Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8

How can a free society reconcile the often competing values of democracy, religious liberty and the separation of church and state? This challenge was vividly illustrated by the recent controversy over California's Proposition 8, which forbade same-sex marriage.

In a democracy, the majority of citizens ordinarily may enact whatever laws they want. Some laws, however, are prohibited by the Constitution. For example, the majority of citizens may want a law denying African-Americans the right to vote or prohibiting Muslims from attending public schools, but such laws violate the Constitution.

Does Proposition 8 violate the Constitution? There are several arguments one might make for this position. One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me.

Laws that violate the separation of church and state usually take one of two forms. Either they discriminate against certain religions ("Jews may not serve as jurors"), or they endorse particular religions ("school children must recite the Lord's Prayer"). Proposition 8 does not violate the principle of separation of church and state in either of these ways. It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression.

What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. Indeed, despite invocations of tradition, morality and family values, it seems clear that the only honest explanation for Proposition 8 is religion. This is obvious not only from the extraordinary efforts undertaken by some religious groups to promote Proposition 8, but also from the very striking voting patterns revealed in the exit polls.

Proposition 8 was enacted by a vote of 52% to 48%. Those identifying themselves as Evangelicals, however, supported Proposition 8 by a margin of 81% to 19%, and those who say they attend church services weekly supported Proposition 8 by a vote of 84% to 16%. Non-Christians, by the way, opposed Proposition 8 by a margin 85% to 15% and those who do not attend church regularly opposed Proposition 8 by a vote of 83% to 17%.

What this tells us, quite strikingly, is that Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.

The Framers of the American Constitution knew that throughout human history religious self-righteousness has caused intolerance, discrimination and injustice. They understood that religious self-righteousness is dangerous, divisive and destructive, and that it has led to untold ignorance and misery. It was for that reason that they embedded in our Constitution a fundamental commitment to the separation of church and state.

The Framers were not anti-religion. They understood that religion could help to nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society. But religion was to be fundamentally private. It was for the individual. It was not to intrude unduly into the political sphere.

But here's the rub: From a strictly legal perspective, it is next to impossible for courts to enforce the separation of church and state in the context of laws like Proposition 8. When a law does not directly restrict religious activity or expressly endorse religious expression, it is exceedingly difficult for courts to sort out the "real" motivations behind the law. As a consequence, courts are loath to invalidate laws on the ground that they enact a particular religious faith.

This does not end the inquiry, however. Courts also have difficulty in dealing with laws that do not expressly discriminate on the basis of race or religion or gender, but that were motivated by racial, religious or gender prejudice. But we know - as an essential part of our national character - that we as citizens should not support laws because they advance our discriminatory biases about race, religion, and gender. We know that it is un-American for us to enact laws because they implement our prejudices. We know that it is our responsibility to be tolerant, self-critical and introspective about our own values and beliefs and to strive to achieve our highest national aspirations.

The separation of church and state is one of those aspirations. Indeed, regardless of whether courts can intervene in this context, it is as un-American to violate the separation of church and state by using the power of the state to impose our religious beliefs on others as it is to use the power of the state to impose our discriminatory views of race, religion or gender on others.

This is the fundamental point that the religious advocates of Proposition 8 fail to comprehend. Like other citizens, they are free in our society to support laws because they believe those laws serve legitimate ends, including such values as tradition, general conceptions of morality, and family stability. But they are not free - not if they are to act as faithful American citizens - to impose their religious views on others. That is, quite simply, un-American.

This is not to say that individuals cannot attempt to persuade others freely to embrace and to act in accord with their religious beliefs. The First Amendment gives us virtually absolute protection to preach, proselytize and evangelize. But the fundamental point about religious liberty in the United States is that it is private. Christian Evangelicals have every right to try to persuade others to accept and abide by their beliefs. But they have no right - indeed, they violate the very spirit of the American Constitution - when they attempt to conscript the authority of the state to compel those who do not share their religious beliefs to act as if they do.

Comments

[Mykel]

I worship a gay God. Honestly.

A hermaphroditic universe that self-perpetuates shouldn't be too difficult an concept to grasp.

Heck, I believe Jesus was gay. Or at least bi.

