California’s Prop 8, No Group Lost More Than The Mormons

California’s Proposition 8 was an initiated measure, put on the ballot by signatures and passed by voters.  It defined a legal marriage in California as being between one woman and one man.

Adding up the money both sides spent on Measure 8 the total came to about $80 million. Some estimate Mormons raised about half, or $20 million of the proponents side.  In addition, something like 80% of the door to door work was staffed by Mormons.

As many will remember, after Measure 8 was passed by voters,  it was ruled unconstitutional by a judge and an appeal of that decision was made to the Supreme Court.  The State of California would not sponsor that appeal, so the churches, including the Mormons became the substitute appellants.  The Supreme Court ruled yesterday they are not the appropriate parties to appeal and let the lower court rejection of Prop 8 stand.

Other denominations spend huge amounts of money, the Catholics included.  There must have been internal debates about the wisdom of taking these large amounts of money and putting it toward Prop 8.  One has to believe the hands of those factions who opposed this expenditure have now been strengthened.

In the past six months, there have been some indications Mormons are softening their resistance to gay marriage.  Perhaps this new look was in anticipation of a Supreme Court defeat.

While we can be certain there will be church groups who remain opposed to gay marriage, I’m sure the big bucks for anti gay marriages signature drives, court battles and campaigns are gone for good.

41 Responses

  1. entech

    That is what I call putting your money where your mouth is.
    Freedom of religion is certainly not free, what do you think Kevin?

    I think they should have paid both sides costs.

    1. Jinx

      Since churches have become so politically involved I think it is high time they lose their tax exept status.

        1. entech

          Elucidate, I know from the christian viewpoint this is essentially the case, but what specifically confirms this here.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            I think you get a wrong impression. Jinx said; ” Since churches…” No qualification, obviously meaning all churches. Hence ; “all women”. If Jinx had said–“some-many-a few churches”, I would not have said anything. Jinx obviously does not realize there are churches that specifically stay away from political involvement. That is not to say their members don’t have the right of citizenship to be involved in the political process on their own. Political involvement by the church is ultimately divisive, and that distracts from the mission of the church.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Simply using Jinx’s uninformed and absurd statement as a model to use an equally absurd statement to reveal his/her absurdity. Nothing more, nothing less.

          3. entech

            Since the topic is the particular churches that took up the campaign I would suggest that you take your own advice and look at it in context.

            On the other hand taking a narrow interpretation, literally perhaps even hyper (bole), you gives yourself the opportunity to be deliberately insulting to a woman who doesn’t agree with you.

          4. Wanna B Sure

            Jinx didn’t specify “particular church”. He/she said; “churches”; plural, and the tax issue wasn’t part of the topic Jon introduced. I could care less if he/she is a he/she. That is irrelevant. I had no idea what gender Jinx is, nor do I care.

          5. Wanna B Sure

            Had “she” said; “those churches” mentioned in the post” I would not have said a word, as it would have contained “particular” churches. “She” did not.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            ——–AND——We still haven’t yet heard from Jinx just what exactly she meant by “churches”.

          7. entech

            I thought the comment (I think from previous posts that Jinx is a woman, as always ready to be corrected) about taxes was a natural corollary to my comment about the churches paying the legal expenses for both sides. I did start this particular thread, not happy! start your own, don’t use your usual bias and disinformation to distort mine.

            Having had my little rant, I will say that, as usual, as is invariably the case, you are perfectly correct to your own way of thinking.

            PS. managed to remember to read before posting, your 1:59, as I said I think Jinx reply was in perfect context, it is you that need to explain your distortion, I can only think is part of your pathological need to contradict or find fault with anyone that does not agree with your narrow interpretations.

          8. Wanna B Sure

            Interpretation my ass. Read what “she” said. Still haven’t heard from her what she meant by “churches”. You are trying to pick a fight when there isn’t one.

          9. entech

            @ 2:20
            1st sentence last 2 words, that is where you get your ideas from and from whence thou speaketh.

            last sentence. On the contrary that is why you picked it up and distorted it to be as inclusive as you wanted it to be instead of as exclusive as it was intended and in line with the thread.

            Last comment (mine), as is invariably the case, you are perfectly correct to your own way of thinking.. I know you don’t agree but it does seem to me that you are desperately trying to justify a fading faith.

