Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to a group he knew well, Mormons.

The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition.

But it started long before that, note the KofC contribution on Jan 30, 2008. (From the S.F. Chronicle list of contributors for and against Prop 8 )

No Comments »

Among them will be lawsuits by the San Francisco City Attorney and Gloria Allred on behalf of a married lesbian couple.

No Comments »

Not only is Steve Young the former 49ers football star, he is Mormon and a great-great-great grandson of Brigham Young.

His wife says

“We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8″

No on Prop 8

No Comments »

DiFi came through. This is a huge boost for No on Prop 8.

3 Comments »

Sue’s thoughts: sue the IRS to compel stripping the Mormon Church of their tax-exempt status.  It might work, because their Yes on Prop 8 activities appear to violate laws forbidding non-profits to engage in political activity. She specifically focuses on who might have the right to sue:

In the 1980’s, Abortion Rights Mobilization and other plaintiffs sued the IRS in an attempt to compel the revocation of the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status under 501(c)(3).

The Catholic Church had been campaigning vigorously against abortion rights, and pouring a lot of money into their cause.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which held that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the suit.

As I understand it, “standing” is the right to initiate or participate in a legal action.

NY Times

Under Supreme Court doctrine, those bringing lawsuits in Federal court must first demonstrate that they have standing to sue, usually by showing that they have suffered in some concrete way.

In the earlier Appeals Court decision, the judges determined that some of the plaintiffs had no injury beyond their “discomfiture at watching the Government allegedly fail to enforce the law with respect to a third party,” and that the abortion rights organizations did not have standing as competitors because by refraining from political activity, “they choose not to compete” with the church.

In the current matter, churches (LDS most prominently) seek to curtail the ability of the state to govern civil unions, and the ability of same-sex couples to marry. They wish to deny a plethora of legal benefits that go hand-in-hand with being married under the law.

Hence, you have injured parties, not hypotheticals.

I am not an attorney, I am a forensic accountant. Therefore I cannot argue the issue of legal standing vis-a-vis same-sex marriage. But it seems worth asking a civil rights attorney about.

5 Comments »

Aren’t there laws against religions becoming directly involved in political activities? The Mormon Church has raised $10 million for Yes on 8, has pressured members to phone bank and donate, and the campaign has threatened businesses that donated to No on 8. Now they’ve been - uh - outed, they are backing down. Guess they didn’t expect to get so much unwanted publicity.

Well heck, let’s give them lots more. Let’s see if the Mormon Church has violated tax-exempt statutes by being so directly involved. And if so, then yank their non-profit (and tax-free) status.

From the IRS on the tax exempt status of organizations, emphasis added.

Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

IRS Publication 1828 page 5

Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

No on Prop. 8. Get involved now.

Update: As for who specifically could sue, Sue asks Could gay couples sue IRS over LDS’ Yes on Prop 8 activities?

29 Comments »

That’s our pal Joe on the Left. Go, Joe!

If you live in California, vote NO on Proposition 8 (which would ban gay marriage in California.) Happily, it looks like it will be defeated, but let’s make sure.

NoOnProp8.com has more.

(Joe sent the photo. The Orange Country Register website does not appear to have the article online, so I can’t link to it.)

No Comments »