Calif. high court asked to hear gay marriage cases

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Calif. high court asked to hear gay marriage cases stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

LISA LEFF | November 17, 2008 09:01 PM EST | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, saying the matter is too urgent to be unsettled.

"The petitions raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California's marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself," Attorney General Jerry Brown argued in his filing.

"This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," he said.

Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote earlier this month, overturned the high court's May decision legalizing gay marriage in California. The measure inserts language into the constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Gay and civil rights groups, the city of San Francisco and other plaintiffs have asked the court to void the measure on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make, what they say, is a fundamental constitutional change.

There is no deadline for the justices to decide whether they'll take the cases.

The litigation has made unwitting allies of supporters of the same-sex marriage ban and the attorney general, who voted against the proposition. Over the summer, anti-gay marriage groups sued Brown after his office changed the measure's wording to reflect that it would take away a right that same-sex couples then had.

Brown has since said that in his role as California's top public lawyer, he will fight to uphold Proposition 8 as an expression of public sentiment on same-sex marriage. The preliminary documents he filed Monday did not address that issue.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign, said the measure's supporters are so confident the Supreme Court would uphold the initiative they want the court to take the cases and resolve the question quickly.

"There is no question Proposition 8 is exactly the type of amendment the framers of the Constitution envisioned for the people to be able to enact," Pugno said.

The Protect Marriage coalition is less confident about Brown's sincere interest in defending the gay marriage ban in court, according to Pugno. That's why the coalition asked the court for permission to intervene in the cases Monday.

"Everyone knows the AG opposed Proposition 8, did everything he could to undermine it and it still passed anyway," he said. "There is little hope he would make much effort at all to defend Prop. 8."

Both the attorney general and Protect Marriage asked the court to reject a request from gay marriage supporters for a stay that would allow same-sex couples to resume marrying in California until the broader legal issues are addressed.

Meanwhile, the interfaith California Council of Churches and the Episcopal bishops of Northern California and Los Angeles added their petition Monday to those asking the high court to invalidate Proposition 8. They argue that if voters are permitted to take away rights from a group based on sexual orientation, the same could happen to religious minorities.

SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overt...
SAN FRANCISCO — The state attorney general and sponsors of the ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California urged its Supreme Court to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overt...
Filed by Nick Graham  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
747
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
photo

Why do these people want to get married? What's so good about marriage? I wish they can take away that right away from me...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 AM on 11/18/2008
- DMSmith I'm a Fan of DMSmith 17 fans permalink

You have the right not to get married. AND you have the right TO get married.
That's two for you and one for me.
That's not very equal, is it?
Freedom requires you trust yourself with your rights. Not to use your failure to do so as a bludgeon for someone else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 11/18/2008

I disagree...

I don't look at it as being a right, I look at it as being a privelage and a gift...

IF IT HAPPENS AT ALL...

And for many of us IT NEVER HAPPENS!

What do you think of that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 AM on 11/18/2008

I voted against Prop 8, but the tactics being used by the gay community in the wake of it's defeat are appalling (and possibly illegal). It's one thing to protest peacefully, but disrupting traffic, picketing the businesses of those who supported Prop 8, sending white powder to the Mormon church (here in Los Angeles), not to mention setting up a "blacklist" website with the name of those who supported Prop 8 are beyond the pale and totally repulsive.

That sucking sound is the last of my support for this issue going down the drain, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I support any of the gay community's causes again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 AM on 11/18/2008

Growing up in an evangelical household, I remember--on many occasions--our church advocating a boycott of national businesses that "supported" gays or abortion or other seemingly immoral stances. Oh yeah, there was that once that we were told to boycott Disney because they allowed "Gay Days" at Disney World!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 11/18/2008
- MechaMike I'm a Fan of MechaMike 2 fans permalink

The American Family Association boycotted McDonalds because they supported gay rights and they got a gay guy that was on the Board fired.

Where was the outrage over that?

If the opposition can use boycotts and blacklists, so can we!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:29 AM on 11/18/2008
- Shari Cohen - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Shari Cohen 4 fans permalink

Why is it so repugnant to you that those opposed to Prop 8 - and to denying a segment of our population basic civil rights - would want to publicly oppose those who supported Prop 8? At this point I would not give one penny of my money to any business in Utah, for example. And why shouldn't that be made public? People boycott things all the time. Big deal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 AM on 11/18/2008

People have a right to vote however they please without the threat of intimidation. How would you like it if the situation were reversed? You'd probably feel a lot differently if you were the target of some of these repugnant tactics.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 AM on 11/18/2008

Go back and re-read my post, I think you missed the part about how I voted AGAINST Prop 8.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 AM on 11/18/2008
- Eric8869 I'm a Fan of Eric8869 25 fans permalink

I doubt you supported the gay community in the first place if a few peaceful protests across the country have caused you to change your mind.

