invalidateprop8.org - Donate Now

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 5:35 AM GMT
    Please consider making a donation, today. A postcard/petition will be sent to LDS President, Thomas Monson, and the funds will be contributed various legal groups challenging Prop 8.

    Dear *****,

    Thank you for donating to invalidateprop8.org.

    A postcard will be sent to Thomas Monson, president of the Mormon Church, on your behalf, informing him that a donation has been made in his name to help overturn Proposition 8 and restore full marriage rights in California.

    A copy of the postcard we sent on your behalf is below. And please forward this e-mail on to your friends and colleagues to let them know about our campaign!

    Thanks very much,
    The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

    Dear President Monson:

    A donation has been made in your name by ***** to “invalidateprop8.org” to overturn California's Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Latter Day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.


  • MotorBrett

    Posts: 145

    Nov 07, 2008 7:35 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
    Bumping my own thread. I think this is an important, if not symbolic, way that we as a community can express our outrage without alienating our supporters. Please consider becoming a part of this movement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 2:44 PM GMT
    I'll give this a bump as well. I've made my contribution. Just a reminder you don't have to live in California to take part--this affects the GLBT population everywhere, not just Californians. (Yes, that includes you.)

    http://www.invalidateprop8.org

    educate
    agitate
    organize

    BRIX


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 3:35 PM GMT
    Grahamzentouch saidPLEASE SIGN

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons


    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 3:59 PM GMT
    Grahamzentouch saidPLEASE SIGN

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons


    Signed and delivered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 4:13 PM GMT
    SIGNED! WHOOHOO!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 4:18 PM GMT
    God luck with all this guys. Totally agree from across the pond.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 4:29 PM GMT
    Signed here, as well, and I'm also sending the suggestion out to my personal contacts. One thing about important topics like this on the RJ Forums is they often get eclipsed by forums such as Would You Do the Guy Above You and such... and then important ones like this slip away off the radar screen because by tomorrow it won't be on RJ's front page.

    To combat this, I'd suggest signing the petition and then posting an announcement here saying that you did so... which will keep this topic on the front page for a good long while.

    And if you have the means to do so, please consider a contribution as ruck_us first asked us to. It's even tax-deductible.

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Nov 07, 2008 5:11 PM GMT
    I have already donated to that link as well. icon_smile.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 07, 2008 6:29 PM GMT
    metta8 saidI have already donated to that link as well. icon_smile.gif



    that was really powerful, thanks.
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Nov 07, 2008 6:42 PM GMT
    While you are invalidating it make sure to also request California to Repeal it:

    http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/repealprop8
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 08, 2008 9:05 AM GMT
    I signed the petition.
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Nov 09, 2008 2:21 AM GMT
    I just came across this in my local newspaper.

    "Proposition 8 does not nullify California Family Code Section 297.5, which states that domestic partners have the same rights as "spouses" or married couples.
    The only thing in prop 8 does is redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.
    It is making a distinction between the two types of unions.
    No rights are being taken away from gay couples through prop 8."

    California Family Code Section 297.5

    They may have interrupted the right for you to have the name, but it doesn't look like they took away the rights to the same protection "spouses" have. The opponents served only to piss off the folks that brought us ACT UP, and that's bad for them.

    Californians go get your term marriage back, and keep them from taking DP protections away too, so the rest of us can have these rights some day. In the meantime, get registered as Domestic Partners and stop the race war, k?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 2:45 AM GMT
    signed...

    The local paper is quite mistaken. Domestic partnerships do not come with all of the same protections as marriage/civil unions.

    What was taken away from Californians was more than just "marriage." We lost our civil right, and discrimination was codified into our state constitution.

  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Nov 09, 2008 3:20 AM GMT
    eyland saidsigned...

    The local paper is quite mistaken. Domestic partnerships do not come with all of the same protections as marriage/civil unions.

    What was taken away from Californians was more than just "marriage." We lost our civil right, and discrimination was codified into our state constitution.



