have unleashed a blue-ribbon commission on the LDS church.

Oh, it will be worse. Anybody who thinks gay bashers will wind up different than the racists in the 60's hasn't been paying much attention to history. Future conversations in high school history class about civil liberties will put the anti-gay activists like the LDS church in the same basic category as the people shooting marching black folks with fire hoses decades ago. If history has taught us nothing else, it's that people fighting against civil rights don't end up looking too good in the long run. An investigation, if it turns up anything, will teach them not to break the law. History will teach than that legislative gay bashing is no better than the more physical type.

And just try to guess how the anti-gay apologists will look.

Uh, no.

No matter how much you may like to believe it, you can't equate the gay movement with the civil rights movement.

Discrimination against skin color is ignorant for the simple reason that skin color has no bearing on content of character. Homosexuality is seen <believed> by it's enemies as immoral behavior. There's nothing bigoted, hateful, or ignorant about opposing behavior you believe to be immoral.

We've established in previous threads that according to you the bible says it is so, and you believe in the bible, therefore you are right and everyone is wrong.

Therefore what you "believe" should be legislated against the beliefs of others.

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle
Personally, I don't care if gays marry or not but the issue was put to voters before and the outcome was the same.

My issue with the entire thing is that this has more to do with the court essentially making the first vote invalid and it's another attempt to legislate from the bench.

I also do not believe that this is not a civil rights issue and thus it is not uncostitutional for marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

We already have civil unions in CA which afford gays the same benefits. With this alternative they get the same rights and I believe it takes separation of church and state off the table.

I also do believe that this is not a civil rights issue - edited for clarity. I had too many "not's" in there.