I think gays should just form a gay God-worshipping church.

Maybe a conservative gay off-shoot of such a church could even go so far as to condemn heterosexuality as a sin. It does overpopulate and treat women like property in most cases, after all.

Maybe this lot of conservative gays could then put a proposition on the ballot outlawing heterosexual marriage.

Maybe it could win.

But would it be fair to do that to our straight brothers and sisters?

I say no.

But I can still worship a gay God.

[Smith808]

Hi Mykel,
I get your irony, but the truth is, just because there are some who "don't love" us for who we are, God still does. There are churches, by the way, that accept gays and lesbians as God's children (e.g., Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalist, and some urban Methodist churches that focus on community-­building). That said, worship what and who you may...

[che1111]

Personally for me, religion is a sin. Look at what has been done by organized religions in the history of humanity. More wars, injustice, torture, support and justification of injustices like slavery, possession of women as property, denial of rights. The language of most churches is still steeped in traditions of hierarchy, our "lord", "king", etc. I recognize that religion is a necessary evil for some people, but I wish it did not invade every discussion we have on policy in this country, from stem cell research to education and marriage equality. Marx was right about religion being an opiate, but at times it can also be an amphetamine of the people. Unfortunately it energizes them to take actions that later are proven to be driven out of fear and hatred (remember those Salem witch trials?)

[Mykel]

Smith808,

Yeah, of course I know about the MCC and the Unitarians. But they don't go as far as I want in worshipping my Gay God or my Gay Jesus.

Maybe we gays really do need our own, separate religion, with it's own God and/or Goddesses, holy books, temples, rituals and what have you.

On the other hand, in some ways we already do, which begs the question:

is there really any difference between someone's religious beliefs and someone's sexual beliefs? Both are behavioral. Science can't seem to prove that either are something that is innate. People get off on loving whatever God they want and they get off loving whatever partner they want.

What's the difference?

[Zanti]

Wow. That was SO clever.

[satanshimself]

As a straight atheist, I am 100% in favor of any two adults (who wish to legally join as a couple) having the same rights and benefits as any two other adults. That's why I, and, I think, the majority of Americans (as well as the majority of Californians), favor civil unions for gay couples.

But let's not call a rose a "carnation". Gays (and any other adults) already *do* have the right to get "married"-- if they wish to legally join someone of the opposite sex. No love, sexual contact, or childbearing ability is required.

Want "marriage"? Then sign up with someone of the opposite sex.

Want "civil unions"? Ask, and I bet ye shall receive.

Most of the gays I know don't give a rat's you-know-what about the word "marriage." They just want the tax and legal benefits that "married" couples have.

[BruceHNV]

That would be the precise point. Under civil unions, they don't.

[coreyishere]

In my mind all "marriages" hetero and homosexual alike should be "civil unions" with all of the rights marriage is currently given, under federal and state law. I think the the anti-gay marriage stance is, in fact, a "religious expression" and by allowing this amendment to the CA constitution, the state is indeed giving an "endorsement" to certain religious views. Seems simple enough to me.

[MikeMcAllister]

We learned in the Civil Rights era that separate but equal never means equal. By definition, to call something by another name is unconstitutional.

And let's be honest. Why can't gays get married, why must we settle for civil unions? The message, despite your protestations otherwise, is that gays aren't worthy of the same rights that straights enjoy.

This gay guy, and plenty of others that I know, won't rest until we get the EXACT SAME rights that everyone else has, including the exact same wording.

[che1111]

I'm a gay American living in Argentina. If I meet a man here and fall in love, I would not be able to legally live with him in the US under your generous offer. There are many legal benefits to married couples, including the right to immigrate. Spare me your straight perspective and try living in my shoes for a week.

[LeftRight]

Okay, that's fair. And while we're at it, let's make it so that if you wish to have a straight marriage, you will only be able to get the benefits if you marry a person of the same sex!! Then you can get all the legal benefits without having love, sexual contact, or childbearing ability!

[dm10003]

does your idea of marriage include convoluted charades?

[alex76]

I asked some friends of mine reasons why they voted yes on prop8 and they would not give me a single good reason. They just said it's not right, churches said gay marrriage is not right. This is just rediculous.

