Zenguy
Member Profile
As you may know California residents recently voted to take away rights of same sex couples to marry. This is an important issue for all of us as California is a big influence on the rest of the country.
Come and join a protest of the decision to enshrine bigotry in the California state constitution.
Saturday, November 15th 10:30AM
Seattle City Bldg. 600 4th Ave.
Zenguy...
i am sorry i can't be there in person.
i would gladly join you.
thanks, Zenguy. I hadn't heard of the weekend ones in time to post here but will include this on calendar. PS Love your avatar. Studied Japanese as a teen so I know it's "heiwa" (peace) ...
flowerpetal
Member Profile
I'm torn between protesting at City Hall and the Mormon Church in WS. The City does offer generous benefits to same sex spouses of employees. Also on a Saturday, in front of City Hall we will get less notice and inconvenience only a few.
thanks TR..
i had been about to PM zenguy to find out what that meant.
Zenguy.. your avatar becomes you.
Zenguy - Thanks for sharing this info!
I'm still curious how the Mormom Church (based in UT) be allowed to spend so much out-of-state $ ($500K+) to change another state's law? Supposedly Mormons are 2% of CA population against Prop 8, but 40% of the funding aganist it. Seems to me they still have a LOT of housecleaning to take care of before they start dictating how other people live their lives....but, don't we all? :)
Also, for those who say "why not be happy with civil unions", there are still many rights that are ONLY associated with "MARRIAGE" as it is laid out in our legal system. MARRIAGE is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. It is afforded special tax breaks and protections. It is not even a term from the Bible, so why do Christians think they own it?
For a same-sex couple to accomplish all of the rights and priveleges that heterosexual couples enjoy simply because they are legally "married" ($100 and 10 minutes before a judge) would cost them thousands of dollars in legal fees, and could still be challeneged in court at any time. Not to mention you'd have to carry all legal paperwork with you at all times to prove as such. And then again, it would depend on where you were at the time. Ridiculous!
@RainyDay: Even more disturbing, at least to me: Why can a church, as a tax-exempt institution, get away with this? By what reasoning do they not think they should they lose their tax-exempt status for blatantly supporting, and urging their members to support, any legislation?
Is it just a case of "we're too big to sue"? Or is there an interpretation of the law that allows this?
Zenguy
Member Profile
I have heard (have not done any research yet) that there will be a challenge to the Mormon church's tax exempt status because there was a substantial effort by the entire church. The Mormon church is powerful and has a lot of money though.
Zenguy - No truer words were ever spoken!
Power and money (and an agenda)? - The Mormon Church
Zenguy and NR..I hear where you're coming from. This is one of the things that has to change in this country. Have they never heard of separation of church and state? It's still there...and they still cross the line. Unconscionable!
For Olbermann fans - Keith's "special comment" tonight is on Prop 8.
beachdrivegirl
Member Profile
GHO, thanks for the heads up. i would have hated to miss that. And yes, I could go on and on about the "oh so lovely" Mormon church...
Zenguy
Member Profile
For those of you interested in challenging the Mormon church's tax exempt status.
kennem
Member Profile
The question was asked, Why can churches engage in political activity and not lose their tax-exempt status?
Short answer: because this is America and our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech.
Long answer: I'm part of a same-sex couple married in California whose legal marriage has now been thrown into question, thanks in large part to religion. So I'm angry beyond words. I'm also an atheist and a member of Americans United For The Separation Of Church And State as well as Freedom From Religion (both great organizations). And the ACLU.
I am a firm believer in the constitutional guarantee of free speech. And religious institutions can constitutionally engage in political discourse. What they cannot do, according to IRS regulations, is endorse or preach against particular candidates. (Those that preached against Obama, for instance, should and could lose their tax exemption.) They are allowed to work for and against political causes in the political arena.
As much as I have to lose by having my legal, civil marriage thrown open to religion, I have even more to lose as an American citizen by shutting down the freedom of churches to speak their mind and work for what they believe in - even if what they believe in is repugnant.
I hope that those who are protesting the churches realize that they had every legal right to do what they did, thankfully guaranteed by our Constitution.
Zenguy
Member Profile
Kennem, check out the link above. It says that the church's support for the propositon and campaigning for it is somewhat gray.
Here is a video of Keith Olbermann on Prop. 8. He has no stake in same sex marriage, yet the emotion in his eyes and voice are unmistakable. I love him just a little bit more today.
i don't watch much oberman.. but i am impressed by the humanity of his argument.
do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
kennem
Member Profile
Hi Zenguy - I assume by "the link above" you're referring to the Oxdown site and not the other link you posted?
Either way, federal law is quite clear on the subject; there isn't really gray area when it comes to religious institutions' right to say what they want on a topic. What the IRS forbids is reference to candidates. But issues are fair game:
"Can an organization state its position on public policy issues that candidates for public office are divided on?
