I agree that Mormons did nothing illegal but I don't agree that this was a valid item to be voting on. What is the old saying --- words to the effect "democracy is just 2 foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner".
I do not know enough about the CA process to amend the state constitution so I cannot opine.
Mormons of ALL people should understand and appreciate this aspect of our government. Thankfully for them and all other minorities, we don't live in a strict democracy but a constitutional republic. I don't know how it will play out but whether or not prop 8 was valid has yet to be decided. It looks like that will happen pretty soon.
I am all for the opponents of prop 8 doing whatever they can legally for their cause, If the legalities go against them I hope they can peacefully accept it.
Jason, I want to save you from making a public fool of yourself. Nadine Hansen knows ALL about Church involvement, from the inside out. Look her up, whatever you think of her opposition to your Church, you'll see she's very well informed.
Ok
I concede she probable is more up on what was and was not done on Church property than I am. I do not live anywhere near CA. Never the less she seems to be ok with the backlash and that is nonsense.
With Prog 8 passed, what do you think California Gays will do next?
What they've always done: live together, participate in vigorous, relentless sexual promiscuity, cruise, patronize the bath houses, and revel in their liberation from the choking repression of traditional Judeo-Christian sexual norms and mores.
In fine, pretty much what they were doing in the sixties and seventies.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
The ACLU and NCLR challenges are not at all frivolous, in fact, they're pretty persuasive. In anything other than this super-heated political context they each would stand an excellent chance of invalidating 8.
Yes, absolutely. So long as one simply pretends that the Constitution does not actually say what it actually says, and that it does not say or imply things that it very clearly does not say or imply, you are probably correct.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
I am all for the opponents of prop 8 doing whatever they can legally for their cause, If the legalities go against them I hope they can peacefully accept it.
Again, I agree with you. As I've mentioned above, I would much prefer to prevail by patient argument and persuasion. Isn't that the classic rub for change movements? The hard work of formulating and presenting arguments at some point runs smack into a galvanizing event and then BOOM! ---things shift. The vote on prop 8 may turn out to be such an event. I was at one of the protests after the vote (peacefully demonstrating) and I'll tell you, those young people, you can't control 'em. They're impatient, they're angry, they're exuberant. They want things to happen yesterday! "To hell with this go slow business". And given that they (gay and straight) voted NO by a large majority, I'd say the future of Marriage Equality looks bright.
I agree that Mormons did nothing illegal but I don't agree that this was a valid item to be voting on. What is the old saying --- words to the effect "democracy is just 2 foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner".
How should it be decided then, in a constitutional republic, if not by voting or by legislative activity among accountable representatives (who are themselves accountable to the public through the franchise)?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
As long as Church buildings are not used to support or oppose a specific candidate, there is no legal problem.
Make no mistake, the cultural Left is about many things but one of its historically salient features is its reflexive retreat to censorship of ideas and speech it doesn't like at the slightest provocation. Intimidation, protest, threats of litigation, screaming ranting marchers, the Fairness Doctrine, campus speech codes, the politicization of language, its all of a piece ladies and gentlemen.
And all in the game, as the song goes.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
I agree that Mormons did nothing illegal but I don't agree that this was a valid item to be voting on. What is the old saying --- words to the effect "democracy is just 2 foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner".
How should it be decided then, in a constitutional republic, if not by voting or by legislative activity among accountable representatives (who are themselves accountable to the public through the franchise)?
Loren,
The CA legislature has TWICE voted to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Our Governor vetoed both times and lobbed the issue to our Supreme court. You know what they did with it.
Droopy wrote:As long as Church buildings are not used to support or oppose a specific candidate, there is no legal problem.
.
ACtually this is not correct. 501(c)(3) also forbids a tax exempt from attempting to inflluence legislation. However it says IF a SUBSTANTIAL part of what it does is to influence legislation it could not be tax exempt. The question then is whether the Church's involvement in Prop 9 was substantial as compared to the rest of what it does.
ACtually this is not correct. 501(c)(3) also forbids a tax exempt from attempting to inflluence legislation. However it says IF a SUBSTANTIAL part of what it does is to influence legislation it could not be tax exempt. The question then is whether the Church's involvement in Prop 9 was substantial as compared to the rest of what it does.
And on that score, the Church appears to be on pretty solid ground. As much money as the Church, through individual donors, shoveled at this proposition, in my opinion it was not "a SUBSTANTIAL part of what it does". If the Mormon Church were a really poor Church, they might have a problem, but since they're quite wealthy and engage in many other activities that are truly praiseworthy, they're in no danger.