Proposition 8 in California

[Balta1701]

So, by your point of view, would it be okay for a brother and sister to have children, even though their kids would very much likely be deformed?

Actually, I believe there have been studies done on this in recent years, and it turns out that the probability of developmental issues is higher than with a standard, random coupling, but it's not tremendously high compared to the average population, and there are other matchups (i.e. people who's families have a history of birth defects, disease, etc.) that probably have a higher rate of developmental issues. Not necessarily taking a stand either way here, but I think it's fair to try to get the facts right on that matter - if you're going to ban one type of coupling because it leads to an increased probability of developmental issues, then logic follows that you should ban other types that lead to even higher rates.

[Rex Kickass]

So, by your point of view, would it be okay for a brother and sister to have children, even though their kids would very much likely be deformed?

How does that have to do with a legal contract?

 

I have no problem with "marriage" being left to the churches, as long as its left to the churches equally.

 

If they want to call it "civil unions" with the government, fine, as long as its applied equally.

[Soxy]

How does that have to do with a legal contract?

 

I have no problem with "marriage" being left to the churches, as long as its left to the churches equally.

 

If they want to call it "civil unions" with the government, fine, as long as its applied equally.

That's exactly my point. Whatever the government issues in terms to "marriage" or civil union or whatever, should be available to anyone that wants it.

[Texsox]

So, by your point of view, would it be okay for a brother and sister to have children, even though their kids would very much likely be deformed?

 

The point is that this is about legal rights and benefits, not about sex. If the sole purpose is for those benefits it shouldn't matter who is linked with who. It isn't a license to have sex, it's just a legal contract for who your employer will be obligated to cover for insurance, who will not have to testify in a trail against the other, etc, etc. Equality in laws.Why should a brother and sister have to pay higher single tax rates than a man and a woman who the government recognizes as joined together?

 

If anything, it will increase the coupled rates in this country. Why would anyone want to stay single? Link up with someone, then get divorced if you find someone you want to live with forever and all that. The dumped legal partner would then link with someone else.

 

And hopefully, in an issue close to my heart, it should end the entire "are they really a couple" when it comes to immigration. The government stepping in and voiding marriages should be wrong. If someone wants to form a union and it results in someone gaining citizenship, so be it. Those inquisitions should end.

[Cknolls]

fpo you too!!!

 

My keyboard was frozen.

[longshot7]

People of adult age should be age to declare themselves family, regardless of sex, quantity, etc.

 

 

This will be overturned again, but damn this is annoying. Esp with all the protests that seem to make me late getting places.

[Rex Kickass]

Given how hard the LDS got involved with this campaign, they should lose their nonprofit church status.

[Texsox]

Given how hard the LDS got involved with this campaign, they should lose their nonprofit church status.

 

We're going to disagree. You want to take away someone's tax break because you don't agree with them. Well I don't always agree with the ACLU, AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, but they all get involved in trying to promote the changes they want to see. Taking away their tax exempt status is a nice way to raise taxes on people who get involved in our communities, and that is just wrong. It's the old, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. I don't know why around here you have to be a f***ing athiest to get involved in government. These are Americans also. Deal with it. We all have our agendas, we all want change, and this is just part of the process.

 

What you are suggesting is if someone dares take on the government the government is going to punish them by taking away their tax status. So if the Sierra CLub dares try to stop development in a National Forest, take away their tax exempt status. If the AARP takes on teh government over Social Security or Meicare, take away their tax exempt status. Sorry, that is wrong and I'm shocked you would evenb suggest it.

[mr_genius]

Then also take it away from the NRA, AARP, Heart Association, Salvation Army, American Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and especially the DNC and the RNC, and every other group of people who have tax-exempt status and try to influence voting through their members and through donations.

 

Remember the tax exempt status is a benefit to the people (voters) who donate money to those groups. We donate to those groups because we presumably agree with their mission and want to see that mission realized. Pursuing those ideals through legislative and political avenues is part of the Democratic process and exactly what people expect when, for example, they donate to the NRA.

 

Changes in laws is for some the greatest impact that a charity can achieve.

