Church, Politics & Prop 8

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Homosexual sex is not only sinful, it is a gross perversion of appropriate human sexual relations, and hence, no further modifications of it, such as marriage, can alter the fundamental salient spiritual reality involved.

And this justifies a constitutional amendment to take away the fundamental right to marry? So much for separation of church and state.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

If, however, you are in a protected "suspect class" (race, national origin, gender), then the government has to have a "compelling state interest" to discriminate. So far, only California has held (and no federal court has held, although I haven't read the Mass. and Ct. decisions) that gender orientation is a suspect class subject to the strict scrutiny test.

My comments about "compelling state interest" were in the context of the CA court ruling, which found sexual orientation is a suspect class. Notably, the recent decision in CT did not find it a suspect class, but still found the discrimination unconstitutional based on a lesser standard.

I am merely drawing a parallel between one church's opposition to capital punishment, and another's opposition to homosexual marriage.

The gov't does not have a fundamental right to kill (i.e., captial punishment); an individual does have a fundamental right to marry.

[_rcrocket]

I guess what gets me is that Bob seems to be upset that people are protesting against the Mormon church for their stand on Prop 8. Why is that so abhorrent, Bob?

You're confusing me with somebody else. Nothing upsets me. Protest all you want. (I guess, intellectually only, in your case.)

But I personally don't see what sense there is in allowing multi-billion dollar corporations to "earn" billions of dollars a year and not pay taxes on that like every other corporation out there.

Charitable contributions are not "earnings". Even if the Church were not tax exempt, its receipts would be gifts and would not be "earnings" under the U.S. Tax Code. The donors would however be subject to gift tax. The Church would, however, pay tax on invested earnings which it largely does already with the entities which hold assets outside of the church structure.

As I pointed out in a prior post, the Church contributed no cash to Prop 8; no tax exempt funds were contributed by the Church. On the other hand, there were many tax-exempt organizations on the anti-Prop 8 side which did contribute funds.

Facts and truth, maybe?

[_rcrocket]

The gov't does not have a fundamental right to kill (i.e., captial punishment); an individual does have a fundamental right to marry.

Yes, the government has the fundamental right to kill. Whether that is moral or "right" is another question.

No, an individual does not have a fundamental right to marry. It is a qualified civil right, like being 18 to vote. It wasn't until May 2008 in California that the qualification for heterosexual marriage was removed; as easily as it was removed it was restored.

[_Yoda]

As I pointed out in a prior post, the Church contributed no cash to Prop 8; no tax exempt funds were contributed by the Church. On the other hand, there were many tax-exempt organizations on the anti-Prop 8 side which did contribute funds.

No, "the Church" did not contribute money to the cause, as an entity. Instead, the Church "strongly encouraged" members to contribute large sums of money out of their own pockets.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Yes, the government has the fundamental right to kill.

No it doesn't. The Bill of Rights gives rights to persons, not the gov't.

No, an individual does not have a fundamental right to marry. It is a qualified civil right, like being 18 to vote. It wasn't until May 2008 in California that the qualification for heterosexual marriage was removed; as easily as it was removed it was restored.

The fundamental right to marry is what it is. The right to vote amendment clearly states 18 years of age; in contrast, the constitutional right to marry (as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court) has no qualification (instead, the gov't has to demonstrate one, as it would for any discrimination). As for Prop. 8, I don't recall any other time when a constitution (U.S. or state) was amended to snatch away (as opposed to grant) a right that is established as fundamental and constitutional. This is what makes Prop. 8 so frightening (and abhorrent).

[_Sethbag]

Protest all you want. (I guess, intellectually only, in your case.)

You're acting like a tool.

[_rcrocket]

Seth, that post really hurt my feelings. I think you are wrong and mean to me.

[_Sethbag]

You've definitely been on my case lately, for God only knows what reason. Is there an agenda here? Or do you just like being provocative, and I happen to be the latest guy you turned toward? In any case, you really are being a tool.

[_rcrocket]

You've definitely been on my case lately, for God only knows what reason. Is there an agenda here? Or do you just like being provocative, and I happen to be the latest guy you turned toward? In any case, you really are being a tool.

I'm sorry.