• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Probe into LDS Church's Prop 8 donations going forward

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Source [The Salt Lake Tribune | Probe into LDS Church's Prop 8 donations going forward]

California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) confirmed Monday that it will investigate allegations that the LDS Church failed to report nonmonetary contributions to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

An independent nonprofit organization, Californians Against Hate, called for the investigation after the measure passed earlier this month, effectively ending same-sex marriages in that state.

"They read my letter and I guess came to the conclusion that there's something worth looking into," said Fred Karger, who heads Californians Against Hate, which was formed to track donations in support of the ballot initiative. "I'm hopeful that the LDS Church will cooperate and share all the records and all the information they have about their activities in the Proposition 8 campaign."

Karger, a retired political consultant, alleged in his complaint that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report money invested to organize phone banks, send out direct mailers, provide transportation to California, mobilize a speakers bureau, send out satellite simulcasts and develop Web sites as well as numerous commercials and video broadcasts.

In the aftermath of Proposition 8's passage, outcry over the LDS Church's active role has included demonstrations outside temples in California, Utah and New York protesting what critics see as Mormons' contribution of a disproportionate amount of the measure's financial backing. By some measures, Latter-day Saints are believed to have contributed as much as $22 million to the cause.

The LDS Church did not comment on Monday's latest development but said earlier that Karger's complaint had "many errors and misstatements," that the church had "fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act" and that "any investigation would confirm the church's full compliance with applicable law."

A lot of this reeks of popular justice. LDS would have to be pretty damned stupid to overstep the law rather than just having its members move money around. If there is any wrongdoing I hope that they are held fully accountable, however. Lately religious institutions have really been pushing the line in their political activism
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I thought it was confirmed that the donations came from individual members not from the church directly?

Doesn't matter, the LDS church is going to be the target of the anti prop 8 hate group until hell freezes over...
The gays are taking the cheap shot at the easy target, with a hard target being all the rest of the yes on 8 voters. They seem to be devoid of balls in that respect.
I used to sympathize with them, but after seeing what tactics they use, I will probably vote against them here in Utah.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Doesn't matter, the LDS church is going to be the target of the anti prop 8 hate group until hell freezes over...
The gays are taking the cheap shot at the easy target, with a hard target being all the rest of the yes on 8 voters. They seem to be devoid of balls in that respect.
I used to sympathize with them, but after seeing what tactics they use, I will probably vote against them here in Utah.

Good, because they don't want or need your sympathy.
They want equality, and need justice.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Good, because they don't want or need your sympathy.
They want equality, and need justice.
The equality and justice issues have been well discussed, and I asked several times what was not equal except for terminology, never got an answer that made any sense.
 

Doc Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
570
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Doesn't matter, the LDS church is going to be the target of the anti prop 8 hate group until hell freezes over...

Good. They hated on the Gays first. I hope they choke on it.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'm making some popcorn, and I'm going to watch the fur fly. Also, the CA Supreme Court has agreed to look at this from an article VI standpoint, so it might not be over yet. This should also make some interesting entertainment.
 

Doc Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
570
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The equality and justice issues have been well discussed, and I asked several times what was not equal except for terminology, never got an answer that made any sense.

If you need another word for it, it isn't equal.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Doesn't matter, the LDS church is going to be the target of the anti prop 8 hate group until hell freezes over...
The gays are taking the cheap shot at the easy target, with a hard target being all the rest of the yes on 8 voters. They seem to be devoid of balls in that respect.
I used to sympathize with them, but after seeing what tactics they use, I will probably vote against them here in Utah.

It's not like the right wing ever supported gays in the first place. Now they just have new excuses for why they don't want to, since the old ones have been debunked innumerable times. Democratic process doesn't mean that the voters must use secular rationles in their votes... they can vote on basic feelings and will continue to do so.

The coastal areas of CA tend to be the more liberal and that is where the gay population tends to congregate, and yet the State vote allows people on the interior, and in smaller counties, to decide on political issues that mostly only affect the liberal areas. That, and the pro-prop 8 vote was a slim majority, yet it can change the constitution.

The court has its hands full... I also really hope the legislature gets a say as the 3rd branch of power.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Doesn't matter, the LDS church is going to be the target of the anti prop 8 hate group until hell freezes over...
The gays are taking the cheap shot at the easy target, with a hard target being all the rest of the yes on 8 voters. They seem to be devoid of balls in that respect.
I used to sympathize with them, but after seeing what tactics they use, I will probably vote against them here in Utah.

