A Prop 8 challenge for swankers

[BarTopDancer]

My co-worker said there are 3 million absentee ballots to count still. Can anyone verify?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, I read that absentee ballots were counted first.

Either way, absentee ballots tend to skew conservative, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

ETA: Here's corroboration of the 3 million figure. That would include provisional ballots as well as absentee.

[Gn2Dlnd]

According to the KNX website, the amendment will take effect immediately. The first Lesbian couple to be married in L.A. county is filing a lawsuit claiming the amendment is unconstitutional, as is the San Francisco city attorney.

I have to drive to Redlands today to make a delivery, last time I was there my waitress proudly introduced me to her female fiancee. I hope they were able to get married before this shiat.

I'm disgusted.

[Gemini Cricket]

It was such a buzz kill to read the LA Times newspaper headline this morning.
Big letters proclaiming Obama's win and directly under that in pretty big font "Gay Marriage Opposition Takes Early Lead" or something like that. Ugh.

Some will disagree with me but I knew 8 would pass when I looked at how well-funded Yes was. Way more money than No.

I am glad there are lawsuits being filed against 8 already. A struggle for equal rights is a long process.

I also wonder why the Mormon Church still has their tax-exempt status. Why doesn't something like this affect that status? Just curious.

I am glad Massachusetts still has marriage equality.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I also wonder why the Mormon Church still has their tax-exempt status. Why doesn't something like this affect that status? Just curious.

Why would they lose their tax-exampt status?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Why would they lose their tax-exampt status?

Because tax exempt status for churches has been conditional on the basis that they refrain from political activity.

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."9 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."

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, so don't count on anything happening.

That said, the IRS has never enforced that clause, and the question of that clause's Constitutionality in regards to free speech has never been challenged.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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!!!!!!

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Why would they lose their tax-exampt status?

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

(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

[Ghoulish Delight]

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?

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.