Reader comments
LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment
492 comments | Read story
Ha!!!! | 3:00 p.m. June 23, 2008
YOUR tithing money at work. Makes ya proud doesn't it?
Re: flattopSF | 2:59 p.m. June 23, 2008
"As for the LDS church getting involved in political acts of bigotry,
well...I'll just say that when it came to putting up or shutting up, the
Mormons weren't abolitionists, they weren't feminists, they
weren't against child labor, they weren't...need I go on?"
I don't know where you get your facts but the LDS Prophet Joseph Smith advocated abolishing slavery peacefully and one of the complaints Missourians had against Mormons in the 1800's was their anti-slavery position.
Also, Utah was one of the first states to grant women the right to vote. Also, many of LDS women including Emmeline Wells played a major role in the woman's suffrage movement and would serve as the President of the LDS Relief Society. In fact, the first female STATE SENATOR was elected in the great State of Utah.
So I suggest you get your facts right before making posting such nonsense.
I don't know where you get your facts but the LDS Prophet Joseph Smith advocated abolishing slavery peacefully and one of the complaints Missourians had against Mormons in the 1800's was their anti-slavery position.
Also, Utah was one of the first states to grant women the right to vote. Also, many of LDS women including Emmeline Wells played a major role in the woman's suffrage movement and would serve as the President of the LDS Relief Society. In fact, the first female STATE SENATOR was elected in the great State of Utah.
So I suggest you get your facts right before making posting such nonsense.
Oh No | 2:59 p.m. June 23, 2008
We really did it now - the gays are all mad that someone else has an opinion.
Won't someone just go ahead and quell those First Amendment rights. (But only when it applies to people who aren't gay).
Gays you just go ahead and keep having Gay parades, and gay days and gay fests and all the other gay stuff you do and everyone else will just keep quiet and let you all gay it up!
Wouldn't that be nice.
Won't someone just go ahead and quell those First Amendment rights. (But only when it applies to people who aren't gay).
Gays you just go ahead and keep having Gay parades, and gay days and gay fests and all the other gay stuff you do and everyone else will just keep quiet and let you all gay it up!
Wouldn't that be nice.
Comments continue below
Yeah idiot | 3:01 p.m. June 23, 2008
I am sure a lot of tithing went into a news article
sorry, Ha!!! | 3:01 p.m. June 23, 2008
no tithing used here.
this one's on us.
glad to help anyway we can.
this one's on us.
glad to help anyway we can.
Bert | 3:02 p.m. June 23, 2008
The Mormon Church has every right to say it is morally wrong for two people of
the same gender to have sex � that is a moral issue.
Directing members to vote to alter a state constitution is a political issue.
Amending the constitution will not stop people from having sex. Having sex is the moral issue not having the same civil right to marry as everyone else.
Amending the constitution will not stop people from having sex. Having sex is the moral issue not having the same civil right to marry as everyone else.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 3:03 p.m. June 23, 2008
There are many churches in California that were on the legal brief filed with
the California Supreme Court supporting the establishment of gay marriage. If
it is legitimate for them to support it, it is equally legitimate for other
churches to oppose it.
The fact is that the legality of gay marriage will be used to pressure churches and religious prople in California to support gay marriage and the complete normalization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender behaviors. When you accept bisexual behavior, it is by definition normalizing sexual relations of one person with both sexes. If gay people can marry, why shouldn't bisexual men be able to marry BOTH a woman AND a man? And then, what is there differentiating that from a man who wants to marry two women? Seriously! The dissent on the CA Supreme Court asserted there is no logical bright line preventing the precedent from being used to legalize polygamy as a "constitutional right". I agree.
The fact is that the legality of gay marriage will be used to pressure churches and religious prople in California to support gay marriage and the complete normalization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender behaviors. When you accept bisexual behavior, it is by definition normalizing sexual relations of one person with both sexes. If gay people can marry, why shouldn't bisexual men be able to marry BOTH a woman AND a man? And then, what is there differentiating that from a man who wants to marry two women? Seriously! The dissent on the CA Supreme Court asserted there is no logical bright line preventing the precedent from being used to legalize polygamy as a "constitutional right". I agree.
Gay relocation program | 3:05 p.m. June 23, 2008
It's time to get the wheels turning on the gay relocation program.
I am willing to donate to the fund to pay their moving costs to California so long as they all promise that they will never leave the state of California.
I am willing to donate to the fund to pay their moving costs to California so long as they all promise that they will never leave the state of California.
Taylormaid | 3:04 p.m. June 23, 2008
As the daughter of a lesbian, it saddens me that my church has once again
painted all gays as trying to redefine marriage and destroy that which is
sacred. I tell you that my mother has been in a long term relationship with a
wonderful woman and I would be glad to be able to see them legitimize that
relationship. In no way will it affect my own relationship with my husband and
my children already love and honor these two women. I do not fear that my
children will become gay. I think that they will grow up understanding and
accepting all people, no matter what religion, color, or orientation, that the
morals and principles that they have set for themselves will be just that--for
themselves and not for the rest of the world. I have had to learn this already.
