BREAKING NEWS: Major Article Exposing Churches "Prop 8" Activity in the Works

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

They figured the Supreme Court would support the plebecite.

Who knew that SCOTUS would refuse standing to plaintiffs and, by default, change the world?  They'd granted standing on the flimsiest of pretexts before.

And, even while citing due process, they made this ruling with no constitutional support so far as I am concerned. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

State's Rights have always been in the American argument and even taken up by the Supreme court, so, yes, I could make that argument. Using states' rights did push this issue ot the Supreme Court. But note that I cited a federal judge overturning a state constitutional amendment. If that can be done then what use is there in having state constitutions? 

I'm not sure there is much utility in a state constitution honestly, compared to just regular state laws, both of which if they violate the federal constitution could be overturned by the supreme court.  I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone with more experience can comment on that.  The push and pull between states and the federal government are as old as the country.  

[Darren10]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure there is much utility in a state constitution honestly, compared to just regular state laws, both of which if they violate the federal constitution could be overturned by the supreme court.  I'm not a lawyer, maybe someone with more experience can comment on that.  The push and pull between states and the federal government are as old as the country.  

"The push and pull between states and the federal government are as old as the country.  " - That's for sure. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Johnnie cake the church wasnt against prop 8 they were for prop 8. Do you not even know the prop?

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

While driving to work this morning listening to a podcast which included on its discussion panel Mormon Leaks proprietor Ryan McKnight...Ryan disclosed that a major American publication will be publishing an expose' on the depth of the LDS Churches involvement and activities in the opposition of California's Prop 8.  The article is based on new yet-to-be-leaked documents that Mormon Leaks has made exclusively available to this news organization (I'm thinking LA Times or SF Examiner or maybe even the NY Times) that run counter to church claims that they played only a minor role in the opposition to Prop 8.  The leak includes documents as well as power point presentations made by LDS GA's to California Church leader in how they should organize a resistance movement against the proposition. 

While I have not seen the article and have limited information...I thought the news worthy of this board consideration as a heads up that the **** is about to hit the fan since what the church claimed at the time runs counter with what actually happened in reality. 

Evidently Ryan McKnight is not afraid of the churches legal threats nor is he backing off.  He also said that his web site maintains its own servers in Iceland  so that never again will the church be able to threaten third party hosting companies. 

As with most of these revelations...I'm guessing that this new leak will roll off the backs of believers as water on a duck...but I ask again...how do you justify supporting an organization that is, in the most generous terms possible,  less than honest when caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

Yeah, pretty.  It is odd that you are ready to burn 'em at the stake and yet you don't know anything.  The Church played a minor or a major role relative who whom?  Leaks from the Church may reveal what the Church thought or even did, but it will do nothing to reveal what every other organization, individual, person, group did.  Do you see how irrational and/or illogical your position is above?  You are creating a problem and convicting another based on something that has not been "exposed" - love those dramatic words that lead everyone to the position of yelling out GUILTY!!! - that will NOT reveal anything about anyone else.  

You have become so twisted in your logic it isn't even enjoyable to read your posts.  How do you jusitfy being so twisted and then I will again explain how I can think rationally and still be a LDS?!?

Edited March 22, 2017 by Storm Rider

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, pretty.  It is odd that you are ready to burn 'em at the stake and yet you don't know anything.  The Church played a minor or a major role relative who whom?  Leaks from the Church may reveal what the Church thought or even did, but it will do nothing to reveal what every other organization, individual, person, group did.  Do you see how irrational and/or illogical your position is above?  You are creating a problem and convicting another based on something that has not been "exposed" - love those dramatic words that lead everyone to the position of yelling out GUILTY!!! - that will NOT reveal anything about anyone else.  

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

And so it begins.  Mormons didn't pass Prop 8, everyone else did.  So it is not the churches fault.  Yet no one wants to address HOW the church convinced others to vote the way they did.  The deceitful advertisements that were aired that distorted the justification for taking away the civil rights of gay couples.  Setting up of fake organizations and then claiming they had noting to do with the Mormon church.  Manipulating those that weren't Mormon to be the tip of the spear so that the church would not be exposed for its actions.  These are what the issues are Darren, not who voted for Prop 8.  No one is claiming that the Mormon vote is what got Prop 8 passed.