 

What you are suggesting is taking away YOUR* tax break for donating to those charities. Then, in taking away their tax break when purchasing goods and services, they would not be able to do as much with YOUR donation, meaning YOU would need to donated more dollars to have the same affect. I'm not certain there would be much support for that.

 

*Of course I use this generically.

 

yea i agree.

[Balta1701]

This made it to the AP faster than I thought. Guess that's what happens when Hollywood starts making noise.

Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

 

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, the spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford among the state's popular tourist draws.

 

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential Washington, D.C-based blogger. "They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don't do that and get away with it."

 

Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which counts about 62 percent of Utah residents as members.

[Texsox]

We're going to disagree. You want to take away someone's tax break because you don't agree with them. Well I don't always agree with the ACLU, AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, but they all get involved in trying to promote the changes they want to see. Taking away their tax exempt status is a nice way to raise taxes on people who get involved in our communities, and that is just wrong. It's the old, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. I don't know why around here you have to be a f***ing athiest to get involved in government. These are Americans also. Deal with it. We all have our agendas, we all want change, and this is just part of the process.

 

What you are suggesting is if someone dares take on the government the government is going to punish them by taking away their tax status. So if the Sierra CLub dares try to stop development in a National Forest, take away their tax exempt status. If the AARP takes on teh government over Social Security or Meicare, take away their tax exempt status. Sorry, that is wrong and I'm shocked you would evenb suggest it.

 

I typed this as I was rushing out the door. I just reread it and come off as a jerk. Sorry Rex for the tone of my post.

[Rex Kickass]

We're going to disagree. You want to take away someone's tax break because you don't agree with them. Well I don't always agree with the ACLU, AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, but they all get involved in trying to promote the changes they want to see. Taking away their tax exempt status is a nice way to raise taxes on people who get involved in our communities, and that is just wrong. It's the old, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. I don't know why around here you have to be a f***ing athiest to get involved in government. These are Americans also. Deal with it. We all have our agendas, we all want change, and this is just part of the process.

 

What you are suggesting is if someone dares take on the government the government is going to punish them by taking away their tax status. So if the Sierra CLub dares try to stop development in a National Forest, take away their tax exempt status. If the AARP takes on teh government over Social Security or Meicare, take away their tax exempt status. Sorry, that is wrong and I'm shocked you would evenb suggest it.

 

I am suggesting that the LDS Church should act like a church, and not fund initatives in states outside of its own power base and actively work on a political campaign to altar a state's constitution. Our constitution separates church apparatus from government apparatus. By doing what the LDS did in California, they violated their own tax exempt status provisions.

 

If they want to act as a political organization, fine. That's essentially what they did in California this year. But they should have to deal with the consequences of those actions, including no longer being treated by the state as a nonpolitical organization. They made as a church, actual in kind donations to campaign groups behind the initiative and had the following letter delivered to every congregation on June 29, 2008.

In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a

woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On

November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore

the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is

ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be

born within this bond of marriage.

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church

will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may

become involved in this important cause.

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to

assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to

preserve the sacred institution of marriage.

 

You can't endorse from the pulpit. It violates your 501 c(3) status. If Mormon leaders wanted to go out and speak independently about this, that would be fine. It's perfectly legal to do so. But what the LDS did is such a clear violation, its ridiculous.

[BigSqwert]

I concur wholeheartedly Rex.

[Rex Kickass]

I typed this as I was rushing out the door. I just reread it and come off as a jerk. Sorry Rex for the tone of my post.

 

It's not a problem. Some people might say I have a problem with the LDS church and I do. Not the religion, but rather the church apparatus. The reason that I can't be involved in Scouting as an adult volunteer is that the LDS has basically said that they will no longer allow their churches to sponsor troops if they allow openly gay adult volunteers in Scouting. (LDS troops consist of roughly 20-25% of the BSA's enrollment IIRC)

 

This church actively attacks a group of people and seeks to marginalize them from the society that I am proud to call myself a member of. They have the right to do so, but they should have to follow the law in the ways that they can and can not do so as a church.

