Transparency Needed In Proposition 8 Battle

Amen.

==We obviously disagree fundamentally about the role of the courts in dealing with issues where fundamental rights (like marriage and equal protection) are at stake.==

"Marriage" is not a "funadmental Right." It is nowhere to be found in the fundamental document, the Constitution.

==The "will" of the voters does not trump such rights...==

No such "Right" to marriage exists. Therefore, the voter could not trump it.

==... and the courts exist to uphold them against just such a tyranny of the majority.==

What about the tyranny of the minority?

==...treating GLBT Americans as second class legal citizens...==

Nobody treats them as "second class." The Constitution protects "person," or "persons, or "the People." It doesn't protect what people "say" they are.

The law that defines "marriage" as the union of a "man," or "male," and a "woman," or "female," doesn't say that the man must be heterosexual, nor does it require that the woman be heterosexual.

==...the breath exhausted on condemning this by the Religious Right would have been better expended doing almost anything else...==

You don't tell us what to do with our money, and we won't tell you what to do with yours.

==... perhaps even having the constructive dialogues many Christians apparently need to have on GLBT issues.==

You people reject the discussion we need to have on those issues. So, we leave it all to a vote, and the vote upholds our side each time.

==...there is a completely legitimate call for an inquiry into whether churches that did expend resources, as they are entitled to do, on passing Proposition 8 accurately reported those expenditures under state law.==

What happened to so-called "separation of Church and State"???

==Treating all who get involved in these initiatives with the same scrutiny would not interfere with any legitimate "free exercise of religion" claim.==

That's what YOU say. However, if religious activity in the Prop 8 process is inappropriate as a violation of the so-called "separation of Church and State," then it is inappropriate to hold the Church accountable to you, or the State, for its appropriations to causes.

==Mr. Incredible, deliberately misinterpreting what Rev. Lynn wrote does not reflect well on you.==

It's a good thing, then, that I didn't misinterpret what he says.

== Rev. Lynn is pointing out that there are serious and substantial allegations that many of the funders of the Yes on 8 campaign did not comply with California state law by reporting all of their donations to the campaign, including their in-kind donations.==

And, yet, he pushed "separation of Church and State." Kinda a free-floating standard, I guess.

== These state campaign laws must be obeyed by all donors, whether they are religious or not.==

Especially where they oppose those who claim to be homosexual. Then, so-called "separation of Church and State" doesn't quite apply, huh.

== If the Mormon church or any other entity violated those laws, then they must be fined accordingly.==

So-called "separation of Church and State" notwithstanding.

== A fair, impartial investigation, as is being called for, will determine if violations took place.==

The mere suggestion of investigation interferes with so-called "separation of Church and State."

==This is not a violation of the separation of church and state.==

Using the law to chill the Church IS a violation, and that's what those who claim to be homosexual are trying to do.

== ...in the case of California, we are not talking about the US Constitution.==

Ultimately, the Constitution of the United States is at issue.

== We are talking about the California State Constitution. The California Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians were being denied equal protection under the California State Constitution because they were not allowed by state law to marry their partners of the same sex.==

And, yet, NO ONE may marry of the same sex. Therefore, there is no discrimination.

== Therefore, if you are going to address constitutional issues regarding that ruling, please base your objections on what the California State Constitution says.==

Not what the state constitution says, rather what the state's supreme court says the state constitution says. They are wrong, and the People of the State of California are allowed to vote on it. They did, and, so, what the People say the state constitution says is what the state constitution says.

== It wasn't a federal court ruling that acknowledged...==

alleged

==... the right to marriage...==

There is NO "Right" to marry.

I don't understand why anyone is responding to something that defines itself as "not credible" to begin with...

==I don't understand why anyone is responding to something that defines itself as "not credible" to begin with...==

Cuz people like you prefer to lookit the name, rather than the substance of what is written.

Yes, we are "astonished" that one poster can bear so much false witness.

The right that was taken away was the right to be treated equally under the law.

Equally, under the U.S. Constitution, there is no "right" for heterosexuals to marry either, but somehow they manage to do it all the time.

Gay marriage is not a "fundamental right". Marriage is a fundamental right as defined as a union between a man and a woman, not among homosexuals. Therefore, your whole argument is skewed because it is based on an incorrect definition of marriage.