Did the Church need to convince others in dozens of other states prior to Prop 8 how to vote?  The question I have is is there any evidence that if the Church did not involve itself at all in Prop 8 that the results would have been different.  I see no evidence that the majority in California were any different than the majority of people in other states.  My only criticism of the Church is not that it involved itself but that whatever involvement it did was not really needed.  Prop 8 was going to pass either way so don't worry about it.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

The Church can't control what the media says.   And I don't know that I've ever read a quote from an LDS leader that claimed the volunteer hours in disaster cleanup as a Church contribution.   We aren't doing it for the Church.  We are there because we love God.

 

But please be sure to wear your yellow vest.

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

My take is that it was a big waste of resources to fight gay marriage in the manner which the Church did. If a federal judge can overrule a state constitutional amendment (Years before the US Supreme Court got involved), then why fight for a state constitutional amendment?

The only way the supreme court could have gotten involved is if the federal judge overruled the state constitutional amendment.

The supreme court almost never has Original Jurisdiction, it normally can only hear cases appealed from other courts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

The Church can't control what the media says.   And I don't know that I've ever read a quote from an LDS leader that claimed the volunteer hours in disaster cleanup as a Church contribution.   We aren't doing it for the Church.  We are there because we love God.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/12/news-of-the-church/church-continues-to-aid-hurricane-victims?lang=eng

 

Quote

In the wake of both storms, the Church’s relief effort flowed steadily in the form of some 200 truckloads of food, hygiene kits, cleaning kits, school kits, medical supplies, and other relief supplies distributed to storm victims across the southeastern United States. Thousands of Church volunteers donated labor to assemble kits or assist with the cleanup. As Rita loomed, Church resources already in place during Katrina’s aftermath were simply expanded to cover Texas.

Quote

Church volunteer labor onsite was coordinated through stake presidents under the direction of Area Seventies and in conjunction with county emergency operations centers and other organizations. The crews of eight to ten people cleaned up debris and helped homeowners make their homes livable.

Now you know!

Edited to add, Church volunteer labor is described the same way as Church resources and Church relief effort.

Edited March 22, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cinepro]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/12/news-of-the-church/church-continues-to-aid-hurricane-victims?lang=eng

 

Now you know!

Edited to add, Church volunteer labor is described the same way as Church resources and Church relief effort.

But there's no proof that they were directed to do this by the leadership in Salt Lake.  It looks like it is more of a local effort, coordinated by local community members who just happen to be LDS, so the Church shouldn't be given the credit for this.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

The only way the supreme court could have gotten involved is if the federal judge overruled the state constitutional amendment.

The supreme court almost never has Original Jurisdiction, it normally can only hear cases appealed from other courts.

Correct. My understanding is that the Supreme Court is pretty much the ultimate appeals court. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

State's Rights have always been in the American argument and even taken up by the Supreme court, so, yes, I could make that argument. Using states' rights did push this issue ot the Supreme Court. But note that I cited a federal judge overturning a state constitutional amendment. If that can be done then what use is there in having state constitutions? 

Do you know so little about our system of government that you are unaware that a state can not pass a law even in it's state constitution that takes away the rights guaranteed citizens in the constitution of the United States.  

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

State's Rights have always been in the American argument and even taken up by the Supreme court, so, yes, I could make that argument. Using states' rights did push this issue ot the Supreme Court. But note that I cited a federal judge overturning a state constitutional amendment. If that can be done then what use is there in having state constitutions? 

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land.  All a federal judge can do is stop something or allow something to continue but they are not the end of the legal process.  We should keep in mind as well that the difference between the Prop 8 being upheld or not is one judge.  One single judge on the Supreme Court made the difference. 

[Darren10]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you know so little about our system of government that you are unaware that a state can not pass a law even in it's state constitution that takes away the rights guaranteed citizens in the constitution of the United States.  

