# 8: The Mormon Propositon **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028 "2010-08-30T18:43:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/101 "2010-09-09T07:47:58Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Would the result have been different if the LDS church had remained passive? Perhaps – hell, I’ll even give you “probably.” The LDS was **100% responsible** for it ever being on the ballot in the firstplace. If they’d remained passive it wouldn’t have happened. As for blacks and elderly people and one armed Mexican widows who voted for it, I said in my first post the voters bore ultimate responsibility for the passage, but the Mormon church is responsible for it ever being an issue to vote about. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/102 "2010-09-09T12:21:27Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > The LDS was **100% responsible** for it ever being on the ballot in the first place. Only if no one else would have had the bright idea to get this on the ballot. In my (admittedly ill-informed) opinion, that’s hardly a long shot. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/103 "2010-09-09T16:57:46Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > In response to Bricker’s question, there’s no way the amount spent on Prop 8 comes anywhere near 20% of the Mormon church’s expenditures or even 5% for that matter. > > For one thing, they strong-armed the individual members to cough up most of that money personally. Secondly, this organization drops billions of dollars in construction, real estate, rent, development, etc. Not that they’d ever open the books and show us, but still. If that’s the case, **not\_alice** , then can you explain why the reasoning in _Seasongood_ does not apply here? > [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > If there are no appellants that have standing, then the parties at trial also didn’t have standing. Which means the trial result will be shelved and we’ll be back at the California Supreme Court’s ruling that Prop 8 is valid. > > Not true, not true at all. Recall, the Proponents are actually Defendent-Intervenors. Defendants chose to offer no defense, and they choose not to appeal. > > There was an AZ case that had a similar situation, I forget the name right now. State did not defend, D-I lost the case, State chose not to appeal, case died for lack of standing. You’re thinking of _Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona_, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). The problem with that case is: 1. It’s dicta, since the actual case was mooted by the employee’s leaving her job. But let’s say that it’s incredibly persuasive nonetheless. 2. It’s inapplicable. In AFOE, the court said: > [@](#): > > In granting the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case, we called for briefing on the question whether AOE and Park have standing, consonant with Article III of the Federal Constitution, to defend in federal court the constitutionality of Arizona Constitution Article XXVIII. Petitioners argue primarily that, as initiative proponents, they have a quasilegislative interest in defending the constitutionality of the measure they successfully sponsored. AOE and Park stress the funds and effort they expended to achieve adoption of Article XXVIII. We have recognized that state legislators have standing to contest a decision holding a state statute unconstitutional if state law authorizes legislators to represent the State’s interests. See Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72, 82 (1987).[20] AOE and its members, however, are not elected representatives, and we are aware of no Arizona law appointing initiative sponsors as agents of the people of Arizona to defend, in lieu of public officials, the constitutionality of initiatives made law of the State. Nor has this Court ever identified initiative proponents as Article-III-qualified defenders of the measures they advocated. So their opinion turns on whether or not state law allows anyone other than the appropriate public officials top act to defend state law. In Arizona, as we see, the state law does not permit anyone to do so. But is that also true of California? Hint: no. in _Strauss v. Horton_, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009), the California Supreme COurt ruled that California law DID permit a third party – an initiative sponsor - to intervene on appeal, and it was a case where the Attorney General refused to defend the law in question. So with only the initiative sponsors as a party defending, the California Supremes went on to judge the case on the merits and dispose of it, a judgment, by the way, that went IN FAVOR of the defenders of the initiative. And your idea would destroy the power of the citizen initiative. If all the Attorney General had to do to defeat a citizen-based initiative was to not defend it from challenge, it would mean that the very idea of a voter initiative was almost powerless. So logically, it makes no sense. But I suspect that that assertion won’t be enough for you, so I’ll point out that California courts have already agreed with that logic. In _Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo_, 718 P.2d 68, 41 Cal.3d 810 (1986), the California Supreme Court addressed the worry that initiatives could go undefended by saying: > [@](#): > > Despite the fact that the city or county would have a duty to defend the ordinance, a city or county might not do so with vigor if it has underlying opposition to the ordinance. Furthermore, the proponents of the initiative have no guarantee of