[YASNY]

It's not a problem. Some people might say I have a problem with the LDS church and I do. Not the religion, but rather the church apparatus. The reason that I can't be involved in Scouting as an adult volunteer is that the LDS has basically said that they will no longer allow their churches to sponsor troops if they allow openly gay adult volunteers in Scouting. (LDS troops consist of roughly 20-25% of the BSA's enrollment IIRC)

 

This church actively attacks a group of people and seeks to marginalize them from the society that I am proud to call myself a member of. They have the right to do so, but they should have to follow the law in the ways that they can and can not do so as a church.

 

I'm sure the LDS church has plenty of lawyers that advise them on the legality of what they can and cannot do. You may be of the opinion that they are clearly breaking the law, but I highly doubt that you are actually correct.

[CanOfCorn]

It's not a problem. Some people might say I have a problem with the LDS church and I do. Not the religion, but rather the church apparatus. The reason that I can't be involved in Scouting as an adult volunteer is that the LDS has basically said that they will no longer allow their churches to sponsor troops if they allow openly gay adult volunteers in Scouting. (LDS troops consist of roughly 20-25% of the BSA's enrollment IIRC)

 

This church actively attacks a group of people and seeks to marginalize them from the society that I am proud to call myself a member of. They have the right to do so, but they should have to follow the law in the ways that they can and can not do so as a church.

 

And considering the LDS WAS a group of people that was marginalized from society, you'd think they'd have more sympathy...

[Texsox]

My core belief in this is not whether I agree with their stance, I think most anyone who has read what I've written here knows I do not. But I will defend their right to do that.

 

The "Church" is actually the people. Human, flesh and blood Americans. They have joined together and formed a Charity that is recognized by the US government. We do not seem to have a problem with the NRA, Sierra Club, Green Peace, ACLU, The Task Force, Amnesty International, and others doing the same thing. They all support a specific belief system. I see no difference in an NRA magazine, a Sierra Club protest, or a Church service. It's people getting together and trying to influence society. And there is no restrictions on what the podium looks like at a Green Peace meeting or a Church meeting, that is unnecessarily clouding the issue.

 

Why should a Sierra Club member in Illinois care about what happens in Alaska and the ANWR? Why should an ACLU member in Iowa care about a housing discrimination case in New York? Why should an NRA member in Idaho care about a city in Mississippi banning certain ammunition? And why should a Church member in Utah care about California sanctioning something they believe is wrong? How many groups that took the opposite view should lose their tax exempt status?

 

By taking away the tax exempt status from the Americans who donate to these groups, for disagreeing with the government, or getting involved, we are punishing people for being advocates. Not to get theological here, but each organized Christian religion interprets God's word a little differently. For some it is your thoughts that are the key to heaven. For others it is your words. For still others, it is your actions. For the people who who say, "I don't need to go to Church, I do not need to read the Bible, I am a good person, God sees the good things I do". Well then, you would be agreeing with Churches like the LDS Church, Jehovah Witness, who believe they have a call to action as their key to heaven. That it isn't enough to just say the words, they would be hypocrites if they did not put their beliefs to the test and act upon them. Similar to a Sierra Club member who simultaneously writes the checks, talks about the need to protect the envirnment, then tosses their trash out their Hummer while 4 wheel driving through some protected wetlands.

 

I do not agree with many of the groups that have tax exempt status, but I just cannot advocate punishing people for exercising their rights. I certainly can't agree with punishing them for daring to disagree with me.

 

Rex, Wouldn't that be the same sort of discrimination that we are fighting about?

[Texsox]

This would all be so much easier of there was a clause in the Bill of Rights clearly stating that these rights do not apply if you join a Church.

[Rex Kickass]

My core belief in this is not whether I agree with their stance, I think most anyone who has read what I've written here knows I do not. But I will defend their right to do that.

