Should supporters of Prop Hate suffer any consequences ?

A. Oh, my Heavens no! Their beliefs shield them from all criticism!

B. Dude, everyone has the right to vote anyway they want to. Just like the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v Gore, we should accept it and move on.

C. Gay marriage is not a priority right now. They can wait until things calm down just like the way women waited for their right to vote. Women were eventually given the right to vote, and some day gays will eventually be allowed to get married. They just have to wait for a more opportune time.

D. Their tax exempt status should be reviewed. Hell hath no fury like the IRS scorned.

E. If not now, when? If not us, who?

F. You're not being fair, religions do so many good things forpeopleandyoucan'tjustlumpthemalltogetherweloveJesusand...

G. Other, see my opinion in reply

The modern day version of Seperate but Equal

There are very few LDS members who vote Democratic, so attacking LDS instead of the Catholic church offers some political benefit. Also, most of Christianity considers LDS to be a cult, not a part of Christianity at all.

LDS is concentrated primarily in Utah, a GOP state, and it is the one state they control.

LDS is the group that got way out in front, that sent money from their home headquarters in Utah to California.

LDS has many anti-gay, anti-female attitudes. Why should disgusting biases inside a religion be tolerated when the religion moves outside their own walls to promote them?

While yes, they should meet some sort of reprisal, they didn't make this, ahem, accomplishment alone. Lashing out at the Mormons is deserved, but just makes the others in the herd feel they got away with it. Hell, I'm certain most of that mob hates gays only a little more than they hate mormons anyway.

ALL of the bases behind this thing need to be taken on.

I don't know.

I think one group should be concentrated on for when this thing gets to the brand new Supreme court.

Just like the churches used the boy scouts to push their agenda protecting "private entities" from gays and atheists joining their precious groups, the LDS can be the test case for the politicalization of churches and how that affects their tax exempt status.

on gays came from. . .surprise. . .the LDS.

"... when the religion moves outside their own walls to promote them?"

Why indeed.

Beautifully put.

I'd like to see them argue that!

I forget the name, but it said that because they were a private group, they were allowed to discriminate against gays and atheists.

And as is typical with everything the GOP pushes, they're now trying to apply it to everything.

Here's the link: http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

This is exactly why there shouldn't be any government recognition of marriage.

No more tax exemptions, no more special protections.

Their influence in America should be relegated to the fringes, where it belongs.

It is not.

It it were, there'd be no married atheist couples.

Religion DOES NOT and WILL NOT own marriage. Period.

I voted D though. Legislating from a the pulpit is supposed to be against the law. Let's work on getting our government to do its job and enforce that law.

http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/h... /

How to File an IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the “Mormon” or LDS Church) has gone too far in promoting the 2008 California Proposition 8, which would claims to amend the California state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman in order to supersede a state supreme court opinion issued earlier this year.

Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

A ballot initiative is neither legislation nor a candidate for public office.

But this one was.

It specific purpose was to rescind an already existing law by altering the California State Constitution.

That is legislation.

It was drafted as a constitutional amendment. Besides which (1) laws can't alter the constitution (they have to comply with the constitution - and if they conflict - or try to alter - they can be declared unconstitutional by the court and (2) legislation is tied to the legislature (not to voters going to the ballot box). The legislative provision is specifically an anti-lobbying provision, since lobbying organizations cannot be tax exempt.

(edited to add the final sentence)

In the meantime I'm expressing my displeasure.

I like the arguments presented in the cases that have been filed so far. I haven't studied enough CA law to know how realistic a chance it is - but the complaint I read looked good.

In the mean time - as close as this race was, I would not be surprised if a repeal could pass in a non-presidential year with a well orchestrated campaign.

Anyway, it's a quote from the link I posted.

Perhaps we should emulate Uncle Joe...