So what do Ca gays do now?

[_Droopy]

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.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, your not happy with how deliberative democratic processes have dealt with this issue, and your next move would be to take the issue outside the reach of those processes, is that correct?

[_Droopy]

ACtually this is not correct. 501(c)(3) also forbids a tax exempt from attempting to influence legislation.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable ... 99,00.html

Is the Church a charitable organization? It engages in charity, but is it an organization in this legal sense? Most of what it does to influence legislation is intermittent and rises and falls over timescales of decades within the context of specific critical issues. Most of what it does, and what is claims to do, is to save souls, which rather falls outside Caesar's preview.

I see red flags everywhere here Jason, and so should you. The forces that support homosexual marriage have a long history of vigorously attacking the free speech rights and political participation rights of the religious using the tax code and of trying to bar religious people from expressing their views in the public square generally, leaving their own ideology the only game in town.

I would be very, very careful about aligning yourself with such forces.

[_moksha]

With Prop 8 passed, what do you think California Gays will do next?
The protesting outside the Mormon churches is not likely to help them much. So, what else might they do?

What say you?

I imagine they will continue pushing to have an investigation and a ruling regarding the Church's tax exempt status. I am worried that a bevy of lawyers have lulled the Church into a false sense of security over this one. Church-wide calls for donations, and issuing the charge for all faithful Mormons to do what they can to insure an election ballot passage, do seem like significant political involvement.

I also imagine they will be be mentioning our small flecks of history for some time to come in the electronic media and the internet, both domestically and abroad.

[_Droopy]

I imagine they will continue pushing to have an investigation and a ruling regarding the Church's tax exempt status. I am worried that a bevy of lawyers have lulled the Church into a false sense of security over this one. Church-wide calls for donations, and issuing the charge for all faithful Mormons to do what they can to insure an election ballot passage, do seem like significant political involvement.

So which is it left wingers? Is using church buildings to support or oppose specific candidates, using church buildings to support or oppose issues, or the church asking their members to support or oppose an issue without any building being involved the problem? It seems, as I suspected, that all they need to do is speak out; all they need do is publically dissent from leftist orthodoxy, and their tax exempt status is in danger. All they need do is make their plea in the Ensign, or during conference broadcast. The tax exemption restrictions for conservatives seems to become broader and broader and broader by the day. It seems to be spreading like English Ivy. Is a brief mention at sacrement meeting, just a couple of minutes, enough to bring the down the righteous wrath of the pc police upon the class enemy?

What Moksha, his "liberal' mask off, really clearly wants is for the state to impose a broad based moratorium on the free speech of Mormons and other Christians who disagree with him. He wants to silence dissent and restrict the ability of religious conservatives to participate in the political life of their nation.

Thank you Moksha, for exposing yet again the authentic face of Liberal Fascism.

[_Jason Bourne]

Is the Church a charitable organization? It engages in charity, but is it an organization in this legal sense? Most of what it does to influence legislation is intermittent and rises and falls over timescales of decades within the context of specific critical issues. Most of what it does, and what is claims to do, is to save souls, which rather falls outside Caesar's preview.

For purposes of being tax exempt under the US tax code yes it is a charitable and/or religious organization.

I see red flags everywhere here Jason, and so should you. The forces that support homosexual marriage have a long history of vigorously attacking the free speech rights and political participation rights of the religious using the tax code and of trying to bar religious people from expressing their views in the public square generally, leaving their own ideology the only game in town.

I would be very, very careful about aligning yourself with such forces.

You misunderstand me. I think the LDS Church was well within their rights in what they did and in no way did they do anything to jeopardize their tax exempt status.

[_moksha]

What Moksha, his "liberal' mask off, really clearly wants is for the state to impose a broad based moratorium on the free speech of Mormons and other Christians who disagree with him. He wants to silence dissent and restrict the ability of religious conservatives to participate in the political life of their nation.

Thank you Moksha, for exposing yet again the authentic face of Liberal Fascism.

Droopy, I would never try to silence you. Admittedly, I do have trouble with the idea of mixing God with Mammon. Think how often we are admonished to not be "of the world". I am also worrying about the Church losing its tax free status, by significant political action from the pulpit. I would never think twice about having a press conference in which the Church reiterated their policy toward Homosexuals. However, they went way beyond this and lobbied big time for the passage of Proposition 8.

Authentic face of Liberal Fascism? I don't actually think those words go together. Are you using a random phrase generator?

[_Droopy]

I am worried that a bevy of lawyers have lulled the Church into a false sense of security over this one. Church-wide calls for donations, and issuing the charge for all faithful Mormons to do what they can to insure an election ballot passage, do seem like significant political involvement.

This sounds like a desire to silence dissent Moksha, and unambiguously so.

As to the concept of liberal fascism:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?
GUID=CC77B7CE-79A2-460D-9E1B-9C2C4E5E76F6


http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=
M2M2ZWUyZGIzNDFhZjE2NzVlM2VjMDQxMjRkYzdmYzA=&p=1

[_Brackite]

Wow... so it turns out all the money the Mormons spent on campaigning for a 'yes' vote was not a waste. It really worked.

I can understand why gays are so pissed at the Mormons.

Well Yes, The Mormon may have spent a bit too much money on Proposition 8, However California is a very Blue State and a Liberal State.

Number of Votes that Senator Barack Obama got, within the State of California:

7,006,131.


Number of Votes that the No On Proposition 8 got, within the State of California:

5,457,416.


Senator Barack Obama got 1,548,715 More Votes, than the No On Proposition 8 got, within the State of California.

According to a couple of the left-wing Liberals here, Nearly all of the People who spported and voted for Barack Obama are very educated, basically very enlightened, and very well-informed.

Why didn't everybody and/or nearly everybody, Who Voted for Senator Barack Obama for President, within the State of California, Also Voted No On Proposition 8?

How can any of the few left-wing Liberals here, explain that one?

If everybody or even if nearly everybody Who Voted for Senator Barack Obama for President, within the State of California, Also Voted No On Proposition 8, Then Proposition 8 would Not have Passed and Won, within the State of California.

[_Ray A]

Why didn't everybody and/or nearly everybody, Who Voted for Senator Barack Obama for President, within the State of California, Also Voted No On Proposition 8?

Probably because they weren't fully aware of his views. This would not have been a major focus of his election speeches, and how many would have visited his website I'm not sure. I read in many places on the Internet people quoting Obama as being "against same-sex marriage", which is technically true, but you really had to go to his website to read the "fine print", which I linked on another thread.

[_The Dude]

California gays should work on convincing blacks that homosexuality is inborn, sort of like African American identity. Most whites and hispanics already agree with this view, corresponding with a larger proportion of "NoOn8" votes from them. But African Americans tend to think homosexuality is a choice, and they probably don't accept the comparison to their own civil rights struggle.

Once they win over the blacks to this way of seeing the issue, the blacks should tend to sympathize with gay rights issues. Without the strong support of African Americans, 70% of whom said "Yes on 8", the proposition wouldn't have passed this time.