    Make sure that this is known to the rest of the world, then. Point out the differences to everyone so that there is no mistake as to intent for seeking marital rights. From looking at the Family Code even more, I can't see whether health care is affected like it is for others of us (such as being taxed by businesses to have DP's on same plan).

    My point is not to diminish what has happened to you all, but rather to show what you have so there is some hope while you move forward.
  • joggerva

    Posts: 731

    Nov 09, 2008 4:07 AM GMT
    eyland saidDomestic partnerships do not come with all of the same protections as marriage/civil unions.


    California Family CodeRegistered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.


    Can someone please explain which protections have been removed if you have a registered domestic partnership? I'm not being a smartass, I just don't do well with legalese and I'm wondering what I'm missing. Thanks.
  • joggerva

    Posts: 731

    Nov 09, 2008 2:23 PM GMT
    joggerva saidCan someone please explain which protections have been removed if you have a registered domestic partnership?


    Anyone? Have gay Californians lost anything beyond the name?

    I've tried looking into it, but all I found is that under registered domestic partnerships, name changes aren't automatic/free as in marriages...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 3:00 PM GMT
    I signed:

    David *******, Virginia
    The IRS says this in its publication "Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations".....Substantial Lobbying Activity... In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status. 5 Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

    Their goal is 10,000 signatures...less than 700 to go.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 4:12 PM GMT
    Here is the letter that I am writing to my members of Congress...

    Dear Congressman/Senator,

    I am writing to ask you to support the review of the Church of Latter Day Saints’ tax exempt status. Due to the very large financial support(reportedly around $20 million) they gave to pass Proposition 8 amending the California constitution to ban gay marriage, I feel they have violated the restriction on substantial lobbying activity needed to maintain their tax exempt status.

    Per the IRS publication “Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations:”
    "Substantial Lobbying Activity
    In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

    Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies."

    This church should not be exempt from taxes so that it can put that money to use denying fellow citizens of their civil rights. If they want to get into the lobbying business, let them pay taxes first like the rest of us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 5:23 PM GMT
    I may get flamed for this because of some inevitable inaccuracies since I'm not at all an authority on the matter, so I hope someone who understands the nuances may be able to add to this and correct as necessary.

    There are something like 1050 benefits & protections enjoyed by heterosexual spouses. While it's true that domestic partnerships offer many of these benefits & protections, they tend to be applied piecemeal and can require extra legal protection in regards to wills, and durable & medical power of attorey, and even then the legal powers of domestic partnerships are not as strong and can be easily challenged in court... Inheritance, legal kinship... There is no immigration benefit, no protection or securities in abandonment or if the partnership is dissolved, no privacy protection. Social Security, taxes (granted, that's at a federal level). Couples who wish to enter into a domestic partnership must first meet residence requirements (i.e. proof), and then cannot live apart. Marriage laws, as well as status/role in society (i.e. the kinship between 2 people, as well as their children if they have them), are universally recognized.

    If marriage & domestic partnerships are the same, why are there 2 different lines at a city hall's clerk's office? Why two separate statuses if they're inherently identical? Ask heterosexual spouses: "If there is no difference between a domestic partnership and your marriage, then why not swap your marriage for a domestic partnership?" Ask 2 people in a domestic partnership if their "partnership" fulfills the same sense of actual & perceived equality that a marriage enjoys? Separate is not equal. The CA Surpreme Court itself acknowledged this. Domestic Partnerships give, but they also withold, and that is exclusion.

    The differences may not seem that significant to single men on a social networking site, but there is power in a word, whether we like it or not.

    . . . I would also add that I have heterosexual colleagues who are in domestic partnerships because, for various reasons, that is the arrangement that works best for them in their relationship. It is their choice as much as getting married is their choice. Without the option of marriage, gays have no choice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 6:38 PM GMT
    joggerva said
    joggerva saidCan someone please explain which protections have been removed if you have a registered domestic partnership?