RockOn | 3:04 p.m. June 23, 2008
Gays believe in Might makes Right.
Fact: 70% of Americans consistently do not want gays to commit semantic taxidermy and rip the stuffings out of the word Marriage and stuff in their own definition. Men and women marry. The end.
Gays chose to be the way they are...there is no evidence of gay being biologically induced any more than their is evidence that pedophiles, bestialists, adulterers are genetic disposed. So... live with the consequences.
Good on the LDS Church for standing for what they believe in.
Fact: 70% of Americans consistently do not want gays to commit semantic taxidermy and rip the stuffings out of the word Marriage and stuff in their own definition. Men and women marry. The end.
Gays chose to be the way they are...there is no evidence of gay being biologically induced any more than their is evidence that pedophiles, bestialists, adulterers are genetic disposed. So... live with the consequences.
Good on the LDS Church for standing for what they believe in.
Me | 3:07 p.m. June 23, 2008
In the spring and summer of 1994 more than 800,000 people in Rwanda were
slaughtered with machetes by their neighbors. 400,000 people have died of
disease, starvation and violence since 2003 in the Sudan. 1 in 3 women world
wide, particularly in Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, will be the victim of
gender-based violence.
And we saddle up the horses for this?
And we saddle up the horses for this?
rmb | 3:06 p.m. June 23, 2008
If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, why does a world wide organization
ban them from participating in their health organization? Is it because of how
it will affect others? If you are wondering what organization it is, you might
have heard of them, the American Red Cross! If you had just one encounter in the
last 30 years you can not give blood. There are many moral issues to consider
when dealing with this topic.
Anonymous | 3:06 p.m. June 23, 2008
You should not even comment on what churches think - you will do what is best
for you as we can't help you now. It is your choice - bad or good. No
need for any church's advice and condemming them - maybe you should go to
the justic of peace - not a church for goodness sake.
flattopSF | 3:06 p.m. June 23, 2008
What I find interesting here is the total incomprehension of what the Judicial
Branch's role in government is. It is also amazing to read how ignorant
Americans are of their own Federal and State constitutions.
You have the freedom to worship according to your conscience: not the privilege of shoving your beliefs down the throats of others.
The Judicial Branch's role is to interpret the law as it applies to the case before it. The constitution exists to protect the rights of ALL, not just the majority.
Might does not make right. Majority rule can easily become tyranny. Perhaps many of you should remember that it was not so long ago that your ancestors were a persecuted minority.
You have the freedom to worship according to your conscience: not the privilege of shoving your beliefs down the throats of others.
The Judicial Branch's role is to interpret the law as it applies to the case before it. The constitution exists to protect the rights of ALL, not just the majority.
Might does not make right. Majority rule can easily become tyranny. Perhaps many of you should remember that it was not so long ago that your ancestors were a persecuted minority.
To Tom Paine | 3:08 p.m. June 23, 2008
"When a church becomes involved in politics, promotes a political agenda,
and tells it's members how to vote, it should lose it's tax exempt
status."
Fascinating, and perhaps the California Supreme court would institute it as law - after all, they don't seem to support actual, written statutes as decided by the people or the people's representatives.
Sadly for you - and thankfully for America - loss of tax exempt status is based on the support of a specific political candidate or political party, neither of which has occurred here. A church or any other tax-exempt organization may freely oppose or support measures themselves.
I know, I'm sorry that you think some people should have their first amendment rights taken away because they disagree with you - but the Founding Fathers, whose names you flout, tended to see it the other way and wanted an expression of opinion on issues while taking the reasonable step of preventing a group from supporting a person or political party. So sad, I know, for those on the left to see the exercise of first amendment rights - you know, those that are actually a part of the written law of this country.
Fascinating, and perhaps the California Supreme court would institute it as law - after all, they don't seem to support actual, written statutes as decided by the people or the people's representatives.
Sadly for you - and thankfully for America - loss of tax exempt status is based on the support of a specific political candidate or political party, neither of which has occurred here. A church or any other tax-exempt organization may freely oppose or support measures themselves.
I know, I'm sorry that you think some people should have their first amendment rights taken away because they disagree with you - but the Founding Fathers, whose names you flout, tended to see it the other way and wanted an expression of opinion on issues while taking the reasonable step of preventing a group from supporting a person or political party. So sad, I know, for those on the left to see the exercise of first amendment rights - you know, those that are actually a part of the written law of this country.
to the apparent legal scholars | 3:10 p.m. June 23, 2008
If anyone wants to make anymore comments about the LDS Church losing its Tax
Exempt status for speaking out on a moral issue I invite you to provide some
caselaw that will back that up.
Really, I am not aware of any and I have done significant research - if there was a donation by a Church to a political candidate perhaps - but here not even close.
If so then nearly every Church in the United States would lose that status for taking a stance on abortion, homosexuals and a litany of other issues
Just back it up if you are going to say it or keep the cute comments to yourself.
