LDS lie bout prop8 money,but its ok

[Drakim]

Sorry about the title, so few letters :s

Source

Basically, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lied about how much money they spent on backing Proposition 8 in California.

They first admitted to spending $2078 in support of the proposition, but it was later found out to actually be around 30 million dollars. They fought tooth and nail over the course of 13 months to cover this up, slowing admitting to more and more as it came into the light.

Their punishment now that the whole deal is out in the open?

$5538 in fines.

As PZ Myers put it:
The lesson learned, I'm sure, is that when evil religious masterminds are plotting to commit serious ethical violations, they should plan ahead and budget 0.02% of their investment to paying off slap-of-the-wrist penalties.

[adrshepard]

I think the 30 million figure is the total amount contributed by other people towards the lobbying. According to the article, the church itself spent about 130,000, which is still a lot.

I'm actually a bit inspired when I hear that so many people gave so much money to a cause that didn't create anything but helped deny something (for better or worse) to a group of people.

[Memorize]

Wow, pointless complaining... what a shocker.

Or rather: 1-sided.

But no surprise there.

[Drakim]

At 6/17/10 09:51 AM, Memorize wrote: Wow, pointless complaining... what a shocker.

Or rather: 1-sided.

But no surprise there.

I'd rather enjoy hearing the other side of this case if there is one. I tried googling around but I didn't really find anything.

[Luxury-Yacht]

At 6/16/10 09:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: I think the 30 million figure is the total amount contributed by other people towards the lobbying. According to the article, the church itself spent about 130,000, which is still a lot.

That article seems pretty biased. I looked around, and I found two other sources saying that they failed to report $37,000 in non-monetary contributions.

Either way, the church lied, and that's wrong. You'd expect that at least a fucking church would have the fortitude to tell the truth. This is exactly the kind of shit that makes LDS look bad.

[Memorize]

At 6/17/10 12:40 PM, Drakim wrote:

I'd rather enjoy hearing the other side of this case if there is one. I tried googling around but I didn't really find anything.

My point is that both sides are irresponsible and a bunch of cry babies.

Moroms don't want gay marriage? Well whoop di doo da day! You don't have to participate in any of it!

But then you have the gay community who are just as bad. They demanded they be able to crawl and beg the Government for a marriage license like everyone else (sad), then when they didn't get their way and lost on the way they wanted it played; they threw a big hissy fit and demanded Judicial action!

So what if the Mormons spent money on something. At least, unlike a lot of these 'Government-can-do-no-wrong" groups, they actually use their own money.

[gumOnShoe]

If marriage amounted to just a license then someone could certainly make an argument that it was pointless. We all know however that the legal system, especially in terms of ownership, finances, and taxes treats married people differently than unmarried people. If those privileges are granted to one type of willing union, they should be able to be applied to all of them.

[fli]

At 6/17/10 03:00 PM, Memorize wrote: My point is that both sides are irresponsible and a bunch of cry babies.

Except... they're a CHURCH-- you know... the people who are always telling people to tell the TRUTH...
As well for the otherside, well-- naughty oh, naughty oh... but

Moroms don't want gay marriage? Well whoop di doo da day! You don't have to participate in any of it!

Gays weren't going to their temples in their tuxs and wedding dresses.

They (coming thousands miles away from a different state) came to invade the lives of the LGBT and friends community-- and even other churches such as the MCC who want to marry gay people.

Want to talk about invasive people? You're looking at the wrong people.

But then you have the gay community who are just as bad. They demanded they be able to crawl and beg the Government for a marriage license like everyone else (sad), then when they didn't get their way and lost on the way they wanted it played; they threw a big hissy fit and demanded Judicial action!

Gay people want to protect their families. If it happened to you-- you would be singing a different tune.

So what if the Mormons spent money on something. At least, unlike a lot of these 'Government-can-do-no-wrong" groups, they actually use their own money.

It's not that they spent money-- they had to abide the laws of fundraising.
THAT's the issue.

[Memorize]

At 6/17/10 04:04 PM, fli wrote:

Except... they're a CHURCH-- you know... the people who are always telling people to tell the TRUTH...
As well for the otherside, well-- naughty oh, naughty oh... but

Practically everyone, regardless, is always saying that.

Just because they call themselves a church doesn't make them any more "righteous" or immune.

Gays weren't going to their temples in their tuxs and wedding dresses.

Which is... my point.

Unless it's San Francisco and a couple other churches in states on the other side of america.

They (coming thousands miles away from a different state) came to invade the lives of the LGBT and friends community-- and even other churches such as the MCC who want to marry gay people.

Then they should be able to, if they want.

But you can't force anyone to accept or not accept those things.

Want to talk about invasive people? You're looking at the wrong people.

Psh, hardly.

Both sides want Government force.

1 side demands gays not be able to marry.
The other side demands everyone recognize their so-called "right" to marry.

Gay people want to protect their families. If it happened to you-- you would be singing a different tune.

Hell no.

I refuse to beg on my hands and knees pleading our almighty legislative overlords to hand me a marriage license.

As if a license given to you buy a group of incompetent halfwits who have a multi-billion dollar budget hole means anything.

It's not that they spent money-- they had to abide the laws of fundraising.
THAT's the issue.

No it's not.

It's an excuse to justify attacking them. Which they, quite frankly, deserve...

But I don't see any of you calling out the gay community leaders on their inconsistent bullshit. They got exactly what they wanted... a state constitutional vote. Then when they lost, they cried about it and demanded judicial activism.

Point is: Both groups = SUCK

[Memorize]

At 6/17/10 03:07 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: If marriage amounted to just a license then someone could certainly make an argument that it was pointless. We all know however that the legal system, especially in terms of ownership, finances, and taxes treats married people differently than unmarried people. If those privileges are granted to one type of willing union, they should be able to be applied to all of them.

That argument would make more sense if civil Unions in California didn't already grant all of those things.

Not that married people should be given those benefits in the first place.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 6/17/10 03:07 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: If marriage amounted to just a license then someone could certainly make an argument that it was pointless. We all know however that the legal system, especially in terms of ownership, finances, and taxes treats married people differently than unmarried people. If those privileges are granted to one type of willing union, they should be able to be applied to all of them.

perhaps we should be thinking that no one should get different legal treatment for being part of a certain group

which is what happens with marriage

[peanutfoot932]

At 6/17/10 09:12 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: perhaps we should be thinking that no one should get different legal treatment for being part of a certain group

which is what happens with marriage

Yes, yes, exactly. Regardless of sexuality, getting married is a personal decision; why should those who choose not to get married be treated differently than those who do?

[Camarohusky]

At 6/17/10 09:19 PM, peanutfoot932 wrote:

Yes, yes, exactly. Regardless of sexuality, getting married is a personal decision; why should those who choose not to get married be treated differently than those who do?

Laws that give people the ability to chose whether to use the benefits or not do not discriminate so long as the opportunity is there for all.

Marriage is not there for all, and thus is discriminatory. Those who have the opportunity, but chose not to use it cannot claim discrimination. It's their fault they don't recieve the benefits, whereas with homosexuals, it is the government and their peers who deprive them of the benefit.

[Memorize]

At 6/18/10 08:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Marriage is not there for all, and thus is discriminatory. Those who have the opportunity, but chose not to use it cannot claim discrimination. It's their fault they don't recieve the benefits, whereas with homosexuals, it is the government and their peers who deprive them of the benefit.

I don't know how many times this has to be said but:

CALIFORNIA GIVES CIVIL UNIONS ALL THOSE BENEFITS

[BrianEtrius]

At 6/18/10 08:41 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't know how many times this has to be said but:

CALIFORNIA GIVES CIVIL UNIONS ALL THOSE BENEFITS

The problem is, Mem, if you had done your research, is that yes, civil unions in certain states give the same benefits, but the benefits from state to state different under the term civil union because some states don't recognize the same rights, DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Why else do you think the LGBT go to Massachusetts? Not for the company. If they can get a marriage there it can apply to every other state.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/18/10 08:41 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't know how many times this has to be said but:

CALIFORNIA GIVES CIVIL UNIONS ALL THOSE BENEFITS

All STATE benefits. They do not gewt any of the federal marriage benefits, such as nationwide recognition, tax benefits and alike.

Again, the name alone is enough to tag the unequal status. Seperate but equal has not been good policy since the 50s, if ever for that matter.

[fli]

CALIFORNIA GIVES CIVIL UNIONS ALL THOSE BENEFITS

It also forces gays to get specialized lawyers, take different routes, and not having the guarantees of a marriage that property, child custody, and every other right aren't contested in court.

I mean, just look what happened to Clay Greene and Harold Scull in Sanoma who had just a civil union, yet it did shit for them in the end.

So, at best, we can say it "supposedly" give those benefits.
Civil Unions "intend" to give those benefits--

but in the end-- there's no real equal to marriage.
instead, it forces gay people to pay extra for specialized lawyers, and really-- just a poor substitute.