    Anyone? Have gay Californians lost anything beyond the name?

    I've tried looking into it, but all I found is that under registered domestic partnerships, name changes aren't automatic/free as in marriages...


    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California
    "As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5)."
    Here is CA Family Code 297.0 - 297.5, if you're interested:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

    Granted, the above is from a Wiki, and not necessarily a legal scholar critically reviewing the actual nuances of specific discrepancies in rights between the two designations... But let's just say it's correct.

    BUT, the CA Supreme Court ruled that the two-tiered system ("separate but equal") of recognizing hetero vs homo relationships, as further codified by Prop 22 passed in 2000 (which is what was being challenged in their ruling), violated the CA Constitution's equal protection clause:

    "On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

    Here is the CA Supreme Court's ruling from May 15, 2008:
    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

    So... perhaps no legal rights were taken away within the context of CA Domestic Partnerships vs. "Marriage," BUT the CA Supreme Court, by their ruling, stated that the discrepancy in the two separate terms, marriage being a universally recognizable institution and domestic partnerships being a derivative w/o the same cultural/historical cache of validation and recognition, as applied to two "different" populations was unconstitutional. That ruling, in my understanding, was tantamount to saying that Marriage is a civil right.

    In that respect, a right - the civil right to be granted equal access to a widely recognized and culturally celebrated institution - was taken away by Prop 8, by amending the Constitution - by a simple majority of the popular vote no less. The effect of which was to enshrine in the Constitution that a minority of the population would be legally denied this same right.

    Here's a video of San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart explaining why "marriage" as remaining exclusive is, well, exclusive and would legally perpetuate our being considered an "other."


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 6:54 PM GMT
    Here's a list of some of the petitions and orgs listed so far; petitions to sign, and orgs to consider donating to. Maybe we can copy and paste these URLs to new ones if you have another to include.

    I'll add one more at the bottom, a petition hosted by EQCA - one of the main organizations in CA fighting for marriage equality and challenging Prop 8 in court - asking for your commitment, should the repeal process in CA against Prop 8 fail, to sign a petition for a future Proposition to re-establish marriage equality in CA.

    http://www.invalidateprop8.org

    http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/repealprop8

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/review-the-501c3-status-of-the-church-of-latter-day-saints-the-mormons

    http://tinyurl.com/marriageequalitypetition
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 7:06 PM GMT
    eyland said. . . I would also add that I have heterosexual colleagues who are in domestic partnerships because, for various reasons, that is the arrangement that works best for them in their relationship. It is their choice as much as getting married is their choice. Without the option of marriage, gays have no choice.
    You are correct. Civil union and Marriage are different legally. A civil union couple I know pointed out that civil unions as they exist are weaker than marriage and don't afford the same rights. Some of that is by design. As someone told me, with elderly couples you can possibly lose some retirement benefits when you get married. So in fact in California, domestic partnerships were DESIGNED weaker than marriage .. as in the case in washington state
    http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/29326prs20070411.htmlThe state will also recognize domestic partnerships for heterosexual couples where at least one person is 62 or older. They were included in the bill because many older couples can lose pensions and other benefits when they marry.

    Also
    http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2004/07/pastor-urges-delaware-senators-to.htmlCivil unions afford the same benefits as marriage in states where such unions are legal, such as Vermont. The unions, however, are not recognized federally, and federal protections given to legally married couples do not apply to civil unions. . . . [another topic]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 09, 2008 7:40 PM GMT
    http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

    In most states that offer either domestic partnerships or civil unions, there is a whole list of rights that are not afforded to same-sex couples; see above link.

    California, though, apparently offers one of the most comprehensive "same" rights as marriage via domestic partnership of these states.

    A list of the states that offer civil unions or domestic partnerships and the rights granted to same sex couples:
    http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/civilunions_domesticpartnership_statutes.htm

    The U.S. Defense of Marriage Act allows states to not recognize such unions between different states. Obama claims he will challenge/revoke this.

    Of course, separate is not equal.