          10. Wanna B Sure

            At your 2:45; Irrelevant, purposely convoluted, and misleading. Last sentence is frustration of a loosing argument, and childish.

      1. Jinx

        Yes, I am a woman…a mother and grandmother.

        Entech is correct Wanna, you have taken my statement out of context……the churches I obviously referred to were the ones implicated in the article. I agree I should have been more specific and possible started the sentence with “Those churches”, but why would such an esteemed philosopher nitpick my brief sentence?

        I stand by my amended statement that all churches in USA who involve themselves in politics need to lose their tax exempt status. A simple but sweeping statement of the type I often used with children looking to worm their way out a ‘situation’.

        BTW I don’t wait around on here just to answer questions….the questions will still be here the next time I check out Jon’s blog!

        Thanks Entech, you and I are often on the same track. : )

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Just missed this post as I last posted. Then you admit you made an inaccurate statement/claim, and corrected it. I can accept your amended statement, and a “worm out” from your original context.

        2. Wanna B Sure

          What you said then is not what you meant to say. That’s OK, I sometimes do the same thing.
          Entech does like to run “interference” for those who agree with him.

        3. Wanna B Sure

          Jinx; You may not know, and I think Jon will back me up on this, I agree that no church should be involved in politics as a corporate adventure/enterprise, I have been clear on this in the past, and the reasons why. See my 1:23.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            And to maintain the tax exempt status, any church, be it particular or otherwise must not endorse candidates publically, or campaign for them , by law. I also maintain, nor from the pulpit, or in any internal organ or publication of any church. This should also include any candidate from the pulpit , lectern, or in front of any congregation, in a church setting, sponsored or not.

        4. Wanna B Sure

          Why would I “nitpick” your brief sentence? Because obviously what you meant to say is not what you said, and an entirely different context.

        5. Wanna B Sure

          And Entech had a premature injection before you clarified what you meant to say. So eager he was to defend you.

  2. Michael Ross

    “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”(Romans 1:32)

    By their ruling on Wednesday, the US Supreme Court pronounced a death sentence for America.

    1. This would call for a sigh and an eye roll.

      America was sentenced to death when women were allowed to vote, work outside the home and wear pants.

      America was sentenced to death when segregation was outlawed, interracial marriage was legalized, and affirmative action was enacted.

      America was sentenced to death when chemical birth control became widely available, abortion became a safe and legal medical procedure, and out of wedlock births reached near 50%.

      Two guys being allowed equal protection of existing laws will only strengthen American society.

      1. entech

        Even though I am a foreigner, I do love America for its resilience.
        so many times it has condemned itself to death and each time survives and grows stronger.
        Young Earth Creationism is the biggest threat and I do hope it will survive that.

    2. I don’t think anyone is buying what you’re selling, Michael. You might as well acknowledge that most thinking people do not believe what you say is true.

      1. Wolfy32

        I do believe mankind will someday doom itself… Allow gays to have a piece of paper that say they’re married, not going to destroy our society. After all, the people were still gay with or without the piece of paper from the government saying they’re married.

        I don’t think the piece of paper really changes anything. Nor do I really think that God is against Gays.

        1. Jinx

          Lets see Wolfy, man made nuclear obliteration and taking the earth and its resources beyond the point of no return should about do it. We don’t need a god to destroy us, we’re doing a pretty good job of it ourselves!

        1. Michael 2:09 “..but time will tell.”

          Certainly, that is correct. Time has given us the answer to other predictions of moral collapse. Integration comes to mind. Equality for women is another.

    3. Michael 5:04 “By their ruling..Supreme Court pronounced a death sentence for America.”

      Michael, you are a modern day Paul Revere. Except, instead of, “The British are coming,” you ride through the streets warning, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.”

      I like having you on our board.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        I like the TV ad that says; “Who’s happier than someone with XX- insurance?” Answer; ” Paul Revere with a cell phone”.

      2. Wanna B Sure

        Or another ad with Paul Revere riding through town, shouting “The Italians are coming, the Italians are coming”. All the dour Puritanical looking women/ ladies throw off their aprons, bonnets, puff up their hair and look quite anticipating——-and through the dust, three red Fiat automobiles drive into town.

Comments are closed.