Ha! Coincidentally, I just re-watched the film last night so my son (who is 15) could see it. He shares our disdain for the Mormon church and will be absolutely giddy over the term “Lying Douchebag Shitheads”, I’m sure. He was even energized about possibly getting into politics to ensure that “those dickheads pay taxes just like any other sneaky political group.” I was so proud.
The couple they followed through the film brought tears to my eyes again during the second viewing. Particularly when he says that his family sent an email stating that they would find no joy in their son’s wedding. Ugh. Ripped me right in half, it did.
And your right about the “treatments”, if any of what that man said was true, someone is breaking laws and committing violent crimes. Sick, sick. I’m also shocked by the number of gay teens turned out by their parents. It would seem to me that you cannot legally kick a minor into the street with no means of support. Doesn’t that fall under child neglect or is there a separate age limit for that?
I made it a point to promise my son that I will always love and accept whomever he grows up to be, and he made me a promise that he’ll do the same for his kids if/when he has any.
As an aside, I simply must have a “Focus on your OWN family” shirt.
They went far beyond advocating a political position. They funded an initiative, they used their money and their people to get the 1.1 million signatures needed, they funded the propaganda, they started front companies to funnel money through and conceal the fact the Mormon Church was launching and bankrolling the initiative, they instructed their members how to vote, and they doctored their books and flat out lied in writing when information was formally requested. (They are not legally obligated to disclose church finances in general but they are legally obligated to disclose political contributions.)
That’s a position they should feel free to argue in whatever tribunal is to decide it.
OTOH, they should expect to hear evidence that they did more then advocate for it, they organized, sponsored, managed, and did every other conceivable campaigning activity as well.
As to your question, perhaps. 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.
The second one may have been have been Joseph F. Smith. He was the nephew of the Prophet and became president in 1901. Picture as an old man with white beard.
Well, according to this site, which is actually a “how to” for pastors who would like to use the church as their political soapbox, they cannot contribute financially to a political party, political action committee or candidate.
It would appear to me that the group the church put together and funded to place the measure on the ballot and to promote its passing definitely falls under political action committee. No?
Oh, believe me. I’m mad as shit about that too. No one gets a pass on intolerance. Unfortunately, there’s no (to my knowlege) puppet master behind the black and/or hispanic community deciding where their money and support should go.
It is not uncomfortable in the least. We know empirically what the outcome of the vote was, and who was susceptible to the evils that were wrought by the Church during their campaign.
Are you suggesting we should blame the victims of the campaign?
Too uncomfortable? Puh-leez. There were numerous threads here and on other boards at the time about irritation at the bigotry and or stupidity of black and Hispanic and other minority voters who voted for Prop 8 (most of them affiliated closely with churches). I don’t have the least bit of discomfort in expressing my contempt for them- I think they were willing fools.
Victims? I think that is taking it way too far. The simple fact of the matter is that black voters in particular aren’t receptive to the gay marriage issue, particularly when the campaign has a civil rights tone to it. Like it or not, black voters tend to not like comparisons or imitation of their own civil rights movement.
That’s largely because black voters tend to not like gays, period. The overwhelming homophobia among black Americans is not exactly a revelation. What was surprising to me was the number of Hispanics who voted for the proposition. I expected that to be much, much higher.
Well, L.Ron wrote more believable fantasy - at least in his pre-Dianetics days when he wrote for Astounding and Unknown. Lots of those stories are actually pretty good.
We should be grateful that the Mormons didn’t try to have the teacher fired. My daughter had a junior high teacher who was trans-gender, and my daughter thought her super cool. (We met with her for a parent conference - she was.) The Mormon parents in the class had a fit, and actually had some of their kids moved out.
I’m a CA resident and I was in 2008 when all this was flooding the campaign media. It wasn’t a pretty sight.
First of all. I don’t care who anyone chooses to fall in love with. I do care when something prevents anyone from fulfilling a dream though. If people truly want to get married, why should I care, it’s their decision, they have to live with the other person.
I see many people blaming a church for Prop 8. I don’t believe that church was anything other than a small drop in the bucket. Instead of the that church, consider the damage the frequently aired video of Gavin Newsom did. The one where Gavin was on the steps of the SF city hall announcing to the world; “Like it or not, here we come.” That statement polarized every bigot into believing that an army of gays was coming to steal their children, take their jobs and ruin their community. I know, I’ve got a few in my family.
My feeling is that Gavin probably cost 2 to 3 percent of the vote to swing by doing that. The campaign capitalizing on it and the fear it caused. Probably more votes were lost therein than there were Mormon’s voting. Blaming the Mormon church is nearsighted.
No. It’s not ANY PAC that’s prohibited, but a PAC that backs a candidate. Churches may contribute to issue PACs.
Seasongood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 227 F.2d 907, (6th Cir. 1955), says that expenditures less than 5% of the total expenditures of the organization are per se not substantial. And Haswell v. United States, 500 F. 2d 1133 (Ct. Claims 1974) says that 20% is substantial.
Do we know what percentage of the Mormon church’s expenditures are involved here?
When we got married, I wore the suit, but I’m into suits.
I’m the manly one.
We just had a few family members show up at a friend’s office, signed some paperwork, took pictures, kissed, and ate some burritos. We’re not good at organizing things.
We’ve kicked around the idea of adopting-I think we’d be decent parents. But unless our financial situation changes in the next 6-10 years, the point’s going to be moot.
After that, we’ll really be too old to realistically do it…
“Honey, would you bring me the walker?”
“Yours or the baby’s?”
“Mine! my back’s out again!”
And, no, we gay people, well, other than that one difference, we’re pretty boring…Quite frankly, the less ostracized we are, the more boring we get. After gay marriage has been legal for a while, people are going to think “What was the big deal? they’re just gay.”
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.
Another vote here for the “Blame the Mormons” campaign as being terribly overstated. Black and/or elderly California voters were much more directly responsible for the result, but those groups are too familiar, too amorphous, and too otherwise sympathetic to make for satisfying villains. The Mormons, on the other hand, are mostly alien, relatively homogeneous, and somewhat insular. The mere fact that they make such a convenient scapegoat should be enough to make us want to moderate our vitriol. We can’t see our own prejudices, so it’s safest to assume that they’re there.
Would the result have been different if the LDS church had remained passive? Perhaps – hell, I’ll even give you “probably.” But it was a very close vote, and any number of factors could have plausibly swung the result in the other direction. You don’t get to focus your anger at just one of those factors (specifically a religious minority) without having it seem that you’re something less than unbiased.
I would agree with you that it’s fine to require religious groups to abide by non-discriminatory policies if they’re going to handle adoptions, but of course that isn’t the question here. The question was whether the claim that religious adoption agencies would or could be shuttered by the state was a knowing falsehood, and I would contend that it was not. Certainly the LDS church would not draw the distinction that you did between being shut down for refusal to obey regulations, and preemptively ceasing operations because your unwillingness to follow regulations is going to get you shut down. Nor should they, of course, for the difference is purely semantic. Don’t claim (falsely) that this sort of thing has never and will never happen; rather, proudly proclaim that you’re Damn Right! we’re not going to permit adoptions to be carried out in a blatantly, unjustly discriminatory fashion (neither directly nor by proxy), and then win that fucking argument.