An organization may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office as long as the message does not in any way favor or oppose a candidate. Be aware that the message does not need to identify the candidate by name to be prohibited political activity. A message that shows a picture of a candidate, refers to a candidate’s political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography may result in prohibited political activity.
Date posted: April 17, 2008"
This is from the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=179462,00.html
zenguy-thanks for posting about this. i wanted to get it on here, but my login kept failing. i moved from west seattle to the palm springs area a few months ago. i cannot tell you what prop 8 has done to california. i lived here for 12 years prior to my move to seattle. i came back to be closer to family & friends and for some sunshine. what i have found is a divided state that has been far from welcoming. prop 8 has given people license to hate.
palm springs is a tolerant community as the gay population is very large. the surrounding communities have become filled with people who are filled with rage over the fact that gays want equality. when last i lived here, you didn't feel the hate like this. it's palpable. yes on 8's campaign was filled with lies and biblical references that have people actually fearing us. it is disgusting. people are looking twice anytime two men or two women are doing anything together. i was so thrilled to see obama elected, but so dejected by prop 8. the wind was out of my sails.
it is difficult to find the adequate words. there is no place in legislation for religion. i grew up catholic and struggled for years. it took time for me to realize that no god supports hate. using religion to legalize discrimination is an abomination. we will prevail. we will not give up. it will take time, energy and support from people across the nation. this isn't just about california. please protest. please help. whom i choose to love has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage or life for that matter. we should celebrate love. not banish it. thanks for listening all. no on 8! no on hate!!
please watch. this says it better than i ever could.
Hi, Kennem! Thanks for pointing me in that direction. The law still doesn't seem all that clear, to me, though. For example, this quote from the IRS's "Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations":
"In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."
So I think it needs clarification. And I absolutely support the free-speech right of churches, but don't see why revoking their tax-exempt status for breaking the rules for tax-exempt organizations constitutes restricting their free-speech rights any more than prohibiting them from supporting candidates does.
Zenguy
Member Profile
First I want to say we all seem to want the same thing. I firmly believe in the right of free speach, but that right is not absolute, slander and not yelling fire in a theater for example. I believe what Julie pointed out is the gray area I was referring to.
K, I participated in a friends wedding in PS just a month ago, so this is very close to my heart! Although this seems like a set back, I think this might actually be a blessing in disguise.
Would there be this much publicity if the prop. had failed? Would there be protests is citys across the country?
Microsoft pulling its support and then reaffirming it actually help the equality movement here, let us hope that is what is happening now.
I think it will be interesting to find out how the wording of "too much" is interpreted... referring to Church lobbying and their right to retain tax free status...
and to be perfectly frank, it is easier to look at this test case since the church in question is the mormon church... than say Jerry Falwell's church.
I don't think there is any way to keep churches from influencing an election.. but i do believe that influence ought to be limited to their membership.
the thought of any religious institution spending the kind of money they spent to ensure passage of this measure is obscene.. and dangerous if this is allowed to set a precedent.
There's something about the influx of funds from out of state (on a state's ballot issue) that is particularly disturbing to me. I would like to see that addressed as well. As Keith said, "What is it to you?"
charlabob
Member Profile
We're not challenging their free speech. We're challenging their tax exempt status. There really is a difference.
Does anyone know where money is being raised to challenge the legitimacy of the vote? There are a number of legal issues -- starting with a direct conflict with other parts of the constitution. Even Schwatzenegger, who wants a cabinet position (and to get to sleep with Maria -- he said it, I didn't) now opposes the amendment.
AND has anyone seen stats on how many people (low info voters :-) thought "Vote yes on the gay marriage amendment" meant they were voting in favor of gay marriage?
I have a feeling there were more people like that than we want to know.
Aim
Member Profile
Charla on the last point I think you're right. Even now I have a hard time keeping it straight (pun intended) in my mind as to whether it was "yes" or "no" on 8 that I supported. Because intuitively I would say it should be "yes" if you feel that it's fine for us to marry, and "no" if you think we should be discriminated against. It's intentionally confusing, as many measures are. They're often written in such a way that they're full of double negatives and yes means no and no means yes. The healthcare lawsuits one a few years ago was that way. Completely written to confuse.
If state's rights are to remain state's rights, then out of state money shouldn't be used to influence a state election...
and we could push that ballot initiative through..
but they would just open a state office and funnel money through it.
i would like to see better reporting that lets people know who is funding initiatives .. and how much they are spending...
at one time you wouldn't ahve to pay for your own ad to make that point...
maybe the pendulum in journalism will swing back again.
we can only hope.
in the meantime.. funding efforts to challenge prop 8 is a very good thing.
beachdrivegirl
Member Profile
Although I do agree 100% that what the church did was wrong; it is being done by other church groups as well. Including some Catholic churches in regards to Abortion. It really comes down to the fact that there need to be stronger groups out there ready to financial and emotional fight just as strong as the, in this case, Mormon church.
flowerpetal
Member Profile
Here's a link that relates directly to the topic:
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
The one caveat I'd put on this is that it's not just the Mormons. The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic fraternal men's organization, also heavily funded Proposition 8 in California.