Sorry when we have our civil rights taken away from us we don't like it and we will make noise. If it offends you then don't take our rights away.

If someone is mad because they can't drive due to a protest it's nothing compared to not being able to see your partner dying in the hospital. Get some perspective.

Gay people pay taxes and spend our money at businesses. We have every right to picket businesses who vote against our civil rights.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 AM on 11/18/2008
- AAKAlan I'm a Fan of AAKAlan 62 fans permalink

I wish you made at least -some- sense.

We will not slink away into the night, like you would prefer we do. Not this time. The boycott, the protest, the publishing of names is the legitimate exercize of democracy. The names didn't have to be published by gays, the names of contributors are public records, and the reason they are is because the State felt that the public had a right to know. No harm, no foul.

It was the Christian right who perfected these protests. They boycotted sponsors that advertised on gay-friendly shows, threatened companies like Ford and Microsoft for offering domestic partner benefits and supporting gay rights. They boycotted Disneyland and Disney World for years, they recently boycotted MacDonald's.

They admittedly extorted businesses in California during the Prop 8 campaign, demanding contributions of $10,000 or they would "out" the business.

And, of course, there is that insane Phelps "Christian" clan who protests the funerals of soldiers killed in action to blame their deaths on gays.

And you're doing what people like you always do: blame the victims when they fight back.

Shame on you. If a bunch of valiant queens hadn't fought back with purses and heels in 1969 at the Stonewall in New York, we'd all still be in the closet.

Perhaps then, you'd be happy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 AM on 11/18/2008
- AAKAlan I'm a Fan of AAKAlan 62 fans permalink

Sorry, that reply was meant for SoCalGuy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:41 AM on 11/18/2008

Eric, be real man. How can you know this person's heart?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 AM on 11/18/2008

"I doubt you supported the gay community in the first place if a few peaceful protests across the country have caused you to change your mind."

Go back and read my post again - I voted AGAINST Prop 8, and also have no problem with peaceful protests. But blocking traffic for people not involved with the protests isn't peaceful (nor is it legal), and does nothing to advance your cause.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 AM on 11/18/2008

Excuse me but these so called "good christians" boycotted businesses they deemed friendly to gays they applied pressure on such businesses for years. I hope you felt that was unjust and perhaps you might think about why if they really just want a definition of marriage as between One man and one women these groups have boycotted businesses for just giving benefits to same sex couples. Seems to me I didnt hear people getting worked up about these boycotts but when gays and supporters of gays boycott businesses who chipped in to take away their civil rights then its "unfair" . Your not being honest with yourself you never supported gays. Or civil rights.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 AM on 11/18/2008
- RobHughey I'm a Fan of RobHughey 15 fans permalink
photo

Not to mention telling groups that gave money to the "No on Prop8" folks that if they didn't give an equal amount of money to the "Yes on Prop8" groups then they'd blacklist that business and broadcast it around that they gave money to "gay groups."

Even funnier: several groups sent out this notice to companies like AT&T and Apple, Inc. while mailing out the blacklist even before the companies were notified of this extortion.

And that's what it was: legal extortion.

I say boycott the lot. I have no interest in supporting groups that support bigotry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 AM on 11/18/2008
- antaeus I'm a Fan of antaeus 90 fans permalink
photo

Free speech isn't free, to take a page from the conservative's rhetoric. "Possible" illegal? Definitely not, says a UCLA analyst. Voters have an absolute right safely to cast an anonymous ballot. But activists who put their necks, and their purses, out cannot expect anonymity. And to call the choice of others to express their own feelings by taking their custom away from pro-8 businesses "repulsive" is simply hysterical.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 AM on 11/18/2008

You really need to brush up on your understanding of the law if you think that disrupting traffic and mailing white powder to someone is legal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:45 AM on 11/18/2008
- SFMuscular I'm a Fan of SFMuscular 2 fans permalink