Really, I am not aware of any and I have done significant research - if there was a donation by a Church to a political candidate perhaps - but here not even close.
If so then nearly every Church in the United States would lose that status for taking a stance on abortion, homosexuals and a litany of other issues
Just back it up if you are going to say it or keep the cute comments to yourself.
Honey-Girl | 3:09 p.m. June 23, 2008
It's not just the LDS Church that is against same sex marriage. It is a
majority of the Christian churches. Marriage is supposed to be between a Man and
a Woman. Nothing else!!! Just because we as Mormons speak up against it,
doesn't mean we are prejudice. Unfortunately we live in CA for now and
can't wait to get back to Utah. To have the support and the strength of the
Church and the Members that stand up for what they believe in and what is
right!!!
Re: I knew it.... | 3:09 p.m. June 23, 2008
"Looks like the LDS church just can't keep it's nose out of the
political arena. ANd they say the church doesn't tell it's members how
to vote. Isn't this EXACTLY the opposite action????"
The LDS Church doesn't tell its members which party or candidate to vote for and doesn't participate in partisan politics but the Church admits to speaking out on issues that impact its members.
"C'mon people, start justifying the church's actions, start quoting the same scriptures you ALWAYS fall back on that proove NOTHING."
Why would any need to quote scriptures to defend the Church's legal and constitutional actions. The LDS Church has a right, as does any organization, to speak out on the issues that affect their members. If you don't like that then move to a dictatorship where you can join the dictatorial faction.
The LDS Church doesn't tell its members which party or candidate to vote for and doesn't participate in partisan politics but the Church admits to speaking out on issues that impact its members.
"C'mon people, start justifying the church's actions, start quoting the same scriptures you ALWAYS fall back on that proove NOTHING."
Why would any need to quote scriptures to defend the Church's legal and constitutional actions. The LDS Church has a right, as does any organization, to speak out on the issues that affect their members. If you don't like that then move to a dictatorship where you can join the dictatorial faction.
To Silliness | 3:12 p.m. June 23, 2008
I think you are 100% right. I don't think that God has changed his mind.
I think that any church that does--or any individual for that matter, has become
lost from the anchor of the teachings of a loving Father-In-Heaven.
It appears our society has become very confused. This is not an issue about a Church. It is a simple issue of right and wrong. Please check the side of the line you are on!
It appears our society has become very confused. This is not an issue about a Church. It is a simple issue of right and wrong. Please check the side of the line you are on!
Lakers | 3:11 p.m. June 23, 2008
YES! The sad thing is the church actually has to tell people, over the pulpit,
to fight against gay marriage. That is a poor reflection on our society to make
these easy decisions on our own. It is a no-brainer: Gay marraige is wrong.
Why does the gay society have to flaunt its decision to be gay into everyones face? Why do they think acting on gay impulses is correct? It is not o.k. to act gay!! Is it o.k if a child pedofil to act on his instincts and molests children? NO! Why is a perverted gay person think it is o.k. to be gay? Is it o.k to act out on one's feelings of rage just because I have those feelings? When does this gay thing end. Look at the fall of other great societies, Romans, egyptians etc, these were perverted groups and if we as a people keep allowing the perverse gay groups to impose there will on us, it will be the downfall of our society!! If you want to be a free person and enjoy liberty, then combat the gay marraige crap going on in this country!!
Why does the gay society have to flaunt its decision to be gay into everyones face? Why do they think acting on gay impulses is correct? It is not o.k. to act gay!! Is it o.k if a child pedofil to act on his instincts and molests children? NO! Why is a perverted gay person think it is o.k. to be gay? Is it o.k to act out on one's feelings of rage just because I have those feelings? When does this gay thing end. Look at the fall of other great societies, Romans, egyptians etc, these were perverted groups and if we as a people keep allowing the perverse gay groups to impose there will on us, it will be the downfall of our society!! If you want to be a free person and enjoy liberty, then combat the gay marraige crap going on in this country!!
Don't be sad, | 3:12 p.m. June 23, 2008
Sad. I'm quite sure that even without the "urging" by LDS
officials, rest assured that LDSaints and others of like opinion would be ready
to counter these judges who have no respect for democratic rule. Who's
trying to cram whose political agenda down whose throat without a vote?
Anonymous | 3:12 p.m. June 23, 2008
Many of you are seriously mistaken. A church's tax-exempt status,
regardless of which church that is, is NOT in danger of being repealed when that
church urges its members to vote according to church policy. A church can lose
its status due to campaigning against already-established federal laws, which is
not the case here. The LDS church is not backing any candidate or party, nor are
they advocating changing federal law. They're saying that homosexual
marriage is immoral according to God's laws and that the church's
members, as people who believe in God and in the truthfulness of the LDS church,
are encouraged to vote according to the Lord's laws and commandments - as
they have always done when it comes to moral matters.
to all those who whine hypocrite | 3:15 p.m. June 23, 2008
Where are you when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton use the pulpit to advance a
political agenda?