[mlaiuppa]

You miss the point.

Prop 8 itself doesn't not violate separation of church and state. HOW Prop 8 passed did. The Mormon church elders sent out a letter to be read by Mormon ministers to congregations from the pulpit during worship. It was a political message. it was an edict (basically an order) that they were to donate money to pro Prop 8 and were to volunteer their time. And they did. Their donations amounted to 50% of pro Prop 8 money ($20 million) and their volunteering to walk, call, etc gave pro 8 the manpower they needed to change the results. THAT was the violation of separation of church and state.

Prop 8 is unique in the nation as it took a legal right that AWAY from a minority group. Gays were legally allowed to "marry" under the California Constitution. Prop 8 took that right away. That is not an amendment, it is a revision. And as such it should have gone through the legislature before appearing on the ballot and is required to pass by more than a simple majority.

Prop 8 is illegal. And the courts will find it so.

The Mormon Church violated the IRS tax exemption rules when they brought politics into the pulpit. As such they should lose their tax exempt status.

[firstfreeze]

churches can advocate positions on issues, just not endorse a candidate

[BruceHNV]

It violates the equal protection clause.

It should not even be possible to get such a law on a ballot.

[bbc3341]

This would be like claiming that Martin Luther King, as a minister, could not preach against racist laws or encourage his parishioners to fight against them.

I would bet that if a religion advocated no on 8 from the "pulpit" you wouldn't have a problem with it...

[BruceHNV]

Anyone can preach anything they want. But the repeal of racist laws was a constitutional issue.

If MLK had preached FOR racist laws, I'd have a problem. Not because he preached, but because racism is wrong.

So it denying rights to gays.

[CD-Host]

Churches are free to order their members to vote on anything however they want. You are correct at a certain point such activities may cause them to lose their tax exempt status but it never, ever invalidates the underlying law.

[Mendy Hecht]

" religion could help to nurture the public morality necessary to a self-governing society"

Well, what if your religion believes that public morality ought to define marriage as solely between man and woman? Then it all of a sudden doesn't "help nurture public morality"?

This is a battle about right and wrong, ultimately.

[BruceHNV]

We do not define right and wrong in law. We define "permitted" and "not permitted." "Required" and "not required."

You cannot legislate morality. When you do, you abridge people's civil rights.

Religions helping to nurture morality does so in the meeting house, the pulpit and the pews, by changing the hearts of men - not in the legislature by dictating their behavior.

[bluekatz]

What rights are being violated?

[BruceHNV]

The very fact that you can't see the difference between religious persuasion and legislation illustrates the danger of legislating morality.

[Mysticalsister]

Imagine that those of us who do not belong to any religion were suddenly in the majority in America. As the voting majority, we will be able to vote on our belief that churches should no longer have tax exempt status, and that those who are religious must keep their religion to themselves and in the confines of their church.

Being able to inflict your beliefs on the rights of others by voting them into law is a slippery slope. Given that churches everywhere are seeing a decrease in their membership, the idea that those of us who do not belong to any religion will in due time become the majority is inevitable.

In preparation for what is to come, I would suggest that it might be time for YOU to start being respectful to us. Afterall, when that time comes, you will be subject to our definition of what is and is not moral behavior.

[pyt333]

What gives you or your minister the right to decide what is "right" or "wrong" for me? If you believe that marriage should only take place between a man and a woman, then don't marry someone of your same sex. But you have no right to tell me or anyone else what they can or should do with their lives.
We don't have to believe the same things. But I don't try to stop you from believing or living your life according to your beliefs, so why aren't gay people afforded the same rights? How does gay marriage affect you, tangibly? Gay marriage doesn't break the ten commandments (not that it matters), it doesn't hurt you tangibly, nor your family. It has no effect on your life whatsoever. So what is the problem? You don't think it's right? Who asked you? You do what is best for you. Let me take care of what is best for me.

[BruceHNV]

Hey - read Leviticus. It's an"abomination." Like eating shellfish or mixing textiles.