"There is no question Proposition 8 is exactly the type of amendment the framers of the Constitution envisioned for the people to be able to enact," Pugno said. What a BOOB. The only provisions the "framers" of the California Constitution included for changing the document was by the long revision process. The shorter "amendment" process was not in the Constitution drafted by the "framers". The "amendment" process was added by an "amendment" and the Supreme Court has stated more than once that procedure has a limited purpose and cannot be used to change the structure of the Constitution. If you want to read something stunning, look at the petition to invalidate Proposition 8 filed by the California Council of Churches. It's a splended document that explains why Proposition 8 must fail, filed by dozens of congregations. You'll find it on this page: http://www.calchurches.org/marriage/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 AM on 11/18/2008
- bbbtmenw I'm a Fan of bbbtmenw 11 fans permalink

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm Check out all the legal documents for Prop 8.... Great stuff.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

The "Kingdom of Heaven" document is a real doozie. I can just see the justices rolling their eyes on that one. Also, looks like that particular group is interested in getting abortion back on the ballot.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 AM on 11/18/2008
- RuffNReddy I'm a Fan of RuffNReddy 9 fans permalink
photo

Just a comment on 'framers':
The original intent of the constitutional rights of marriage was formulated as a property right of one human to another, through ceremony. To 'own' another man's daughter, that she might change her name and be another's wife. Under the guise of romance, is up for question. Although, i'm sure that played into it somewhere.
There were no female 'framers' to have a say as to what marriage would mean for them.
The vows stated during ceremony suggest ownership (obey, etc).
Do we still practice this way? No, not really. Equality has set a tone that has changed all of that.

I mean, unless were still in the 1700's, i'd like to think that re-framing the constitutional amendment
for the modern era, as we have been since the birth of our nation, would reflect the massive changes that have happened over the centuries. As it has: biracial marriage, age limits and now upon us is another chance to ride a new wave towards the PROGRESSION that I'd truly like to think was the real intention of the 'framers'.

And a note to the heavy heavy Christians who still think this nation was founded under Christian law and ethics. Do your homework. America was a refuge, a place for freedom.... of religion.
Your religion shouldn't play a part in the handling of the laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 AM on 11/18/2008
- rmetz74 I'm a Fan of rmetz74 10 fans permalink

I live in California, and I hate that Prop 8 passed.

But if Prop 8 is what gets marriage equality on the road to the Supreme Court, then I think it's totally worth it.

The Supreme Court has been the force behind every major step forward in civil rights. Segregation. Interracial marriage. Roe v. Wade. And everyone with any measure of objectivity (rational Republicans included) knows that's where this question is headed - it's just a question of when and how.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 AM on 11/18/2008
- eyecon I'm a Fan of eyecon 8 fans permalink
photo

This never should have been on the ballot to begin with. Serious error. What and who is next? This is law based on superstition. Next time they'll try to outlaw the teaching of Evolution because in contradicts the bible. Maybe science teachers will be retrained from teaching that the world is 4.5 billion years old. After all, what is science compared to the Word?

Alexander Pope once said something the the effect "God created Isaac Newton and behold there was gravity."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 AM on 11/18/2008
- jimdog1954 I'm a Fan of jimdog1954 8 fans permalink
photo

That was indeed the law of the land. See the Scopes Trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 AM on 11/18/2008

"This never should have been on the ballot to begin with".

Agreed -- doesn't it take a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to amend the state constitution?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 AM on 11/18/2008
- Yves Papa I'm a Fan of Yves Papa 14 fans permalink

I don't know what marriage is anymore. That the Courts and the intelligentsia arrogates themselves to set the rules against the voice of the majority, twice, really galls me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 AM on 11/18/2008
photo

So we should have listened to the majority and kept all African Americans as slaves. We should have listened to the majority and kept all women from voting.

It's too damn bad it galls you...it's not your survivorship and custodial rights that are questioned and it's not your liberties and freedoms that being curtailed by Prop 8. You know what galls me is people like you who are so selfish and intollerant that you can't even let others live their personal lives as they see fit.

It really galls me!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 AM on 11/18/2008
- eyecon I'm a Fan of eyecon 8 fans permalink
photo

The "will of the people" argument is shallow. In some states that could have some very dire consequences. It is the duty of the courts to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Gay people deserve equal protection under the law. It is just that simple.

Marriage is not as static a concept as some suggest. For most of human history, it was about the conveyance of property.

Ultimately, despite vigorous efforts, I have yet to entertain a single argument that supports the notion that one couple's gay marriage affects, in any was whatsoever, another couple's "traditional" marriage.

I don't know who are the "intelligentsia." If that means critical thinkers, then count me in. In contrast, there is little intelligence associated with discriminating against a minority. People are battling the inevitable. Within a decade, same-sex marriage will be recognized throughout the USA.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 AM on 11/18/2008

Let me ask you a question here...