Vote with your wallet | 3:16 p.m. June 23, 2008
... and your feet.
I'll take my money someplace other than California until the people of that state get their heads in the game. Between Berkley's treatment of the Marines, San Francisco's treatment of the military in general, and this, I see absolutely no reason to continue supporting any portion of the California government.
If I want to see a good beach, I'll go to Florida in any case - better beaches, smaller crowds, and friendly people.
I'll take my money someplace other than California until the people of that state get their heads in the game. Between Berkley's treatment of the Marines, San Francisco's treatment of the military in general, and this, I see absolutely no reason to continue supporting any portion of the California government.
If I want to see a good beach, I'll go to Florida in any case - better beaches, smaller crowds, and friendly people.
RockOn | 3:16 p.m. June 23, 2008
Oh ME... Of course you saddle up the horses for what you believe in... there is
ALWAYS another Sudan coming along. You'd better learn to fight the fight
before you AND figure how to help the fight for right elsewhere as well.
And this fight against Gays trying to turn right on its head upside down is certainly worth it. If you think the fairy tale that Gay is biological (no evidence but plenty against that position), then you'll fight for the right. If they can't help it, they deserve equal protection.
If you THINK and examine the issues that GAy, pedophilia, bestiality and the rest of the perversions are matters of environment and choice, you will fight to keep the gays from making a mockery of logical and rational thought.
Aferall, if it is biological, no priest can persuade a boy he seduces to be a gay. But, if it is environmental, a Gay Scoutmaster can wildly influence the boys under his charge.
This is not a trivial issue.
And this fight against Gays trying to turn right on its head upside down is certainly worth it. If you think the fairy tale that Gay is biological (no evidence but plenty against that position), then you'll fight for the right. If they can't help it, they deserve equal protection.
If you THINK and examine the issues that GAy, pedophilia, bestiality and the rest of the perversions are matters of environment and choice, you will fight to keep the gays from making a mockery of logical and rational thought.
Aferall, if it is biological, no priest can persuade a boy he seduces to be a gay. But, if it is environmental, a Gay Scoutmaster can wildly influence the boys under his charge.
This is not a trivial issue.
Re: Bert | 3:17 p.m. June 23, 2008
"This is a directive to all Mormon members to vote a certain way on a
political issue."
The Church has asked its members to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that impacts the Church and any law that prohibits them from doing so would require that every gay rights organization is also banned from speaking out on this issue and urging its members to vote a certain way. You can't have it both ways. Either the Church as a non-profit organization has the right to speak out on this or the ACLU as a non-profit organization doesn't either.
"IRS, are you listening?"
The IRS and Courts have ruled on this. Churches and non-profits have the right to speak out on issues as does any business or individual. In fact, the NAACP, the ACLU and many other organizations are non-profit organizations that do just that. The only provision is that non-profits can't endorse candidates or participate in partisan politics and the LDS Chuch acting under the advise of its attorneys strictly adheres to the law.
The law permits non-profits including Churches to speak out on political issues and to advocate in behalf of their members. Get used to it.
The Church has asked its members to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment that impacts the Church and any law that prohibits them from doing so would require that every gay rights organization is also banned from speaking out on this issue and urging its members to vote a certain way. You can't have it both ways. Either the Church as a non-profit organization has the right to speak out on this or the ACLU as a non-profit organization doesn't either.
"IRS, are you listening?"
The IRS and Courts have ruled on this. Churches and non-profits have the right to speak out on issues as does any business or individual. In fact, the NAACP, the ACLU and many other organizations are non-profit organizations that do just that. The only provision is that non-profits can't endorse candidates or participate in partisan politics and the LDS Chuch acting under the advise of its attorneys strictly adheres to the law.
The law permits non-profits including Churches to speak out on political issues and to advocate in behalf of their members. Get used to it.
Lakers | 3:18 p.m. June 23, 2008
I agree with the relocation program. I wish we could send all those who want to
impose their gayness on all the rest, to some place were they could live and
reproduce....I guess they would all be gone in about 1 generation.
John | 3:19 p.m. June 23, 2008
I live in CA and I cringe every time this is read over the pulpit. It is a
waste of time. We already know how the church feels about the issue. But it is
interesting. Back in 2006, the letter from the Church only asked us to inform
our representatives of our stance on the issue. This one, along with Prop 22,
clearly tells us WHAT we are to say on the issue.
I am a happy member of the Church, but I don't understand the arguments for this kind of legislation. People say things like "it hurts the children" or "it destroys families" or "raising boys without a fatherly influence will have disastrous consequences." If all this is true, then why don't we hear more letters over the pulpit decrying the divorce rate among Christian nations, or enacting legislation to take children away from singles mothers, regardless of the reason for the loss of a man in the house?
I certainly will not support this legislation. And if the Bishop asks me about it when I renew my recommend this summer, so be it. I truly believe Christ would approve of loving our neighbors, first and foremost.