In other words, you're willing to deny people their civil rights (despite previously agreeing with them) because you don't like the tactics of a few members of that group. I never realized that equal rights were contingent upon not being obnoxious.

Some blacks joined Black Nationalist groups during the 60s...Therefore, I guess segregation was justified after all. :doh
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's not like the right wing ever supported gays in the first place. Now they just have new excuses for why they don't want to, since the old ones have been debunked innumerable times. Democratic process doesn't mean that the voters must use secular rationles in their votes... they can vote on basic feelings and will continue to do so.

The coastal areas of CA tend to be the more liberal and that is where the gay population tends to congregate, and yet the State vote allows people on the interior, and in smaller counties, to decide on political issues that mostly only affect the liberal areas. That, and the pro-prop 8 vote was a slim majority, yet it can change the constitution.
The court has its hands full... I also really hope the legislature gets a say as the 3rd branch of power.

It should never have come up for a vote in the first place, beofre the ballot was the time for a court challenge, not that it can't still be challenged.
Whether a slim margin, or a large margin, popular vote cannot change the constitution to deny rights to tohers..
It wasn't popular vote that emancipated the slaves. This is for the supreme court to decide.
I suppose when some small segment of society living in a few towns in Alabama want the right to wear sheets and burn crosses at black churches, the rest of the state can't tell them no ??
Whatever the issue, CIVILILITY is the way to handle it, not throwing temper tantrums when you don't get your way. And you don't target the smallest group of voters with your own hatred and ignorance, you sue ALL of them.
MLK did more for his cause by persistent and patience that any of the blacks advocating violence.
 

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Good. They hated on the Gays first. I hope they choke on it.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'm making some popcorn, and I'm going to watch the fur fly. Also, the CA Supreme Court has agreed to look at this from an article VI standpoint, so it might not be over yet. This should also make some interesting entertainment.
Don't choke on the popcorn.:2razz:
As for hating the gays first, I NEVER hear the church leaders hate anybody, and only on a few occasions have heard a few LDS members use racist terms. I can count those on one hand, and that covers a span of 40 years of living among them.
I have no sympathy for those using uncivil methods to get their way, whether it be terrorists from the ME, or homosexuals from San Francisco...
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Have any of you read what Utah said? He said he sympathized with the gay marriage rights groups. Now because stupid attacks by some radicals, more ammunition has been given to the religious right and its allies to portray homosexuals as some violent radical group. Some of these people are already preparing for a fight in my town already.

Newburgh minister in middle of gay-marriage dustup - RecordOnline.com - The Times Herald Record

couldn't have said it better myself, thanks...
every action has a reaction, and for MOST LDS, that reaction will be seen at the next referendum or proposition vote.
Now if the gays want a real battle ground that the media will better cover, they should take their initiatives to the bible belt states and stage protests there. Better keep them civil, though....the first evangelical church that gets spray painted with hate messages will bring about more reaction than was wanted...
 

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
couldn't have said it better myself, thanks...
every action has a reaction, and for MOST LDS, that reaction will be seen at the next referendum or proposition vote.
Now if the gays want a real battle ground that the media will better cover, they should take their initiatives to the bible belt states and stage protests there. Better keep them civil, though....the first evangelical church that gets spray painted with hate messages will bring about more reaction than was wanted...

No problem. Going head first into the Bible Belt is really risky, it would be a better strategy to engage in purple states first and when support is really solidified then go into the really red states. They should also reach out to Log Cabin Republicans for help as well.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No problem. Going head first into the Bible Belt is really risky, it would be a better strategy to engage in purple states first and when support is really solidified then go into the really red states. They should also reach out to Log Cabin Republicans for help as well.

I can appreciate how "wounded" the gay world must feel not being able to get their way in "their" state. As long as they continue to roar at their detractors, instead of trying to sway them with logic, they will be heard, but ignored. This isn't a vote by noise where the most vocal wins. The voices must be calm, logical, without using inflammatory words or deeds.
Surely there is ONE eloquent advocate available to further their cause?.
As I keep saying, MLK was more effective with words than all the violence advocating black activists combined...
 

Doc Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
3,076
Reaction score
570
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't choke on the popcorn.:2razz:
As for hating the gays first, I NEVER hear the church leaders hate anybody, and only on a few occasions have heard a few LDS members use racist terms. I can count those on one hand, and that covers a span of 40 years of living among them.
I have no sympathy for those using uncivil methods to get their way, whether it be terrorists from the ME, or homosexuals from San Francisco...