[bubbuh]

There's a reason our governmental units in the USA are overwhelmingly representational democratic. This form of democracy provides a litlle time and emotional distance to evaluate the merits of legislation. It doesn't stop all bad legislation from passing. Think of all the "We aren't monkeys laws. However, indirect democracy stops quite a bit of insane and unnecessary law. My favorite example: In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen county, Indiana introduced Indiana House Bill #246. This bill's purpose was to make pi equal to 3.2. It was a close thing but ultimately the legislation was voted down. I have no doubt that if this bill hand been subject to a popular vote it would have become law handily.

I also live in a state, Florida, which routinely amends its constitution by popular vote. Every election we run the risk of mindlessly embaressing ourselves because .

My "favorite" embarassment occurred during the 2002 election. The Florida constitutional amendment involved as presented on the ballot: Limiting Cruel and Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy. It provides minimal "civil rights" for our porcine sisters (Our piggy brothers still get what they deserve!). The amendment passed with 54% of the vote.

Direct democracy is wonderfully exciting. It creates interesting times. Every election cycle I anxiously await the introduction of the Florida constitutional amendment version of Mr. Record's bill.

[iczlite]

Here's an idea:
Any Church (mini or mega) or religious group that pushes for a political agenda, even if only through their leaders (with or without the cooperation of "volunteers"), should be considered a Political Action Committee (PAC) and therefore bound to all the Federal regulations applied to all PACs.

Let's see who will be BEGGING for separation between Church and State...

[Ganapati]

I concur, this is the best post I have seen about the topic.
One detail though: This is a religious issue, true; but it is also, fundamentally, a display of homophobia.
The minute you scare 52% of the voters with images of their kids learning about gay marriage at school (which we know is not true) you have homophobia in display. Why don't we cal things by their names?
Yes, religious conservatives won the referendum by scaring people tapping into their homophobic fears.
I don't see the word very much around, Elephants in the room, anyone?
Education must be the foundation upon which this movement (movement?) is built.
Without aggressively educating people and eliminating social phobia, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

One thing I noticed about the rallies last Saturday: They were conducted, mostly in "gay neighborhoods" around the country... I know I marched in my sunny gay neighborhood
Why didn't we take it to those parts of town where those that voted Yes live?
Preaching to the choir, even to a choir of tens of thousands, sounds a bit safe, doesn't it?
Can we think about that for the next march? Obama didn't win by limiting his campaign to blue states...

[bluekatz]

Is it fear or is it that this is what people believe to be marriage, between a man and a woman. To say that people are wrong for voting for this is saying that people should allow others to impose their beliefs upon them. If they truly believe that marriage is between a man and woman who are we to change their minds? Would you not agree that the ga.ys are doing the same thing by trying to impose their beliefs on others? One can argue, but when you take the time to look each group is trying to impose their beliefs on each other. All to say " I am married'? What is wrong with civil unions if they get the benefits such as health, property, etc?

[BruceHNV]

Gays are not imposing their beliefs an anyone and - but for the success or Prop 8, churches wouldn't be able to, either.

[MarkBoston]

In all 50 states. Before you go to the church you need to file with the state for a MARRIAGE LICENSE, then you may proceed to your religious ceremony. Marriage is a legal license. What ever you wish to do after receiving the MARRIAGE LICENSE is up to you and your churches. There are however many churches that are happy to continue the religious service to include equality. The churches who spew hate and bigotry will be left to themselves. YOUR religion has NO place in My life. The only people forcing anything on anyone is the antigay rights movement. If Civil Unions are so great.. why dont you have YOUR Marriage changed to one ?

[QuietTom]

The only belief that gay people want to force on others is that marriage be allowed for all citizens -- not just those who are not gay. Otherwise, marriage a special right for non-gay people.

But, let's change the constitution so that anyone with the Log In Name of "bluekatz" is not allowed to get married. Everyone else -- get married to your heart's content. But bluekatz you get a civil union so what are you complaining about. Happy now?

[MarkInEugene]

You keep forgetting that the imposition is on gays and lesbians. It is their liberties and freedoms at stake here. It is gay couples who stand to loose here. Now if you want to argue that these gay couples are making you feel bad or unhappy....go see a therapist!

What does it cost you to allow a paultry 18,000 gay couples in California to have these right. How damn selfish of you and your religion to say "To bad, I don't like you having these rights because it hurts my feeling or defiles my religion"

If we start letting offended religious sensibilities dictate law in this democracy, we no longer freedom, liberty and justic for all.

What are you so damn mad at us for that you want to interfere with our right to equality under the law?

[CD-Host]

This is precisely why there should have been a law allowing gay marriage rather than a court decision. Because in that case the concerns that people had could have been addressed by the legislative process.

[BruceH]

Thanks for this, I've been writing letters to editors wondering why this point isn't made by the media.

My religion, Unitarian Universalist, permits and encourages gay marriage. Where are my religious rights?

[HypocrisyAlarm]

BruceH, perhaps you've hit upon a brilliant basis for trying to get the courts to invalidate this travesty. The proposition DOES prevent you from fully practicing YOUR faith. I also wonder to what degree the underpinnings of the Colorado case would apply here. There, the courts determinded that legislation applicable ONLY to a minority is unconstitutional.

[Mildmannered]

the tax-free status of that particular religious group should be revoked.

[LeftRight]

No, the tax free status of ALL religious groups should be revoked! They should be able to create a sub organization which provides charity, and place whatever money they spend on charity into that organization, which will reduce the overall tax rate for the religious group, but they will still be paying taxes for the portion that they are running as a business!

[justdan]

You raise some valid points, but I think you really hurt your argument by taking things too far. No one is imposing or compelling their beliefs on others through the state, but they are using the state (and, to be fair, it is all constitutional) to prohibit certain things. To impose would mean that everyone would HAVE to acknowledge that those religious beliefs are true and would all have no choice but to attend church and follow all religious teaching and doctrine. That is imposing and compelling!

What really worries me is all the references to being "un-American" and the like. This particularly concerns me after all the heat put on (and rightfully so) Congresswoman Michele Bachman over her insinuations that liberals were "anti-American." People jumped all over her for saying such ludicrous things, and frankly your argument is no less troublesome.

The beauty of America is the Constitution. That document allows tremendous freedom for the American people (if they follow certain procedures) to make this country whatever they want it. I'm sorry we can't all agree on all the issues--that would make things so easy, but I don't think you've demonstrated in any way how Prop 8 violates the Constitution. Keep in mind that in 1917 the 18th Amendment prohibited alcohol (repealed in 1933)--and it was entirely legal and constitutional! We may not always make the best choices, but like it or not, the passing of Prop 8 was (in my opinion) 100% democratic.

[BruceHNV]

I violates the constitution by repealing rights.

[justdan]

I'm sorry, but where in the US Constitution does it talk about the right to marriage? What specific right is being violated? Where in the Constitution is that right clearly protected? How is it repealed? How is it unconstitutional for a constitutional amendment to change the constitution (what does it mean to AMEND)?

[bluekatz]

What rights? What are they being denied?

[bluekatz]

But don't you think that gays are now trying to impose their beliefs on others? That argument can go both ways or those who believe in gay marriage and those who don't. Sexual orientation should not be the justification to enact a law of matrimony. What is wrong with civil unions if they get the benefits of health,and property, for that is what it truly is about? But to use this as civil rights violation does not help their cause. For what are they being denied but marriage? They are free to move about this country with no restraints and to equate this to civil rights is an insult to those who lost their lives and fought so hard for those to be free. They can sit, eat, drink, and move about this country with no constraints, so what rights are truly being voilated but the fact they are not being able use the term "marriage" ?Yet they have a civil union!

[BruceHNV]

Being gay is not a "belief." Gays are not trying to impose a "belief" on anyone.

[rharris513]

What's to stop a Proposition to ban Divorce? Divorce is marriage's greatest threat, and even Jesus Christ in Scripture completely denounced it though it was permitted in only certain circumstances by the Old Testament.

If the state can redefine marriage on one level, how can it not be taken further?

[bluekatz]

How ridiculous is that? How is divorce marriage's greatest threat? Marriage is not perfect and people need to stop thinking it is.

[BruceHNV]

Stupidity is a threat to marriage. Gayness is not.