I am a happy member of the Church, but I don't understand the arguments for this kind of legislation. People say things like "it hurts the children" or "it destroys families" or "raising boys without a fatherly influence will have disastrous consequences." If all this is true, then why don't we hear more letters over the pulpit decrying the divorce rate among Christian nations, or enacting legislation to take children away from singles mothers, regardless of the reason for the loss of a man in the house?
I certainly will not support this legislation. And if the Bishop asks me about it when I renew my recommend this summer, so be it. I truly believe Christ would approve of loving our neighbors, first and foremost.
Old Beezle | 3:20 p.m. June 23, 2008
to all you mormons,
Your entire argument is based on a religious viewpoint. Besides which, your own church has a history of violating laws pertaining to marriage. Now that same church thinks that it can swing it's mind-bending weight to deny other human beings their rights to live their lives as they choose. Your church is exactly what you say Satan's plan was in the pre-existence: to leave everyone without a choice. I pray in my soul that this obviously prejudiced constiutional amendment will be defeated by the good people of California and that mormons will learn to love people unconditionally just as Jesus told you to.
a concerned, straight, free-thinking, California citizen
Your entire argument is based on a religious viewpoint. Besides which, your own church has a history of violating laws pertaining to marriage. Now that same church thinks that it can swing it's mind-bending weight to deny other human beings their rights to live their lives as they choose. Your church is exactly what you say Satan's plan was in the pre-existence: to leave everyone without a choice. I pray in my soul that this obviously prejudiced constiutional amendment will be defeated by the good people of California and that mormons will learn to love people unconditionally just as Jesus told you to.
a concerned, straight, free-thinking, California citizen
Re: Sad | 3:22 p.m. June 23, 2008
I think what's sad is that people are so hard-nosed in receiving a little
bit of counsel from President Monson. We DO believe he's a prophet, right?
A seer? Someone who receives revelation from God? I agree with what Joseph
Smith taught when he said, "teach them correct principles and let them
govern themselves." I don't think the 1st presidency is undermining
our ability to live our own morals...but a little bit of encouragement and
guidance in doing the right thing shouldn't be such a big deal to members
of the church. As for losing its tax status as non-profit, I don't see why
asking members of the church to live the gospel via a practical application of
belief negates the tax-exempt benefit it currently has. I don't want to
come across as self-righteous, but I think it would do some good for us to
re-read the proclamation on the family. It's time to call this what it is:
homosexuality is wrong.
Greg | 3:22 p.m. June 23, 2008
People asking how gay marriages will harm others. Teachers are always pushed
into teaching controversial stuff in social studies and science classes and then
parents complain and teachers get fired. Teachers will be forced to teach being
gay is ok and then conservative parents will complain and teachers get fired.
Liberals, conservatives you may be right or wrong but stop saying your actions
do not affect others. Every time a law is passed it affects somebody.
Affirmative action was meant to help people too but some people were hurt. Laws
are not neutral or narrow they have broad applications. It is ok to be cautious
before being in favor or against anything. Nothing is simple.
Anonymous | 3:24 p.m. June 23, 2008
The amendment will not pass and the wet, blue-green rock will still orbit the
sun. Gays will marry and nothing will change.
Power to tax--power to destroy | 3:24 p.m. June 23, 2008
Once same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, gay rights group openly
admit that they will challenge in court the tax-exempt status of churches that
refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
The goal of the homsexual lobby is to marginalize or destroy organizations that believe homosexual behavior is sinful. An attempt to destroy an organization by taxing it to death is immoral. Imagine that. Immoral behavior from people whose behavior has been (until recently) for 4,000 years considered immoral. Catholics and Mormons. Expect the worst kind of persecution possible.
The goal of the homsexual lobby is to marginalize or destroy organizations that believe homosexual behavior is sinful. An attempt to destroy an organization by taxing it to death is immoral. Imagine that. Immoral behavior from people whose behavior has been (until recently) for 4,000 years considered immoral. Catholics and Mormons. Expect the worst kind of persecution possible.
IA | 3:25 p.m. June 23, 2008
Of course the LDS church would say something. Other churches will join in too,
now that there is a leader.
Churches are part of our society, therefore have a voice and under the constitution can voice it.
Gay and lesbian groups are organized and they have a voice. Any anger against a church for its opinion is narrow minded and discriminatory.
Churches are part of our society, therefore have a voice and under the constitution can voice it.
Gay and lesbian groups are organized and they have a voice. Any anger against a church for its opinion is narrow minded and discriminatory.
Re: Beth | 3:26 p.m. June 23, 2008
"Also, endorsing political positions and candidates from the pulpit/stand
can put a religious organization in a bad place with the IRS. Just
sayin'"
No it can't since such action is completely legal and within the constitutional rights of Churches. The LDS Church is acting within its rights to speak out on the issues affecting its members while refusing to involve itself in partisan politics and endorsing candidates for public office which could result in them getting in trouble with the IRS since it is against the law for a tax-exempt organization, GENERALLY SPEAKING, to endorse or oppose political candidate.