What do you want?

Do you want to wear some sort of insignia that says your gay and have no one care?

No one can tell that you are gay unless you tell them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 AM on 11/18/2008
- SFMuscular I'm a Fan of SFMuscular 2 fans permalink

Sorry, but you have that wrong. The people only get to take away fundamental constitutional rights and to deprive the courts of the power to determine what rights are fundamental by using the long "revision" process which neither Proposition 22 nor the newer Proposition 8 bothered to do. If you want to take away the fundamental civil right to marriage from a protected minority, you have to get 2/3 of the legislature to agree, or you have to get a constitutional convention to agree, in ADVANCE of the public vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 AM on 11/18/2008

one man - one woman

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 AM on 11/18/2008
- Eric8869 I'm a Fan of Eric8869 25 fans permalink

Thats not what it says in the bible and that wasn't always the history of our country. We have "redefined marriage" several times in our society.

once it was only about property rights - now people get married for love.

This is a natual progression - no matter what you think.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 11/18/2008
- helen I'm a Fan of helen 39 fans permalink
photo

I'll give the California Supreme Court an easy 'out' for this case:

"Which one man and which one woman in the state of California does this law apply to?"

;)

Crazy, but very reasonable interpretation, yes?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 AM on 11/18/2008

wow

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 AM on 11/18/2008
- Giada I'm a Fan of Giada 19 fans permalink
photo

California Council of Churches and the Episcopal Bishops of Northern Cal and LA support the overturn of Prop 8.

Good news and today's filings.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 PM on 11/17/2008
- goodgravy I'm a Fan of goodgravy 18 fans permalink

huffpo: "gay marriage" is a misnomer. men are gay. women are lesbians. it's all about marriage equality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 11/17/2008
- nellie I'm a Fan of nellie 502 fans permalink
photo

Exactly. It's marriage. Just plain marriage. And same-sex couples are entitled to marry, just like heterosexual couples, under equal protection.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 PM on 11/17/2008
- eyecon I'm a Fan of eyecon 8 fans permalink
photo

That is incorrect. The term "gay" encompasses men and women. Lesbian applies only to women.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 AM on 11/18/2008
- goodgravy I'm a Fan of goodgravy 18 fans permalink

then explain our annual LGBT festival.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 11/18/2008
- GingerB I'm a Fan of GingerB 82 fans permalink
photo

Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith


Sign the petition at

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce


Let's show how hypocritical these "sanctity of marriage" supporters really are.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 PM on 11/17/2008
- adampap I'm a Fan of adampap 7 fans permalink
photo

"There is no question Proposition 8 is exactly the type of amendment the framers of the Constitution envisioned for the people to be able to enact,"

um really?

yeah, i'm sure those dudes were all about taking away rights. they certainly weren't stupid enough to think all men are created equal or anything foolish like that. Pugno knows what's up.

I can't take much more of this stupidity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 PM on 11/17/2008
- lolcopter I'm a Fan of lolcopter 2 fans permalink

funny how this issue always ends with "down with religion!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 PM on 11/17/2008
- Lemeritus I'm a Fan of Lemeritus 109 fans permalink
photo

Funny -- as Lily Tomlin used to say -- but sad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 PM on 11/17/2008
photo

when religion is used to opress people, that makes it problematic, get it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 11/17/2008
- M1 I'm a Fan of M1 43 fans permalink
photo

Horrific crimes have been committed in the name of religion. These crimes have nothing to do with the word of God but everything to do with the listeners.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:11 AM on 11/18/2008
- adampap I'm a Fan of adampap 7 fans permalink
photo

well religion's a pretty big problem.

every religion is centered around a god that almost certainly doesn't exist, who spoke to prophets that probably never existed and inspired the authorship of holy books which contain countless contradictions about moral and scientific claims, and documented events for which there is no archaeological evidence and which may or may not have taken place dozens or even hundreds of years before the authors born.

i understand that there are many sensible people who are also religious, but their defense of religion makes it safe for extremists to use their faith as a tool of attack. by demanding respect for their kinder version of faith, they make it possible for the extremists to justify their prejudices. religion is always a conversation stopper because we're not supposed to offend religious people. and unfortunately it's amazingly easy to offend someone when talking about religion. but why shouldn't these ideas be open to honest inquiry?

most of us don't get our morality from a book which condones slavery and says you should stone to death adulterers and children who stray from the faith. the extremists truly do get their morals from scripture. the rest of us get it from our innate sense of conscience and the lessons we have learned over thousands of years of human existence. religious moderates need to realize this fact and shed their superstition so that the extremists can no longer use religion to justify their ignorance and bigotry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 AM on 11/18/2008
- Phoebe917 I'm a Fan of Phoebe917 57 fans permalink
photo

BINGO !!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 AM on 11/18/2008

But what if God really does exist and you just don't see that reality?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 AM on 11/18/2008
- rmetz74 I'm a Fan of rmetz74 10 fans permalink

You're missing the most important part.