[pebblesvanpeebles]

It means the end of a sacred union, an oath between to people to God to stay with each other alone. From a GENUINELY religious standpoint, divorce is a big deal. But religious people who divorce nowadays just want to go easy on themselves and justify divorce exactly as you just did. Marriage was never supposed to be perfect, but even in Jesus's Book, you should only do it once and 'til death do you part... only FOR REAL. Divorced Catholics (technically) aren't even allowed to take communion and are considered excommunicated from the Church. THAT'S how divorce is marriage's greatest threat. Religion commands it so, but religious people in our society have conveniently forgotten this serious offense. Rush Limbaugh, anyone?

[CD-Host]

Many states have a notion of "covenant marriage" that is a type of marriage that is much much harder to dissolve. So far it has just been an option alongside contractual marriage but some states have argued they should get rid of contractual marriage. Also prior to the introduction of no fault divorce laws in the 1960s divorce was often much more complicated.

So in answer to your question, not only could it happen to some extent it has happened.

[only1Demvoter]

Yep.

Keep your Church out of my State.


-ralph

[MarkInEugene]

At the time the state decided to use the word marriage in a legal context, the word became the domain of law. The fact that religion is now claiming to have the express right to its use and definition is clearly an attempt to undermine the separation clause.

Many believers are incensed at the lack of understanding in the gay community over the sanctity issue of "their" word. The implication being that gay and lesbian marriages somehow sully their marriages that have a sacred meaning and tradition. They do not afford the same courtesy to gay marriages that assumes the gay couple has entered into it with a sacred meaning and fervent commitment. Herein lays the problem.

No matter how deep you dig into and no matter how much you analyze words and actions, you will always arrive at the same source that has caused this standoff: hatred. This issue is not about anything more than the same old simple disgust and hatred that gays and lesbians have endured since time immemorial. Until they are respected for the unique and albeit unusual beings they are in this diverse life, the heterosexual majority will continue to remain trapped in the sickness that we call homophobia.

I’m confident however that future generations will let go of arcane beliefs and ridiculous lies of civilizations demise if we dare to respect our fellow homosexuals. They will always remain a small minority because natural selection guarantees it.

[little miss]

Hatred is a strong word to be using. And I feel that it is also the wrong word. I have been in raised in a strong religious family and I hold no hatred to homosexuals. I have plenty of friends that are gay or lesbian, a number of them are among my close friends.

Maybe you should research the beliefs behind the people who you are bashing before you make final judgments. Misunderstandings and indifference are easily connected.

[Herders4Me]

Are you saying you support equal rights for gays under the law? Somehow, I'm not exactly getting that feeling from your post.

If you thought Prop 8 was the right thing to do and voted for it, I think I have some news for you. Those gays you consider your 'close friends' probably don't like you. Or they hate themselves. One of the two.

[BruceHNV]

Are in favor of or opposed to Prop 8?

[MarkBoston]

do not be fooled little miss. It IS hatred. It's also fear. As a gay man , I have seen the vile venom spewed out from behind pulpits by so called men of God .... When one group believes itself to be superior to another group of Americans and removes their fundamental civil rights that attempts to create a completely separate class with laws ONLY pertaining to them .... What do you call it ? Does "Fascism" have a softer sound to it

[MarkInEugene]

Ok then, let me clarify it for you since you have a problem with the word hatred. Change the word to disgust, dislike or whatever flowery word you think adequately describes a church spending 20 million dollars to prevent a minority from partaking in the benefits and privileges that comes with being married under US laws.

You can complain all you want about the word I chose which obviously has offended you, but explain to how you would define the motivation behind this massive effort to prevent gay marriage. Tell us what we should be feeling from you? Wisdom, guidance, god’s wrath, guilt, god’s love? And does it matter to you how this makes us feel?

Let say you win. We don't get marriage. How does that benefit you? In fact imagine a world with no gay people. Do you think you'd get up tomorrow and be richer, holier, happier? The truth is NOTHING would change in your life. Do you see why this pisses us off? WE ARE THE ONES WHO SUFFER because of your arrogance and self righteous demagoguery! It is not right for religion to supersede equality in a democracy! That is why there is a separation of church and state clause in our Constitution!

[abbeyroad]

this link shows the complaint papers that were filed with the IRS:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/complaint-failed-against-mormon-church.html

it uncovers exactly why the LDS will lose their tax exempt status.

[dm10003]

unless money talks louder!