being permitted to intervene in the action, a matter which is discretionary with the trial court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 387.) This argument would have merit if intervention was unavailable. But when a city or county is required to defend an initiative ordinance and, because of Evidence Code section 669.5, must shoulder the burden of proving reasonable relationship to public health, safety or welfare, we believe the trial court in most instances should allow intervention by proponents of the initiative. To fail to do so may well be an abuse of discretion. Permitting intervention by the initiative proponents under these circumstances would serve to guard the people’s right to exercise initiative power, a right that must be jealously defended by the courts. Comments? (tip of the hat to **Captain Amazing** and a link to a couple of articles which saved me much research and advanced some of the arguments above). ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/104 "2010-09-09T17:32:23Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > > [@Sampiro](#): > > > > The LDS was **100% responsible** for it ever being on the ballot in the first place. > > Only if no one else would have had the bright idea to get this on the ballot. In my (admittedly ill-informed) opinion, that’s hardly a long shot. How many agencies would have the volunteer manpower to go door to door getting 1.1. million signatures? ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/105 "2010-09-09T19:54:29Z")
It takes 1.1 million signatures to put a Proposition on the ballots in CA? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/106 "2010-09-09T20:08:45Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > > [@VarlosZ](#): > > > > Only if no one else would have had the bright idea to get this on the ballot. In my (admittedly ill-informed) opinion, that’s hardly a long shot. > > How many agencies would have the volunteer manpower to go door to door getting 1.1. million signatures? Well, considering that California is a rather big state and that there are nine ballot measures for the next election alone, this seems not to be an insurmountable hurdle, nor one that a reasonably organized group can’t manage. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/107 "2010-09-09T23:43:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that’s the case, **not\_alice** , then can you explain why the reasoning in _Seasongood_ does not apply here? You are making the false assumption that one case defining what is NOT substantial defines substantial. And as for the other case you mentioned, that narrows down what might be substantial, but is not definitive in the sense that no other way of meaduring could ever apply. Nice try though. I am sure you could have answered that yourself. > [@](#): > > You’re thinking of _Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona_, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). > > The problem with that case is: That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. That is why we have courts, to decide disputes. Is this your prediction of what the reasoning in the matter will be? Comments? In the end, it is all stalling tactics. SSM is going to be legal in our lifetime, people will either get used to it, or die trying. Marriage has never been static, especially in California. There is the issue of coverture, which no longer applies. In the past, there were Exclusion Acts that prevented or seriously limited marriage of Chinese folks (and others). The reasoning there was as vile as it is now. Yet it is all forgotten, post change. There is no reason to expect otherwise in the United States, where we seek to expand rights to polish imperfections n our system when identified, not contract them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/108 "2010-09-10T00:33:26Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > If that’s the case, **not\_alice** , then can you explain why the reasoning in _Seasongood_ does not apply here? > > You are making the false assumption that one case defining what is NOT substantial defines substantial. No. I am makng the assumption that if one case defines what is not substantial, it will also apply to another case. Both in Seasongood and here, we have less than 5% of the organization’s expenditures devoted to the effort. Seasongood says that less than 5% is “…not in relation to all of its other activities substantial, within the meaning of the section.” So if 5% is per se NOT substantial in Seasongood, why do you imagine it would be found to be substantial here? Granted, if the Mormons spent, say, 7%, then we might argue that Seasongood doesn’t apply. But there seems to be substantial (ha!) agreement that their expenditures were also less than 5%. > [@](#): > > That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. That is why we have courts, to decide disputes. Is this your prediction of what the reasoning in the matter will be? Yes. This is how the standing issue will ultimately be disposed of. > [@](#): > > In the end, it is all stalling tactics. SSM is going to be legal in our lifetime, people will either get used to it, or die trying. Marriage has never been static, especially in California. As well it should. But it is not so critical a goal that we should accept any method at all of reaching it. Judge Walker’s decision is not a good one. Well, let me rephrase. Judge Walker’s RESULT is a good one. His method of arriving at that result is not good. > [@](#): > > There is the issue of coverture, which no longer applies. In the past, there were Exclusion Acts that prevented or seriously limited marriage of Chinese folks (and others). The reasoning there was as vile as it is now. Yet it is all forgotten, post change. > > There is no reason to expect otherwise in the United States, where we seek to expand rights to polish imperfections n our system when identified, not contract them. Ah, the “one-way ratchet” theory of rights. We can always expand rights, but never contract them. But other than a personal preference for that being our method, I don’t believe you can point to any constitutional provision that makes this philosophy the law of the land. So you’re stating, with calm confidence, a principle born from your wishes and imagination, rather than the law. Sure, coverture was consigned to the dustbin of history… by laws. That’s the ideal way to proceed here, too. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/109 "2010-09-10T00:54:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. I am makng the assumption that if one case defines what is not substantial, it will also apply to another case. Both in Seasongood and here, we have less than 5% of the organization’s expenditures devoted to the effort. Seasongood says that less than 5% is “…not in relation to all of its other activities substantial, within the meaning of the section.” I haven’t argued that the Mormon’s effort is or isn’t substantial. Go put words in someone else’s mouth. I don’t mind the IRS taking a look though. As for if their effort in CA and elsewhere amounts to 5% of their "expenditures’ or cash flow or asset values or whatever, I highly doubt it. > [@](#): > > Yes. This is how the standing issue will ultimately be disposed of. OK, I will make a mental note of it. > [@](#): > > Ah, the “one-way ratchet” theory of rights. We can always expand rights, but never contract them. > > But other than a personal preference for that being our method, I don’t believe you can point to any constitutional provision that makes this philosophy the law of the land. So you’re stating, with calm confidence, a principle born from your wishes and imagination, rather than the law. Sure, coverture was consigned to the dustbin of history… by laws. That’s the ideal way to proceed here, too. Ah I see - you object that a Court ruled that a law was unconstitutional? Because the Court is not part of any Constitutional provision for doing that sort of thing? You know, I was in the car for a long drive the other day. On the trip, my gf read from a book she had bought which has a number of “revolutionary documents” from history. One of them was the Declaration of Independence, which I am sure you have heard of. You probably have even read it end to end at some time? But have you heard it read aloud by another person? I recommend it. Then compare the tactics of the Mormons and others who would argue to shrink rights with the long list of claims of despotism against the ruler of the day. You argue that the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not important policy goals of the US since day one, and that the legal trend of implementing “a more perfect union” has not been in place since 1791? That’s your claim? Ooookay! I think the Declaration itself has instructions on what to do with people who would so rule, and that is to say they have no authority whatsoever over the People. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/110 "2010-09-10T01:47:25Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I haven’t argued that the Mormon’s effort is or isn’t substantial. Go put words in someone else’s mouth. You argued that it’s an open question. Here: > [@not\_alice](#): > > Assuming the regulations were the same then as now (I don’t know), well, now the regulations focus on the word “substantial” which has never been decided. > > So perhaps it is time to find out what it means exactly in this context. You said that “substantial” has “never been decided.” And then you said: > [@not\_alice](#): > > You are making the false assumption that one case defining what is NOT substantial defines substantial. But this case DOES define less than 5% as being NOT substantial. So it’s misleading to say that “substantial,” has never been decided. If the Mormons’ efforts are less than 5%, there IS a decision that says less than 5% is not substantial. So the question HAS been decided. We know what substantial ISN’T. OK, I will make a mental note of it. > [@](#): > > You know, I was in the car for a long drive the other day. On the trip, my gf read from a book she had bought which has a number of “revolutionary documents” from history. One of them was the Declaration of Independence, which I am sure you have heard of. You probably have even read it end to end at some time? > > But have you heard it read aloud by another person? > > I recommend it. Undoubtedly inspiring. Especially the part about how governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. > [@](#): > > Then compare the tactics of the Mormons and others who would argue to shrink rights with the long list of claims of despotism against the ruler of the day. You argue that the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not important policy goals of the US since day one, and that the legal trend of implementing “a more perfect union” has not been in place since 1791? > > That’s your claim? > > Ooookay! > > I think the Declaration itself has instructions on what to do with people who would so rule, and that is to say they have no authority whatsoever over the People. Sadly, the Declaration of Independence is not a source of substantive rights. You will search in vain for a single court decision that rests a substantive right in the Declaration. You don’t seem so enamored of the right of the people of California to govern themselves, come to that. I guess they’d be justified in following the guidance of the Declaration of Independence if the courts rule aginst them, huh? Or… does this nobility of purpose only innure to positions you agree with? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/111 "2010-09-10T02:06:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > I haven’t argued that the Mormon’s effort is or isn’t substantial. Go put words in someone else’s mouth. > > You argued that it’s an open question. Here: > > You said that “substantial” has “never been decided.” And then you said: Yes, I said it is open, i.e. undecided. You suggested I had taken a position that it either is or is not substantial. Now you agree I have not done so. Let’s move on. Cripes. > [@](#): > > But this case DOES define less than 5% as being NOT substantial. Yes, but it doesn’t argue that it is the only way to decide “substantial”. Please bring back the real Bricker, not the substitute one that is hanging around 🙂 > [@](#): > > So it’s misleading to say that “substantial,” has never been decided. Not at all. When it has “been decided” than all future arguments will be precluded. Are you saying that is the case currently? > [@](#): > > If the Mormons’ efforts are less than 5%, there IS a decision that says less than 5% is not substantial. So the question HAS been decided. We know what substantial ISN’T. It hasn’t been decided for all cases. If you want to argue that every prior court case since 1791 has been decided, then so be it. No argument here. But don’t expect agreement that because all of those prior cases are decided, there are no open questions for the future, even questions related to prior cases. > [@](#): > > Sadly, the Declaration of Independence is not a source of substantive rights. You will search in vain for a single court decision that rests a substantive right in the Declaration. No one has argued otherwise. No one is searching for that except perhaps you, since you seem to be on a tangent to everything substantial today. > [@](#): > > You don’t seem so enamored of the right of the people of California to govern themselves, come to that. Pray tell how do you come to that conclusion? California is governing itself. Who says they are not? Not me. > [@](#): > > Or… does this nobility of purpose only innure to positions you agree with? There are always factions in California who propose to split the state in order to govern differently, and probably smaller factions that might even advocate independence for one or more parts of CA. Other states have similar movements. People are free to advocate that. But if their purpose in doing so is to regress laws in their region in order to remove rights from disfavored people, and implement a form of tyranny, I’d hardly find that a noble purpose, patiently expressed, of the sort enumerated in the Declaration. Your mileage might vary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/112 "2010-09-10T02:41:05Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Yes, but it doesn’t argue that it is the only way to decide “substantial”. Please bring back the real Bricker, not the substitute one that is hanging around 🙂 Yes, it does. It says that less than 5% is not substantial, as a matter of law. What part of that sentence don’t you get? Where are you getting that it says there may be other ways to define “not substantial?” > [@](#): > > Not at all. When it has “been decided” than all future arguments will be precluded. Are you saying that is the case currently? :rolleyes: Yes. That is what I saying. I am saying that armed guards patrol the land, ready to shoot anyone who so much as breathes a word questioning this decision. So look out! Or… maybe, just maybe, “been decided,” has a bit more complex meaning. There is no issue in law that is “decided,” in such a way that all future arguments are precluded. But there are well-settled issues of law, in which it is foolish, as a matter of practical application, to argue that because the issue can be argued at some level we should regard it as unsettled or open. Let’s put it another way: is there any issue of law YOU regard as decided or settled? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/113 "2010-09-10T03:10:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s put it another way: is there any issue of law YOU regard as decided or settled? If that is an issue you want to discuss, it is off-topic for this thread. Start a new thread, and if I am interested and have time, I will discuss it, OK? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/114 "2010-09-10T13:44:52Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Let’s put it another way: is there any issue of law YOU regard as decided or settled? > > If that is an issue you want to discuss, it is off-topic for this thread. Start a new thread, and if I am interested and have time, I will discuss it, OK? Oddly, it wasn’t off-topic for you to say: > [@](#): > > …now the regulations focus on the word “substantial” which has never been decided. > > So perhaps it is time to find out what it means exactly in this context. Apparently, it’s only off-topic to _rebut_ an incorrect claim about this issue, not to make one. Or it was off-topic for you as well, but at that time you had not fully developed your fidelity to concept of pure thread topic posting, and only discovered your love of thread purity moments after your argument was rebutted. Or some other argument, which given our recent interactions is the likely winning explanation… some other argument, which will be touted as what you meant all along, but was previously undiscoverable except through the intercession of Carnak the Magnificent. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/115 "2010-09-10T14:19:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Apparently, it’s only off-topic to _rebut_ an incorrect claim about this issue, not to make one. You haven’t been beat up enough in this thread, having been caught arguing both sides of an issue among other things? It is far enough off topic for me you to ask me my opinion about the broad sense of if there is anything I considered settled in law that it is fair for that discussion to take place in another thread, so that others might find it and participate as well. You are free to feel otherwise, and having already raised it here, you are free to watch me refuse to discuss it here because I think you are merely trying to find some track to redeem your rhetorical trainwreck. You are free to do that on your own without my participation if I choose not to. > [@](#): > > Or it was off-topic for you as well, but at that time you had not fully developed your fidelity to concept of pure thread topic posting, and only discovered your love of thread purity moments after your argument was rebutted. No, your rebuttal was shown to be nonsensical, as were the others in this thread. This one is no different, especially in the light of the rhetorical inconsistencies you presented earlier, and your admission that you lost track of what my actual position is while you are arguing against it. It is probably to be expected that any argument against a position you are not careful enough to keep track of is going to be weak at best. Maybe it would be a good argument for _something_, but as a rebuttal? Nah. Weak. > [@](#): > > Or some other argument, which given our recent interactions is the likely winning explanation… some other argument, which will be touted as what you meant all along, but was previously undiscoverable except through the intercession of Carnak the Magnificent. LOL, you are the one who was demonstrated to be arguing two sides of the same coin. It must suck to your pride to have that pointed out, so now you wean to tar and feather me rather than clearly redeem your position. I think I mentioned upthread, and if I didn’t I will say here, that I came into this thread with great respect for your approach on other threads I have read, even if I don’t always agree with your position. In fact, not long prior to this thread I myself ipened a thread on a legal issue with the hope in my mind that it would catch your attention because I valued the thoughtfulness you would bring to the matter. It didn’t catch your fancy, which is fine, you are not obligated, but I raise that to clearly admit I did have utmost respect for your approach. Now, however, each post of yours is making me believe that my earlier opinion of the desirability of knowing your thoughts on some matters was folly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/116 "2010-09-10T14:45:02Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > You haven’t been beat up enough in this thread, having been caught arguing both sides of an issue among other things? I have been “caught” at no such thing, nor have I done so. Prior to the post you are reading now, I have posted seven times in this thread: [Post 59.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12868063&postcount=59) [Post 97.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12892755&postcount=97) [Post 103.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12894975&postcount=103) [Post 108.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12896974&postcount=108) [Post 110.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12897172&postcount=110) [Post 112.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12897333&postcount=112) [Post 114.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12898476&postcount=114) As anyone can see, none of those posts are “two sides” of any issue. > [@](#): > > It is far enough off topic for me you to ask me my opinion about the broad sense of if there is anything I considered settled in law that it is fair for that discussion to take place in another thread, so that others might find it and participate as well. > > You are free to feel otherwise, and having already raised it here, you are free to watch me refuse to discuss it here because I think you are merely trying to find some track to redeem your rhetorical trainwreck. You are free to do that on your own without my participation if I choose not to. That’s fine. I continue to address it here because I refuse to let you make the initial claim and have it continue to float, like a dead fish in an untended aquarium, unrebutted. Your claim that the courts have not defined “substantial” is misleading. While there is no clearly defined upper limit, “under 5%” of expenditures is a lower limit. Rather than simply acknowledging that your claim was in error or a trifle overbroad, you keep fighting it. Without any actual facts to buttress your argument, though. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/117 "2010-09-10T14:47:07Z")
> [@malkavia](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > Don’t get too excited. I am sure there is plenty of talent on the farm teams. > > Sad, but true. > > Also, I just found out that [he’s](http://www.scottklimt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/chris_buttars_thumb1.jpeg) only 68. Holy cow, does he bathe in devil’s spit and acid? He looks like Cheney. Seems right somehow. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/118 "2010-09-10T16:10:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s fine. I continue to address it here because I refuse to let you make the initial claim and have it continue to float, like a dead fish in an untended aquarium, unrebutted. > > Your claim that the courts have not defined “substantial” is misleading. While there is no clearly defined upper limit, “under 5%” of expenditures is a lower limit. Rather than simply acknowledging that your claim was in error or a trifle overbroad, you keep fighting it. Maybe someone made that claim,but not me. My claim is that I am fine if the IRS look into its regulations on the matter. That is all. I will add now, for the first time, that if they do so, they may decide that circumstances may indicate that they should rewrite or revise the related regulations (alliteration not intended). This is known colloquially as “closing loopholes” Should they do so, I don’t doubt that both there will be court fights on the matter, and that the Mormons will (quite likely properly) skate on past transgressions because the new regulations will not be applied retroactively. In the future, before you deem yourself my spokesman, able to say for me what I have said in the past, please review your correspondence from me to see if there is any such authorization. I assure SDMB members there is not, nor will there ever be. Bricker, I suggest you simply lay out your best case for whatever it is you advocate, and stop using my positions as a straw man to argue ultranarrow matters and word games. so, just to remind you in case you forgot from a few paragraphs ago, I don’t know if LDS church has violated IRS regulations, and neither do you. As we discussed, courts exist to settle disputes. If there is a dispute, then Courts will decide. That is out of my hands. Just the same, the nature of the regulations that are at the heart of the cases you refer to are fuzzy, and being regulations, are subject to change. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that I have suggested that the regulations themselves are what need to be reconsidered in light of the recent church tactics. What people do in Court regarding tax-exempt status is not my interest in this thread, so your insistence on debating me about the fine points of this court decision or that is puzzling to say the least. Without any actual facts to buttress your argument, though. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/119 "2010-09-10T17:02:28Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > …My claim is that I am fine if the IRS look into its regulations on the matter. That is all. > > I will add now, for the first time, that if they do so, they may decide that circumstances may indicate that they should rewrite or revise the related regulations (alliteration not intended). > > This is known colloquially as “closing loopholes” Do you think the IRS would have final say in such regulations? Last I checked Congress tended to get mighty interested in whatever the IRS did. Not to mention that pesky First Amendment, though you did allude to “court fights.” ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028/120 "2010-09-10T17:29:58Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Do you think the IRS would have final say in such regulations? Last I checked Congress tended to get mighty interested in whatever the IRS did. My understanding, possibly wrong or incomplete, is that the IRS serves as the arm of Congress within the jurisdictional area under discussion, and as such is authorized to issue and interpret regulations as it sees fit. Congress is not involved in day-to-day issues, only oversight via Committee. Incidentally, IRS is not special in that regard, you could fill in the name of pretty much any agency in that paragraph I suppose. > [@](#): > > Not to mention that pesky First Amendment, though you did allude to “court fights.” Well, if it comes down to arguing a 1st Amendment right to worship a god that advocates a theocracy in the US, under the free speech or free worship or free association clauses, I am OK with that. I might mock the theology that suggests that, but I don’t dispute the right to so worship or so speak. If people even want to advocate that if their worship practices, no matter how discriminatory, would make life better, I might be persuaded that is fine. But when worship turns to political action, to saying that one’s religion demands the implementation of one’s theocracy, and working to implement that law while arguing that the acts of such implementation are tantamount to worship and worthy of protection, well, I would expect that the 1st’s establishment clause would rule. So, in the case of Prop 8, it appears that the latter is the case. If, to create a hypothetical, some church wanted to walk around with “God hates fags” signs, well, that falls closer to the first paragraph. And I think few will argue that free speech is absolute. But (and I am open to learning otherwise), I am not aware of any cases where the Establishment clause has been breached by an argument of this sort: “My religion requires that we implement laws to restrict people’s prior existing rights, as Prop 8 does for us, even though we know not all religions feel the same. If we can persuade enough people to vote to implement our religious beliefs into law, then the Establishment clause does not apply”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/8-the-mormon-propositon/552028.md?page=7)