Down with religion IN GOVERNMENT. And you can thank the Constitution for the persistence of that idea. I sure do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 AM on 11/18/2008
- Eric8869 I'm a Fan of Eric8869 25 fans permalink

Funny how this predjudice always starts with religion?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 AM on 11/18/2008
- Chicago48 I'm a Fan of Chicago48 13 fans permalink

What came first -- religion or prejudice?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 AM on 11/18/2008

Reality check, folks:

1) The U.S. is not suddenly going to become secular. "Conservative" religious types are going to continue to be a large, vocal, and VOTING block for a long time to come.

2) The churches are not going to lose their tax-exempt status. It does not matter if this is proper or not; it ain't going to happen in the near future.

3) Anything that is not "marriage" is not going to have the same legal rights as marriage. Domestic partnerships don't allow joint tax returns (just an example).

4) Blaming the Prop 8 supporters in CA and the Prop 2 supporters in FL feels good. Venting is good. Cleans the system. It does not change anything.

5) How to make progress? To quote my dear departed labor organizer father: ORGANIZE! get out the vote!. Vote with your dollars. Vote with your feet. Vote with votes. "You" includes, or should include, all those who agree on the issue. Doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, trans, bi or To Be Determined. Knock on doors, call, write, familiarity breeds familiarity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 11/17/2008
photo

I say gay couples (that can afford it) should leave California (at least temporarily) and go to states that recognize gay marriage. I am quite sure that if California government sees a significant dip in the tax revenue, they will have a slight change of heart.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 11/17/2008
photo

we've discussed leaving California

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 PM on 11/17/2008

And go where?

I came to California from Idaho to escape the persecution of Mormons and their tinpot theocracy. I THOUGHT it would be more tolerant here.

And until two weeks ago, it was.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 11/18/2008
- goodgravy I'm a Fan of goodgravy 18 fans permalink

where have you been the past week and a half? what the hell do you think we have been doing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 PM on 11/17/2008
- Chicago48 I'm a Fan of Chicago48 13 fans permalink

Sorry, but the opponents are afraid that they are open to lawsuits if they refuse to marry in the church. That's enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone, esp. a Church, and you know the gay zealots WILL SUE the first preacher & church that refuses them marriage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 AM on 11/18/2008

And theoretically, "gay zealots" would lose. There is this funny rule we have in America about mixing church and state.

The state isn't allowed to come into your church and say what goes on there (OK, OK, unless you are polygamous or smoking peyote, although personally it is hard for me to see what that harms) and the church theoretically isn't allowed to come in and tell the government what to do.

If the churches are threatened by having the government involved in religion, well, they opened the door. If they have any sense of irony, they should be frightened.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 11/18/2008
- abbeyroad I'm a Fan of abbeyroad 38 fans permalink
photo

why don't they ?

they follow the law of the constitution.

have you ever read it ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 PM on 11/17/2008

You claim churches can't be political and tax exempt (which is inaccurate), but these churches can remain tax exempt, as long as they agree with you. The hypocrisy increases by the day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 11/17/2008
- nellie I'm a Fan of nellie 502 fans permalink
photo

You are incorrect. A church can NOT lobby, can NOT spend money to promote the passage of a particular bill, or lobby for the election of a particular candidate under its 503c status. I was chair of a non profit, and we had to be very careful about endorsements.

You're probably confused because the Bush Administration defies this law, as it defies many other laws, and encourages churches to endorse candidates and lobby for legislation.

The Mormon church could very well lose its tax-free status over this if someone decides to make an issue of it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 PM on 11/17/2008

California Council of Churches and the Episcopal bishops don't deserve tax-exempt status either! Start a petition! Write to the IRS!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 11/17/2008
- SFMuscular I'm a Fan of SFMuscular 2 fans permalink

The California Council of Churches and the Episcopal Church are NOT lobbying anybody. They simply filed a lawsuit, which is NOT lobbying. Suing does NOT jeopardize a tax exemption.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 AM on 11/18/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect