Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

LGBT Activists Taking It to the “Latter-Day Saints”

By

As street protestors have targeted LDS insitutions in California and across the country, other activists are seeking to engage the Mormons in “dialogue” and calling on them to support pro-gay legislation. See today’s story in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10952932

While I’ve gotten adverse feedback from fellow activists for advocating a multi-pronged response to the Mormons’ tax-subsidized anti-gay activities, I’m convinced that the LGBT civil rights movement needs to do more than express anger. At least, constructive outreach will put the lie to the posture of “reasonableness” and tolerance the LDS Church is trying to assume.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.”

    <

    p>Give ’em hell, I say. It’s time they learn to know that there’s more consequences to working to strip our rights than there is (none) to allowing us to live free and with equal opportunity. So if they’re going to work to strip our rights, we can work to strip their tax-exempt status; if they’re going to protest against us, we will protest against them. If they’re going to treat us like 2nd class citizens, we’ll treat them like homophobic hate mongers. All of it stops as soon as they stop working against us – and preferably work to undo the damages that they’ve already done.  

    • I’m a tax lawyer, and plan to file a complaint against the LDS Church’s tax-exempt politicking in violation of the Internal Revenue regulations come January 20th, when Bush no longer controls the IRS. I’m sure I won’t be the only one. I say we fight on all fronts, but stop short of interfering with the civil rights of others. (Read below about Bash Back.)

      • I was always under the impression that churches could advocate on issues, including specific ballot questions, but not endorse candidates.  I fear this would unduly muzzle alot of organizations including some on our side, such as the United Church of Christ.

        <

        p>I must say I can’t help thinking of the line Mitt Romney once gave to the effect that as a Mormon he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman…:)

        • Measuring Lobbying Activity Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial. Churches must use the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use the expenditure test described in the next section.

          http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
          How much time was actually devotes by the LDS church, rather than individual members of the church?  And could that possibly constitute a substantial part or the LDS church’s “overall activities” across the world?  It might be worth pursuing, since its a “facts and circumstances” inquiry, but I’m not sure that the complaint is likely to result in the LDS church losing 501(c)(3) status.

          <

          p>501(c)(3)s are also prohibited from political campaign activity on behalf of a particular candidate, but this prohibition does not apply to ballot questions to the best of my knowledge.

  2. Why a group of LGBT vigilantes would see an advantage in disrupting religious services and dressing up as Al Qaeda terrorists, even with tasteful pink scarves, is utterly beyond me. “Bash Back’s” tactics are not the path along which anger should travel to find a constructive outlet.

    <

    p>http://bashbacknews.wordpress….  

    • at smith or amhearst a few months ago in that it is difficult to judge its merits (or demerits) from afar because none of us knows what really led up to it or how it went down.  all i can say is i was a grad student at msu last century, and i am quite familiar with mt hope church, and can completely understand it raising strong emotions from the people it targets as defective.  it is also important to remember that michigan passed its own punishing anti-gay amendment 4 years ago, and lansing/e. lansing isn’t an overwhelmingly welcoming city.  i wonder if that has emboldened places like mt hope to be even more obnoxious than they used to be, and left gay people & allies feeling more cornered than ever and so more willing to push the boundaries.  after all, the mt hope types destroyed our right as citizens to equal protection of the laws.  who has been the out of bounds aggressors here?

  3. I support constructive talks, but not in lieu of angry yet constructive protests.  One of their political organizations (National Organization for Marriage) has on their webpage that New York is their next target.

    <

    p>http://www.nationformarriage.org

    <

    p>As long as they promoting stuff like that…”you bettcha” I’m gonna protest.  Bring it.

Archives