The Mormons have been in bed with the IRS for years. There is a huge IRS facility in Utah heavily populated with employees of course who are Mormon. Mormons in other parts of the country have been encouraged by the church into employment with the IRS in preparation for the "last days" in order to keep an upper hand on things.
I was just about to update the calendar but am now wondering if anyone knows the definitive info on the protest plan - Out and Equal mentions a Volunteer Park protest Saturday:
http://outandequalseattle.blogspot.com/2008/11/seattle-protest-against-prop-8-on.html
rather than city hall.
The FB group linked on that page says the same thing, and also that there will be a march to Westlake afterward.
Just want to make sure anyone interested in participating winds up in the right place. Still pursuing an official news release somewhere ...
Has anyone noticed the spiteful feelings most you have (except the card carrying athiest - go figure)against an organization that disagrees with you? Isn't this the same thing you all are saying is wrong? The people voted against the definition of marriage changing because they disagreed. You all disagree with them, yet they are the bad guys. Why the bigotry against the Mormon church?
wes..
i can't speak for anyone else, but i have no spiteful feelings.
i do believe that if an organization is given a tax exempt status because of the charitable work they do..
and that is the justification for the tax exempt status of churches...
that they shouldn't be spending that money on political involvement.
It seems like a small thing.. but individuals are exempted on paying tax for the money they donate if they have enough tax write offs to file for donations.. and then churches are exempted from any revenue they generate...
That's a lot of money that isn't going into tax revenue.
I have no argument with their right to free speech.. just with their right to spend untaxed money on political agendas.
They voted against two people having their relationship legally validated with all the rights and benefits any human should be afforded. There is no secular government justification for this stance. It is purely motivated by religious opinion.
Please tell me of any group that has tried to pass legislation restricting you from worshiping as you desire? I haven't participated in that and my atheist opinion is that religion is responsible for all that is wrong in this world.
So see, there is a difference. We disagree but I don't attempt to legislate my opinion. It wouldn't be fair or right.
Aim
Member Profile
"The people voted against the definition of marriage changing because they disagreed."
Nope, that's actually completely incorrect.
The Supreme Court in CA had already ruled that equal rights and anti-discrimination laws meant that marriage was open to same sex couples. These folks voted to TAKE AWAY rights from people, thereby voting in discrimination. That's very different from voting to "keep the status quo."
I see people questioning whether what the church did was legal. That's not the same thing as spite.
FWIW, I know quite a few Mormons who are very upset that their church chose to do this. Some are considering leaving the church over it.
Wes, it seems to me that Mormons and the Mormon church could disagree with homosexuality and even believe it's against their own moral code without seeking to deny rights to others. The initiative itself seems kind of spiteful to me.
The idea that marriage is somehow sacrosanct and has been tarnished by LGBT members who want to marry just makes me roll my eyes. With high rates of infidelity, divorce, abuse, domestic violence, addiction, and general maltreatment of one another...um, yeah. Marriage sure is precious here in Heterosexual Land.
JenV
Member Profile
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith
why not just prohibit divorce, then?
Zenguy
Member Profile
Apparently there are two rallies. One is at 600 4th ave at 10:30, the second is a march from Volunteer park to Westlake Center at noon.
Please pick one and attend.
Zenguy
Member Profile
Ok, not the two protests have been combined into one BIG protest.
Volunteer Park at 10:30 and then marching to Westlake Center at noon.
Zenguy
Member Profile
It was a beautiful day for a protest and march. Thousand met in Volunteer Park to hear the organizer, Ed Murray, Ron Sims and Greg Nickels talk about the change that WE CAN make.
The crowd was happy and there was a sense of fun in the air. Here are some of my favorite signs.
-When do I get to vote on your marriage?
-If you like my decorating, you'll love my revolution.
-Brigham Young had 55 wives, Joseph Smith had 34, I only want one.
The march down to Westlake was an amazing experience, seeing all the families and straight supporters made me feel good.
It was a GREAT day!
TammiWS
Member Profile
Ironic how an group who claims to have been discriminated against for their religious beliefs and views on marriage funded an initiative that discriminates against a groups beliefs and views on marriage.....
My feeling is that with the change we've seen in the past two weeks this will change too. Momentum is on our side. An entire country, in a multitude of cities, held protests today. That is HUGE! I'm hopeful.....
In case anyone is wondering why the Mormon Church is being singled out:
*Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage*
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
You must log in to post.
All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^
westseattleblog
West Seattle Blog
West Seattle Blog