 

The "Church" is actually the people. Human, flesh and blood Americans. They have joined together and formed a Charity that is recognized by the US government. We do not seem to have a problem with the NRA, Sierra Club, Green Peace, ACLU, The Task Force, Amnesty International, and others doing the same thing. They all support a specific belief system. I see no difference in an NRA magazine, a Sierra Club protest, or a Church service. It's people getting together and trying to influence society. And there is no restrictions on what the podium looks like at a Green Peace meeting or a Church meeting, that is unnecessarily clouding the issue.

 

Why should a Sierra Club member in Illinois care about what happens in Alaska and the ANWR? Why should an ACLU member in Iowa care about a housing discrimination case in New York? Why should an NRA member in Idaho care about a city in Mississippi banning certain ammunition? And why should a Church member in Utah care about California sanctioning something they believe is wrong? How many groups that took the opposite view should lose their tax exempt status?

 

By taking away the tax exempt status from the Americans who donate to these groups, for disagreeing with the government, or getting involved, we are punishing people for being advocates. Not to get theological here, but each organized Christian religion interprets God's word a little differently. For some it is your thoughts that are the key to heaven. For others it is your words. For still others, it is your actions. For the people who who say, "I don't need to go to Church, I do not need to read the Bible, I am a good person, God sees the good things I do". Well then, you would be agreeing with Churches like the LDS Church, Jehovah Witness, who believe they have a call to action as their key to heaven. That it isn't enough to just say the words, they would be hypocrites if they did not put their beliefs to the test and act upon them. Similar to a Sierra Club member who simultaneously writes the checks, talks about the need to protect the envirnment, then tosses their trash out their Hummer while 4 wheel driving through some protected wetlands.

 

I do not agree with many of the groups that have tax exempt status, but I just cannot advocate punishing people for exercising their rights. I certainly can't agree with punishing them for daring to disagree with me.

 

Rex, Wouldn't that be the same sort of discrimination that we are fighting about?

 

Donations to the NRA, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Amnesty Int'l and the ACLU are not tax deductible. They may be non-profit organizations but they are by definition not charities and do not benefit from tax exempt status. If the LDS Church would like to be a political lobbying organization like these groups, that's great but they should have to follow the same tax codes as these groups.

[Rex Kickass]

This would all be so much easier of there was a clause in the Bill of Rights clearly stating that these rights do not apply if you join a Church.

 

Your tax status does not abridge your freedom of speech.

[southsider2k5]

You can't endorse from the pulpit. It violates your 501 c(3) status. If Mormon leaders wanted to go out and speak independently about this, that would be fine. It's perfectly legal to do so. But what the LDS did is such a clear violation, its ridiculous.

 

This was probably the least followed rule in the past election.

[Rex Kickass]

This was probably the least followed rule in the past election.

 

Or in 2004. And it should be enforced. Across the board.

[Texsox]

Amnesty International USA is a tax exempt 501©3 nonprofit organization. http://www.amnestyusa.org/JoinUs.html

Tax ID# 13-6213516

 

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

In 1990, NRA made a dramatic move to ensure that the financial support for firearms-related activities would be available now and for future generations. Establishing the NRA Foundation, a 501 © (3) tax-exempt organization, provided a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public. http://www.nra.org/Aboutus.aspx

 

You are correct Green Peace is not, and the Sierra Club us actually split in two, depending on how you ear mark your donation, it may, or may not, be deductible.

 

Now was Prop 8 listed as a Dem or Rep issue on the ballot? I thought propositions were non partisan issues?

[Texsox]

Your tax status does not abridge your freedom of speech.

 

But it is not equal with what non Church members receive.

 

So it could be said that Prop 8 does not abridge your right to form a couple and live together forever, it only eliminates legal benefits.

 

It seems to me that whether you make a donation for, or against, an issue, they both should be treated the same. And I thought Propositions were different than candidates.

[StrangeSox]

But it is not equal with what non Church members receive.

 

So it could be said that Prop 8 does not abridge your right to form a couple and live together forever, it only eliminates legal benefits.

 

It seems to me that whether you make a donation for, or against, an issue, they both should be treated the same. And I thought Propositions were different than candidates.

Church members are free to do as they please. The mechanism of the church itself is not.