Do you know so little about our system of government that the original design of the Bill of Rights was to impede the *federal* government from taking away rights? Do you know so little about our system of government that rights are NOT "guaranteed" by our Constitution, only prohibitions against what government may do? That the former increases government and the latter decreases it and it is the latter which is what our Founders desired? Are you so unaware that my proscribed system of government was the mainstream manner Americans thought of government until the age of Reconstruction and that President Lincoln agonized greatly over the morality of freeing the slaves and morality of allowing states to be free to make its own laws?

[Darren10]

23 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land.  All a federal judge can do is stop something or allow something to continue but they are not the end of the legal process.  We should keep in mind as well that the difference between the Prop 8 being upheld or not is one judge.  One single judge on the Supreme Court made the difference. 

The Supremacy Clause was created when there is a *conflict* between states rights and enumerated powers from the Constitution granting certain things for the federal government. This includes printing money, raising a military, negotiating treaties with foreign countries, etc.

[california boy]

Not sure if I have enough energy to do another Prop 8 thread.  

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by california boy

[rpn]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

But please be sure to wear your yellow vest.

The reason you wear your yellow vest in disaster relief is to give comfort to those you are helping that you are a safe person to let into their home.   And so that others can know that you also belong with the groups that are taking the assignments from the same people.    Of course residual positive exposure comes to the church, but that isn't the reason you wear them.   It allows those in charge to watch after you, and those you serve to accept the service, and potential scammers to bypass where you are because of the risk of being caught for doing bad things by those in the vests.

[Bernard Gui]

I have no problem with the Church's efforts to support Prop 8. In fact, I applaud it. What's the beef?

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Do you know so little about our system of government that you are unaware that a state can not pass a law even in it's state constitution that takes away the rights guaranteed citizens in the constitution of the United States.  

Does that include states forcing people to bake cakes?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

But please be sure to wear your yellow vest.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Johnnie Cake]

7 hours ago, rpn said:

We aren't doing it for the Church.  We are there because we love God.

 

Really? 

[Johnnie Cake]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Johnnie cake the church wasnt against prop 8 they were for prop 8. Do you not even know the prop?

Yeah...I corrected my OP

[Johnnie Cake]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, pretty.  It is odd that you are ready to burn 'em at the stake and yet you don't know anything.  The Church played a minor or a major role relative who whom?  Leaks from the Church may reveal what the Church thought or even did, but it will do nothing to reveal what every other organization, individual, person, group did.  Do you see how irrational and/or illogical your position is above?  You are creating a problem and convicting another based on something that has not been "exposed" - love those dramatic words that lead everyone to the position of yelling out GUILTY!!! - that will NOT reveal anything about anyone else.  

You have become so twisted in your logic it isn't even enjoyable to read your posts.  How do you jusitfy being so twisted and then I will again explain how I can think rationally and still be a LDS?!?

Ummm...I was just sharing the information...

[Derl Sanderson]

13 hours ago, Darren10 said:

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

While driving to work this morning listening to a podcast which included on its discussion panel Mormon Leaks proprietor Ryan McKnight...Ryan disclosed that a major American publication will be publishing an expose' on the depth of the LDS Churches involvement and activities in the opposition of California's Prop 8.  The article is based on new yet-to-be-leaked documents that Mormon Leaks has made exclusively available to this news organization (I'm thinking LA Times or SF Examiner or maybe even the NY Times) that run counter to church claims that they played only a minor role in the opposition to Prop 8.  The leak includes documents as well as power point presentations made by LDS GA's to California Church leader in how they should organize a resistance movement to promote votes for proposition 8.  (credit cinepro for correcting my non California citizen confusion)

While I have not seen the article and have limited information...I thought the news worthy of this board consideration as a heads up that the **** is about to hit the fan since what the church claimed at the time runs counter with what actually happened in reality. 

Evidently Ryan McKnight is not afraid of the churches legal threats nor is he backing off.  He also said that his web site maintains its own servers in Iceland  so that never again will the church be able to threaten third party hosting companies. 

As with most of these revelations...I'm guessing that this new leak will roll off the backs of believers as water on a duck...but I ask again...how do you justify supporting an organization that is, in the most generous terms possible,  less than honest when caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

What doesn't roll off my back is the consistent use of "churches" when it should be "church's."  Hope the church's PR people will get that right if they issue a statement ... not that you'd notice.