There are a few types of tax-exempt organizations such as 501 c (4)'s who can endorse or oppose candidates if it represents a small part of their activity (i.e., opposing a single candidate in 10 years would be legal if it was in the interest of that organization to do so).
The IRS and government doesn't want to prohibit private organizations, even tax-exempt ones, from advancing the interests of their members so long as they don't become involved in endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The Church routinely issues statements STATING THAT THE CHURCH DOESN'T ENDORSE OR OPPOSE CANDIDATES.
No it can't since such action is completely legal and within the constitutional rights of Churches. The LDS Church is acting within its rights to speak out on the issues affecting its members while refusing to involve itself in partisan politics and endorsing candidates for public office which could result in them getting in trouble with the IRS since it is against the law for a tax-exempt organization, GENERALLY SPEAKING, to endorse or oppose political candidate.
There are a few types of tax-exempt organizations such as 501 c (4)'s who can endorse or oppose candidates if it represents a small part of their activity (i.e., opposing a single candidate in 10 years would be legal if it was in the interest of that organization to do so).
The IRS and government doesn't want to prohibit private organizations, even tax-exempt ones, from advancing the interests of their members so long as they don't become involved in endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The Church routinely issues statements STATING THAT THE CHURCH DOESN'T ENDORSE OR OPPOSE CANDIDATES.
LDS Elder | 3:29 p.m. June 23, 2008
So if it is okay to have a same sex marrage, then it must be okay to practice
plural marrages, right!!! And if plural marriage is okay then underage marriage
should be legalized too, why not let these 40 and 50 year old men marry 13 and
14 year old girls... But why stop there, Why not make it leagal for people who
love there pets to marry their pets... I will tell you why these things
havn't been legalized because they are all unnatural... Please, keep your
laundry in the closet, Some things do not need to show themselves... If you
don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex then don't get
married... Don't try to have a family, two people of the same sex
can't have children anyway, and those children that need to be adopted
should have a mother and a father not two dads or two moms or whatever....
Don't be deceived | 3:33 p.m. June 23, 2008
The stripping of tax-exempt status from any church that opposes gay marriage is
the next step in the gay agenda. This is not idle chatter, this is the game
plan.
First they get the courts to legalize gay marriage.
Then every church will be forced to not only recognize gay marriages, but to perform gay marriages.
Any church that refuses to recognize gay marriage will be sued for discrimination and will be stripped of their tax exempt status if they don't change their doctrine to recognize gay marriage.
Don't be deceived. The lies, the sophistry, the half-truths, the distortions, the calling-good-evil-and-evil-good are all part of Satan's plan to destroy the basic unit of society, the family.
His cunning plan that has been prophesied for centuries is being unleashed in its full fury.
First they get the courts to legalize gay marriage.
Then every church will be forced to not only recognize gay marriages, but to perform gay marriages.
Any church that refuses to recognize gay marriage will be sued for discrimination and will be stripped of their tax exempt status if they don't change their doctrine to recognize gay marriage.
Don't be deceived. The lies, the sophistry, the half-truths, the distortions, the calling-good-evil-and-evil-good are all part of Satan's plan to destroy the basic unit of society, the family.
His cunning plan that has been prophesied for centuries is being unleashed in its full fury.
Bert | 3:34 p.m. June 23, 2008
In 1964 the IRS took away the tax exempt status of the Christian Echoes National
Ministry for among several things had "substantial activity aimed at
influencing legislation."
The 10th circuit court found for the IRS in the churches appeal stating "It encouraged people to write to their representatives in support of particular political causes, it workded on behalf of constitutional ammendments..."
The 10th circuit court found for the IRS in the churches appeal stating "It encouraged people to write to their representatives in support of particular political causes, it workded on behalf of constitutional ammendments..."
California LDS Member | 3:34 p.m. June 23, 2008
The article states:
"LDS Church officials are urging California Mormons to "do all you can" to support a constitutional amendment to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman."
We are not being told to vote for the amendment, or against it. Our local ward or stake leaders will not ask us what we did. They will not ask which party we belong to, whether we are registered voters, or what we intend to do. They will not solicit money from us for this effort.
The Church has unchanging moral values. What is popular, current or inconvenient cannot change these values. The Church recognizes marriage as a religious (and legal) ceremony between a man and a woman.
Having many gay friends (I AM in California)I feel that they should have all the legal protections and rights they need to, for example, own and/or inherit property, make medical decisions, visit one another in the hospital, have tax benefits, etc.
Hatred and bigotry are contradictory to Christ's teachings. Marriage WAS instituted by God, and needs to remain between a man and a woman.
"LDS Church officials are urging California Mormons to "do all you can" to support a constitutional amendment to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman."
We are not being told to vote for the amendment, or against it. Our local ward or stake leaders will not ask us what we did. They will not ask which party we belong to, whether we are registered voters, or what we intend to do. They will not solicit money from us for this effort.