Define "uncivil", please? Are the Gays running around cutting peoples' heads off, or are they just saying mean things?
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Define "uncivil", please? Are the Gays running around cutting peoples' heads off, or are they just saying mean things?

I take it as a gesture of civility, you will volunteer to remove hate messages spray painted on church buildings and walls?
According to the news, LDS kids at USU are getting hate e-mail, do you think it comes from gays maybe?
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't choke on the popcorn.:2razz:
As for hating the gays first, I NEVER hear the church leaders hate anybody, and only on a few occasions have heard a few LDS members use racist terms. I can count those on one hand, and that covers a span of 40 years of living among them.
I have no sympathy for those using uncivil methods to get their way, whether it be terrorists from the ME, or homosexuals from San Francisco...

I only know two people who grew up Mormon, but their accounts are identical. The public face of the Mormon church and its membership is very different from the entirely intolerant, almost vitriolic reality. I've met the parents of one of them, and I was extremely surprised by the descriptions of racism and hate that apparently show themselves behind closed doors. They seemed perfectly nice and were entirely civil to the Muslim roommate I had at the time, but that was apparently just an act. I've never met anybody who hated Mormons as much as that guy, and he doesn't have a whole lot of hate in him, normally
 

70s_guy

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
193
Reaction score
52
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What seems to fly over the heads of gay advocates is all this legal suing, black listing, and behind the public court manipulations only serve those against their agenda in supporting the same kind of charges the pro Proposition 8 supporters used in their tv and media ads to change the more neutral elements of the electorate and win the election.

So for example lets take the issue of Catholic adoption agencies. After the gay laws were forced on Massachussetts people by the courts, they decided to sue Cathlolic charity organizations that for decades organized adoptions. Thus gay couples tried to adopt through those agencies instead of others that were neutral and after a lawsuit a judge tried to force it on them. So instead of complying they ended their adoption programs. Same thing is happening right now in Great Britain causing a huge uproar. Now gays could easily have said we'll just use the other agencies. However their historic pattern is to immediately going back to their behind the back legal manipulations attacking organizations they dislike even if it is offensive to significance demographics. An attitude that started years ago when the tried to force gays into the Christian Boy Scout organization.

People are not going to forget and the next time they try and push same sex marriage the same ads will appear with examples of how it is all so true.
 
Last edited:

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I only know two people who grew up Mormon, but their accounts are identical. The public face of the Mormon church and its membership is very different from the entirely intolerant, almost vitriolic reality. I've met the parents of one of them, and I was extremely surprised by the descriptions of racism and hate that apparently show themselves behind closed doors. They seemed perfectly nice and were entirely civil to the Muslim roommate I had at the time, but that was apparently just an act. I've never met anybody who hated Mormons as much as that guy, and he doesn't have a whole lot of hate in him, normally

Wonderful, you know 2....I know a few more than 2, been living amongst them in Idaho, Utah, and AZ since 77....hell, I don't even need to use a trump care here, I got you in sheer numbers...
Get back to me when you can say such stupid things about 200 or more...:2wave:
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wonderful, you know 2....I know a few more than 2, been living amongst them in Idaho, Utah, and AZ since 77....hell, I don't even need to use a trump care here, I got you in sheer numbers...
Get back to me when you can say such stupid things about 200 or more...:2wave:

I'm not saying it's representative, just relaying a personal experience. No need to go on the offensive
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It should never have come up for a vote in the first place, beofre the ballot was the time for a court challenge, not that it can't still be challenged.
Whether a slim margin, or a large margin, popular vote cannot change the constitution to deny rights to tohers..

In principle I agree, but in practice you are incorrect, as State constitutions have already been changed to deny gays the right to marry.

I suppose when some small segment of society living in a few towns in Alabama want the right to wear sheets and burn crosses at black churches, the rest of the state can't tell them no ??

Burning crosses on private property is illegal unless sanctioned by the owners.

Whatever the issue, CIVILILITY is the way to handle it, not throwing temper tantrums when you don't get your way. And you don't target the smallest group of voters with your own hatred and ignorance, you sue ALL of them.

You acknowledge that the group being attacked is small, but you don't acknowledge that the group doing the attacking is small. This is the flaw in your logic. By your statements, you'd swear every gay person in CA was taking up arms. This is false. The majority are still peacefully demonstrating. Remember, it is always the radicals that shout loudest and get the most media attention. You can't let that blind you to the core issue, which is still a civil rights issue.

MLK did more for his cause by persistent and patience that any of the blacks advocating violence.

