Lounge of Tomorrow - A Prop 8 challenge for swankers

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - A Prop 8 challenge for swankers (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=8699)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby (Post 251249)

Do you know of any marches being planned? I would love to join if I can.

Me too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 251251)

Yeah, I'm going to have to say there's a pretty good case to be made that the Mormon church's substantial contributions violate the "influence legislation" clause in a big way.

Let's sue the Mormon church!!!!!!

According to the CA SOS site... There are 17.3 million registered voters (74.5% of those eligible to vote), but there were only 10.5 million votes cast - 60.7% turnout.

What a differnece that other 7 million could have made. :mad:

I find it interesting that it's 52 - 48 yes while Prop 4 is 52-48 no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 251242)

A bit of ignorance re: law, but I believe I'm right in thinking that federal constitutional law trumps state, yes? So if "separate but equal" has by precedent been deemed unconstitutional at the federal level, wouldn't that hold at the state level, even ignoring the "can't take away rights with a simple majority" precedent?

It's been a while, but separate but equal was a racial concept. In equal protection law, you're always going to get your strictest scrutiny when race is at issue. For there to be any equal protection violation, there usually has to be a suspect classification. Gays have not been held to be a suspect class. However, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that there was no rational basis for criminalizing gay sex, tradition and ancient moral codes notwithstanding. While there is arguably a difference between what is criminalized and what is given civil approval, I think Lawrence is probably the best argument out there.

Obviously, this is just my uneducated two cents on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 251251)

ETA: Here are the pertinent lines in the IRS code:

no substantial part of [a 501(c)(3) organization's] activities" may consist of "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation."

The easy out on this clause is that these activities were not a substantial part of the Mormon church's activities. Yes, the donations themselves could be considered substantial, but I can see where this is only a small part of the churches efforts (both financial and time).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 251251)

The second restriction mandates that 501(c)(3) organizations may "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."

This clause is not relevant to this case because it refers to a candidate only.

Again, I am not arguing for the LDS church (I am no fan of them), but just giving my $0.02.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis (Post 251257)

Gays have not been held to be a suspect class.

Are you kidding me? Have you met iSm?!? He's as suspect as they get!

(Joking here kids - don't take this post seriously!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby (Post 251248)

Why would they lose their tax-exampt status?

Quote:

Consequences of Political Campaign Activity

When it participates in political campaign activity, a church or religious organization jeopardizes both its tax-exempt status under IRC section 501(c)(3) and its eligibility to receive tax-deductible contributions. In addition, it may become subject to an excise tax on its political expenditures. This excise tax may be imposed in addition to revocation, or it may be imposed instead of revocation. Also, the church or religious organization should correct the violation.

Source

Quote:

(f) Affiliated organizations (1) In general Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (4), if for a taxable year two or more organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are members of an affiliated group of organizations as defined in paragraph (2), and an election under section 501 (h) is effective for at least one such organization for such year, then—
(A) the determination as to whether excess lobbying expenditures have been made and the determination as to whether the expenditure limits of section 501 (h)(1) have been exceeded shall be made as though such affiliated group is one organization,
(B) if such group has excess lobbying expenditures, each such organization as to which an election under section 501 (h) is effective for such year shall be treated as an organization which has excess lobbying expenditures in an amount which equals such organization’s proportionate share of such group’s excess lobbying expenditures,
(C) if the expenditure limits of section 501 (h)(1) are exceeded, each such organization as to which an election under section 501 (h) is effective for such year shall be treated as an organization which is not described in section 501 (c)(3) by reason of the application of 501(h), and
(D) subparagraphs (C) and (D) of subsection (d)(2), paragraph (3) or subsection (d), and clause (i) of subsection (e)(1)(C) shall be applied as if such affiliated group were one organization.

Source

Hey, give the Mormons, in fact, give ALL churches all the free speech they want, but make them pay taxes. I don't see a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd (Post 251261)

Hey, give the Mormons, in fact, give ALL churches all the free speech they want, but make them pay taxes. I don't see a problem.

Which brings up a good point. It's not just the Mormons who funded 8. There were other churches involved. Other close-minded, ignorant, pretentiously pious, scruffy-looking Nerf herding churches involved...