Tidal Wave Building Against Mormon Church After Prop 8 Passes

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...

Michigan would be more than happy to take Hollywood in.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Who says Mormons have to stick to Utah? They have member in all state. It's fair for them to play with politics as long as they pay taxes like everyone else.

It's also fair for Californians to attack the Mormon church.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
Originally posted by: sportage
PS. There are a lot of Gay owned businesses in Calif.
Owners should place a sign in the window of their business.
"If you voted for prop 8, DO NOT ENTER"
"Your business is not welcome here!!!"


You would essentially be keeping the minority population out of your business then.


Oh the ironing....
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
The Mormon Church's involvement in pimping Prop. 8 was hypocritical bigotry. I was similarly disappointed in the polls that showed many of Obama's supporters in the African American community supported it.

I think it's appropriate to consider revoking the tax exempt status of any religious insititution that actively and formally engaged in promoting the proposition, but the details of each case would be appropriately determined through the legal process.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...

Or now that your ugly version of reality has finally been booted off the island, you could move to another planet, one where it still exists, which would also help to clean up the environment on this one. :cool:

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

If marriage is a religious term, then the government has no more business recognizing it than it does baptism. The government should see all "marriages" as some kind of civil unions and refer to them as such. If it's not a religious term, then the religious shouldn't give a rat's ass.

Marriage has been embedded in our civil laws since the nation was founded, exactly as you describe. Civil law simply recognizes marriages performed by religious institutions as valid under civil law, more or less as a matter of courtesy or convenience.

Religious institutions can decline to recognize civil marriages for their own purposes, but they have no right or ability to invalidate them in the eyes of civil law.

Originally posted by: Ozoned

I mean it isn't like issues of racism, where the differences are clearly black and white.

It's EXACTLY like racism. Gays are denied the same rights granted to law abiding straight couples.

You are an anti-bigot bigot. Kind of like reverse racism.

You have learned your lessons well.

BULLSHIT! Bigotry is unwarranted, unfounded bias or discrimination against a group. Opposing bigotry is grounded in reason.
 

Alienwho

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2001
6,766
0
76
No Sundance and no skiing in Utah? That'll show the Mormons! err...no, ...it will show those Californians who have a direct investment in businesses and properties in the most liberal cities in Utah. Not to mention free up the slopes from all the out of state douchebags so we can have the mountain all to ourselves. LOL. Talk about stabbing yourself in the face. If you're looking at directly hurting the Mormons in Utah (who didn't vote on this bill by the way), you're going to have to give up some development on your favorite software and technologies, because that's what they do. All the liberal fun stuff like movie festivals and ski resorts are run primarily by Californians anyway.

You're dealing with a people who have been on the receiving end of the hate stick for nearly 200 years. Being driven out of their homes, watching their fathers die in the streets, building city after city. This is a highly intelligent and organized group of people, and it is in their blood to expect to be hated and persecuted and to keep going strong. There is virtually nothing you can do that will phase them. Threatening to give up skiing and sundance definitely will not hurt the Mormon leadership in any way, and if anything it will please them. The tourism industry is not where the Mormons are.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ocguy31

If you have any knowledge of the CA court system, it is just going to get overturned anyway by a lefty judge.

I love lefty judges. They are the honest ones, the ones who look at the larger picture and defend principles good for society.

You do understand that this decision was led by *Republicans* -if you are calling them lefty meaning how they were legally correct and courageous, then fine.

This issue I happen to agree with the lefty judge. But normally, I am not for a judge striking down a vote of the people

Are you then opposed to the concept of constitutional rights that override the law as passed by a simple majority, as a block against tyrray of the majority?

If a law is truly against a state/federal constitution, than it will get kicked back anyway. I don't worry too much about amdendments like "8", or something similar becoming actual law.

But I do love the ability for the "people" to pass law through the prop system. That is why we have medical MJ.

Too funny
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: ICRS
There is ONLY 4 ways to modify the constitution of California.

Neither way requires more than a 50% vote by the people. Even a convention only requires a 50% vote.

This is how they are saying it should have been done.

1st: Legislation by a 2/2 vote calls for a Convention.
or
1st: By gathering 8% of the signatures you can all for a vote on a Convention.

2nd: The people hold an election to approve a Convention by 50% vote.
3rd: The people hold an election to elect delegates to a Convention
4th: The delegates rewrite a new a Constitution (in this case include a ban on gay marriage). The new Constitution must be signed by at least 50% of the delegates
5th: The people must then vote and ratify the new Constitution of California by 50% vote.


In fact the way some say it should have been done would require 3 elections by the general public.