I would argue that the issue of black civil rights was even more divisive. You had MLK advocating peaceful resistance, and Malcolm X arguing for attacking the issue with force. Malcolm X had a pretty big following, actually... which you can't really compare to the gay marriage movement. Gay rights have already been established in law, this is just one of the further cornerstones that activists are trying to reach.

The violent ones are still a minority. I agree that they sully the cause of the peaceful majority, but every popular protest will have its violent ones.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,264
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In principle I agree, but in practice you are incorrect, as State constitutions have already been changed to deny gays the right to marry.



Burning crosses on private property is illegal unless sanctioned by the owners.



You acknowledge that the group being attacked is small, but you don't acknowledge that the group doing the attacking is small. This is the flaw in your logic. By your statements, you'd swear every gay person in CA was taking up arms. This is false. The majority are still peacefully demonstrating. Remember, it is always the radicals that shout loudest and get the most media attention. You can't let that blind you to the core issue, which is still a civil rights issue.



I would argue that the issue of black civil rights was even more divisive. You had MLK advocating peaceful resistance, and Malcolm X arguing for attacking the issue with force. Malcolm X had a pretty big following, actually... which you can't really compare to the gay marriage movement. Gay rights have already been established in law, this is just one of the further cornerstones that activists are trying to reach.

The violent ones are still a minority. I agree that they sully the cause of the peaceful majority, but every popular protest will have its violent ones.

I can't say it is gays doing the vandalism without using the word ALL in front of the word gays? I never said all gays, I said it is gays doing the violence, unless there is a secret group of heterosexuals out there who are doing it in behalf of the gays.
And one point that is not coming across very well, the tantrums being thrown by the losers is not going to play very well with the voters the next time this kind of proposition comes up. There are MANY voters who did not vote last time that will next time.
There are 3 choices here, vote yea, vote nea, or don't vote.
One would assume that the majority of gays and their ardent supporters voted against it, say 95% did. But those who don't care enough to vote for it, skipped that part on the ballot sheet, so maybe 25% who are on the fence did not vote. Do you expect to have their support NEXT time? Those voting yes will vote yes again, the protests won't sway them, it will harden their resolve. You can't SCARE people into voting your way. But you can piss off those on the fence about the issue...
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can't say it is gays doing the vandalism without using the word ALL in front of the word gays? I never said all gays, I said it is gays doing the violence, unless there is a secret group of heterosexuals out there who are doing it in behalf of the gays.

You'd be surprised at how many heterosexuals are also part of the cause, but I agree the majority are likely homosexuals. That said, the core issue is still a civil rights one. You call it them having a tantrum, but the Stonewall Riots in the 60's were also seen the same way, which lead to more rights being granted.

And one point that is not coming across very well, the tantrums being thrown by the losers is not going to play very well with the voters the next time this kind of proposition comes up. There are MANY voters who did not vote last time that will next time.

I can't really agree that it's people having tantrums. It's people engaging in popular protest, which is their right. In the minds of the protesters, their livelihood is at stake because it's a civil rights issue. For you, whose rights are not at stake, perhaps you can look at it more non-chalantly. I don't blame you, I'm just saying.

There are 3 choices here, vote yea, vote nea, or don't vote.
One would assume that the majority of gays and their ardent supporters voted against it, say 95% did. But those who don't care enough to vote for it, skipped that part on the ballot sheet, so maybe 25% who are on the fence did not vote. Do you expect to have their support NEXT time? Those voting yes will vote yes again, the protests won't sway them, it will harden their resolve. You can't SCARE people into voting your way. But you can piss off those on the fence about the issue...

I'm not necessarily convinced that the vote would be "bigger" next time. Obama encouraged a lot of people who would not normally vote to come out to the polls, mainly ethnic minorities and youth.

I'm also not saying I agree with the violent radicals, but every cause has those people. It's not really fair to let them darken the principle cause of the majority who, to my knowledge, are heatedly, though peacefully, demonstrating.

The issue is already relatively on the fence to begin with. Even with a large voter turnout, the yes voters were at 52%. Think about that. 52% can change a State's constitution... what is the point of having a constitution at all?

The gay marriage issue aside, I am concerned that if the court allows the vote to ratify the constitution, that it will set a new precedent not just in CA, but all over the U.S. for how law may be changed. Let's be realistic... a large portion of the "yes" crowd for Prop 8 were supported with religious beliefs. If Prop 8 truly goes through, it is letting the religious right know that it can ratify constitutional laws in ways that are not necessarily secular. That's a little disturbing, is it not?
 
Top Bottom