The Church has unchanging moral values. What is popular, current or inconvenient cannot change these values. The Church recognizes marriage as a religious (and legal) ceremony between a man and a woman.
Having many gay friends (I AM in California)I feel that they should have all the legal protections and rights they need to, for example, own and/or inherit property, make medical decisions, visit one another in the hospital, have tax benefits, etc.
Hatred and bigotry are contradictory to Christ's teachings. Marriage WAS instituted by God, and needs to remain between a man and a woman.
For Ca Parents of Gay Children.. | 3:38 p.m. June 23, 2008
Resign from this organization that hates your kids so much they would rather see
them alone and loveless the rest of their lives than in a happy and stable
relationship.
Mission... | 3:37 p.m. June 23, 2008
The Utah state flag should have a closet door on it. What is the take on these
returning missionaries coming home and "discovering" that they are
gay? Shouldn't the church do some house cleaning of it's own before
starting a neighborhood watch program? Real family values are not determined by
some Mormon mom visiting her "SAME SEX" neighbors to discover their
child from a previous straight marriage is messed up. Wait a minute.... could
it be the hetero divorce is what started the problems in the first place? (I
read a previous comment on this page) It's a mixed up world and most
people are just trying to do the best they can. Worry about more important
things like the fact that YOU CAN go to YOUR church on Sunday, vote in November,
or for that matter write comments on this page for other people to read.
@ Gay relocation | 3:39 p.m. June 23, 2008
Good luck. Unlike others in the country's past, I for one will never be
driven out of my home by the intollerant, narrow minded, self righteous,
hypocritical, right wing without putting up a fight.
AC | 3:37 p.m. June 23, 2008
To: I knew it...
Ouch! That rock on the side of my head hurt.
Ouch! That rock on the side of my head hurt.
This amendment will fail. | 3:38 p.m. June 23, 2008
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, getting the required number of
votes to amend the state's constitution will be extremely difficult. And
rightfully so; we don't live in an utilitarian democracy, and the checks on
the creation of new laws help society protect itself from the vagaries of
popular opinion and judicial interpretation alike.
Although the Church certainly has a right to insert itself into the debate about gay marriage, as it does so, it disenfranchises many, many members who refuse to be told how to vote, and what causes they should devote both their time and means. The danger of the Church's involvement in political affairs is not one of legality to do so; it is the danger of losing otherwise faithful, striving souls who find themselves opposing the Church simply because the Church has drawn a line in the sand. Aside from the pain from the injustice to gays everywhere, the pain of the people whose church has divorced them will be great. And when the amendment fails, will this be what the Church bargained for?
Although the Church certainly has a right to insert itself into the debate about gay marriage, as it does so, it disenfranchises many, many members who refuse to be told how to vote, and what causes they should devote both their time and means. The danger of the Church's involvement in political affairs is not one of legality to do so; it is the danger of losing otherwise faithful, striving souls who find themselves opposing the Church simply because the Church has drawn a line in the sand. Aside from the pain from the injustice to gays everywhere, the pain of the people whose church has divorced them will be great. And when the amendment fails, will this be what the Church bargained for?
Terry L | 3:39 p.m. June 23, 2008
Like most conservatives, I am repulsed by public displays of romantic affection
between two men, or two women. The mental image of a wedding ceremony makes me
uncomfortable.
But here is where I think conservatives have it wrong.
That wedding wouldn�t be about me or my personal discomfort. It would be about those two people who love each other and decided to publicly announce their permanent mutual commitment. Should my personal attitudes prevent them from doing that? Should my religious beliefs keep them legally unrelated even if they remain committed to each other for life?
I object to extreme or public sexual behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Would a married gay couple moving next door create discomfort for me, yes it would. But life doesn�t guarantee my comfort and whether they keep their yard looking nice is my business where their personal relationship is not.
I believe the conservatives and Republican party is wrong on same-sex marriage and should re-examine it through the lens of individual liberty and freedom rather than disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability they hold so dear.
But here is where I think conservatives have it wrong.
That wedding wouldn�t be about me or my personal discomfort. It would be about those two people who love each other and decided to publicly announce their permanent mutual commitment. Should my personal attitudes prevent them from doing that? Should my religious beliefs keep them legally unrelated even if they remain committed to each other for life?
I object to extreme or public sexual behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Would a married gay couple moving next door create discomfort for me, yes it would. But life doesn�t guarantee my comfort and whether they keep their yard looking nice is my business where their personal relationship is not.
I believe the conservatives and Republican party is wrong on same-sex marriage and should re-examine it through the lens of individual liberty and freedom rather than disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability they hold so dear.
IMAN | 3:40 p.m. June 23, 2008
There are so many more pressing problems in the world and within the LDS church
itself, spending energy and time on this makes little sense.
Re: uncannygunman | 3:40 p.m. June 23, 2008
"As much as I disagree with the LDS church on the gay marriage issue, I am
happy that my taxes will go down now that the church has chosen to give up its
tax-exempt status."