The constituion only allows amendments to make small changes. Changes which are broad in scope require a rewritting of the constitution it self. That is the argument they are making.

This is a small change.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: winnar111

This is a small change.

Typical post from you - lacking any support for your right-wing claim.

The matter will be decided by the courts.

But your post is a joke until you answer the points:

- Equal protection is a core principle the constitution
- The Supreme Court has already found as fact that gay marriage falls under protection

So, that leaves a clear argument for banning gay marriage being not a 'small change'.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.

In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.

I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.

Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...

Michigan would be more than happy to take Hollywood in.

California has a legislature that approved gay marriage (Arnold vetoed), and a public who has the highest approval of gay marriage of any vote I've seen, and a trend toward it.

No, Hollywood will remain in California and continue to inflame the rednecks.

Now that we have a Muslim president, things will change.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: winnar111

This is a small change.

Typical post from you - lacking any support for your right-wing claim.

The matter will be decided by the courts.

But your post is a joke until you answer the points:

- Equal protection is a core principle the constitution
- The Supreme Court has already found as fact that gay marriage falls under protection

So, that leaves a clear argument for banning gay marriage being not a 'small change'.

It's quite simple. The definition of a revision is "it must necessarily or inevitably appear from the face of the challenged provision that the measure will substantially alter the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution. " Otherwise, it's an amendment.

This ridiculous whinefest by a few attorneys doesn't even come close to that standard.

http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/statecon/cain.pdf

When, for instance, Proposition 140 imposed term limits on the state legislature and cut its budget by 40%, the state Supreme Court did not even seriously review the merits of the argument that this was a revision and not a mere amendment.

And there are many more examples.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.

In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.

I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.

Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.

Start working on it now while people are angry and motivated.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.

In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.

I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.

Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.

FUCK YEAH


WHEN WILL US CITIZENS BE PROTECED FROM RELIGION
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.

In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.

I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.

Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.

FUCK YEAH


WHEN WILL US CITIZENS BE PROTECED FROM RELIGION

When we vote in an atheist president then maybe we will be truly free from the bullshit. In the mean time, chances of that happening are probably zero. Maybe in the next 2-300 years or so who knows.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: ericlp

When we vote in an atheist president then maybe we will be truly free from the bullshit. In the mean time, chances of that happening are probably zero. Maybe in the next 2-300 years or so who knows.

It'll happen someday. Religion is a bust in europe, and shrinking here in the States.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.

In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.

I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.

Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.


Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Frankly, I'm growing tired of the culture wars being a one-way street.

In 2010, I plan to introduce a ballot initiative that immediately strips all churches of their property tax exemption, their state tax exemption and sets up a state-wide office to monitor churches for political activity and reports abuses to the IRS.

I'd like to see a separate initiative that bans out-of-state orgs, like the Mormon Church of Utah, from adding ballot initiatives or financially supporting ballot initiatives in California.

Churches that engage in political activism like Saddleback or the Mormons deserve to get hit where it hurts: in the wallet.

/signed
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.
 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: between
Originally posted by: Duwelon
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.

except they haven't stopped gay marriage, have they. at best, they have maybe delayed it by 4 years in California. And they only did that by the skin of their teeth and they had to spend a ton of money to do it.

Meanwhile, voters in Connecticut declined to support a ban on gay marriage, and gays will soon (within weeks) be able to marry there.

in actively opposing gay marriage, mormons just get themselves written into the history books as mean spirited assholes. :disgust:

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: between
Originally posted by: Duwelon
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.

except they haven't stopped gay marriage, have they. at best, they have maybe delayed it by 4 years in California. And they only did that by the skin of their teeth and they had to spend a ton of money to do it.

Meanwhile, voters in Connecticut declined to support a ban on gay marriage, and gays will soon (within weeks) be able to marry there.

in actively opposing gay marriage, mormons just get themselves written into the history books as mean spirited assholes. :disgust:

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.

What do "major religions" have to do with STATE LAW? And what about the religions that do allow gay marriage? What right do you have to tell them that they aren't actually marrying people? And more importantly, what do other peoples' marriages have to do with you and your religion?

I'm an atheist, and I'll have a state marriage if I get any kind, and according to your religion it won't be valid "in the eyes of God" or whoever you worship. Does that mean it shouldn't be called a marriage? Or would it qualify just because it will be heterosexual?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Duwelon

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.

What do "major religions" have to do with STATE LAW? And what about the religions that do allow gay marriage?

What right do you have to tell them that they aren't actually marrying people?

And more importantly, what do other peoples' marriages have to do with you and your religion?

You don't possibly expect the Constitution hater to answer do you?