Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Equality protest
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 10, 2008 at 6:53 pm #588680
ZenguyParticipantAs 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.
November 10, 2008 at 7:05 pm #647006
JoBParticipantNovember 10, 2008 at 7:11 pm #647007
WSBKeymasterthanks, 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) …
November 10, 2008 at 7:29 pm #647008
flowerpetalMemberI’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.
November 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm #647009
JoBParticipantthanks TR..
i had been about to PM zenguy to find out what that meant.
Zenguy.. your avatar becomes you.
November 10, 2008 at 8:30 pm #647010
AnonymousInactiveZenguy – Thanks for sharing this info!
November 10, 2008 at 10:58 pm #647011
RainyDay1235MemberI’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!
November 10, 2008 at 11:10 pm #647012
JulieMember@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?
November 10, 2008 at 11:18 pm #647013
ZenguyParticipantI 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.
November 10, 2008 at 11:23 pm #647014
AnonymousInactiveZenguy – No truer words were ever spoken!
Power and money (and an agenda)? – The Mormon Church
November 10, 2008 at 11:32 pm #647015
JanSParticipantZenguy 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!
November 10, 2008 at 11:34 pm #647016
GenHillOneParticipantFor Olbermann fans – Keith’s “special comment” tonight is on Prop 8.
November 10, 2008 at 11:37 pm #647017
beachdrivegirlParticipantGHO, 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…
November 10, 2008 at 11:52 pm #647018
ZenguyParticipantFor those of you interested in challenging the Mormon church’s tax exempt status.
November 11, 2008 at 1:52 am #647019
kennemMemberThe 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.
November 11, 2008 at 2:39 am #647020
ZenguyParticipantKennem, 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.
November 11, 2008 at 3:32 am #647021
JoBParticipanti 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…
November 11, 2008 at 3:59 am #647022
kennemMemberHi 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
November 11, 2008 at 4:27 am #647023
kParticipantzenguy-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.
November 11, 2008 at 4:48 am #647024
JulieMemberHi, 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.
November 11, 2008 at 5:43 am #647025
ZenguyParticipantFirst 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.
November 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm #647026
JoBParticipantI 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.
November 11, 2008 at 5:06 pm #647027
GenHillOneParticipantThere’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?”
November 11, 2008 at 6:15 pm #647028
charlabobParticipantWe’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.
November 11, 2008 at 6:28 pm #647029
AimParticipantCharla 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.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.