Explain your reasoning since it is COMPLETELY legal for the Church to exercise its 1st amendment rights as individuals and as an organization.
There's no law that says that a Church can't speak out on issues affecting its members. In fact, there are laws saying the exact opposite.
All tax-exempt means is organizations cannot openly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office or become involved in partisan politics. The Tax Code clearly grants organizations such as the Church the right to speak out on issues that affect the Church or organization.
Any competent attorney knows that Church's letter is within its legal and constitutional rights. Your understanding of tax-exempt status is simplistic. In fact, there are certain kinds of organizations that can openly oppose a candidate for public office and still retain their tax-exempt status. The Church is not one of those but it does have the right to speak out on issues affecting its members.
Explain your reasoning since it is COMPLETELY legal for the Church to exercise its 1st amendment rights as individuals and as an organization.
There's no law that says that a Church can't speak out on issues affecting its members. In fact, there are laws saying the exact opposite.
All tax-exempt means is organizations cannot openly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office or become involved in partisan politics. The Tax Code clearly grants organizations such as the Church the right to speak out on issues that affect the Church or organization.
Any competent attorney knows that Church's letter is within its legal and constitutional rights. Your understanding of tax-exempt status is simplistic. In fact, there are certain kinds of organizations that can openly oppose a candidate for public office and still retain their tax-exempt status. The Church is not one of those but it does have the right to speak out on issues affecting its members.
Grateful | 3:40 p.m. June 23, 2008
I'm grateful for the church's actions and simultaneously sickened at
the confusion and the opposition to this measure. Wholesome romance between a
man and a woman is central to happiness. That doesn't come from any
ambiguous law book or philosophically crafted creation by man - that comes from
the basic, simple, fundamental reality of life. Lehi's dream in The Book
of Mormon illustrates what happens on a more broad level and for our day. If
there is a time and place for the need of greater publishing these realities, it
is now. If you think it's complicated or more complicated then the simple
family unit, then you're looking beyond the mark. Homosexual practice is
self-destructive behavior that kills itself in one generation because it cannot
re-produce. It's not only self-destructive, but it destroys the
'fundamental network of society'. I've witnessed its destructive
results first hand. Deliberate action against God's will always results in
condemnation. A soft heart needs to be sought on this matter by all who oppose
this and greater reverence needs to be established for a husband and a wife and
their children.
Charles | 3:41 p.m. June 23, 2008
Just a couple of questions....
Can any of you church and state commentators please show us where that is located in the Constitution? Oh, you can't? Why not? What do you mean it's not in the Constitution? Keith Olbermann told me it was!
Can any of you IRS fanatics show what law is being broken when a church takes a stand on a moral issue? Won't be able to...sorry.
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is just that, a behavior. Homosexual BEHAVIOR should be shunned, abhorred, and those who practice homosexual BEHAVIOR should carry the stigma that it used to carry.
For the "sheep commentators", Christ said that His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him. If I'm following Christ and His teachings and you want to call me a sheep, thank you for the compliment.
It's ok if you want to follow Satan and his devils, it really is. Just don't expect the rest of humanity to follow suit and accept your evil for good, good for evil ways.
I hope and pray that this amendment passes with huge numbers.
For any LDS member embarrassed by this, I'd say you need to do a self-evaluation of whose side you're really on....
Can any of you church and state commentators please show us where that is located in the Constitution? Oh, you can't? Why not? What do you mean it's not in the Constitution? Keith Olbermann told me it was!
Can any of you IRS fanatics show what law is being broken when a church takes a stand on a moral issue? Won't be able to...sorry.
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is just that, a behavior. Homosexual BEHAVIOR should be shunned, abhorred, and those who practice homosexual BEHAVIOR should carry the stigma that it used to carry.
For the "sheep commentators", Christ said that His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him. If I'm following Christ and His teachings and you want to call me a sheep, thank you for the compliment.
It's ok if you want to follow Satan and his devils, it really is. Just don't expect the rest of humanity to follow suit and accept your evil for good, good for evil ways.
I hope and pray that this amendment passes with huge numbers.
For any LDS member embarrassed by this, I'd say you need to do a self-evaluation of whose side you're really on....
@ LDS ELDER | 3:41 p.m. June 23, 2008
Your argument is hypocritical. The LDS church still practises polygamy,
it's past is full of 40 and 50 year old men marrying 14 year old girls
(Brigham Young married several women who were at least half his age.). And as
far as your argument about marrying your pets, if the pet can stand up and
recite the marriage vow, then I'm all for it!! I can't get my birds
to say more than "Hello" so if your dog/cat/lemur or whatever has
evolved enough to talk and CONSENT to the marriage, go for it.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology379
- Hall reprimanded by MWC370
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal316
- Utes won't respond to Hall257
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome110
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.
Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...
Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...
The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...
TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...
could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...
Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...
I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...
quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.
I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...
Advertisements