Too much money applied to a political process by a religious organization can call it’s tax-exempt status into question.

That also includes secular non-profits. Which is exactly why organizations such as, for example, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund are two separate entities. The first (the Foundation) is tax exempt and to which financial contributions are tax deductible. The Action Fund is the political action organization and it’s non-profit status is true but because it is a political action fund financial contributions to it are not tax deductible.

Just because something is called a church does not mean they cannot participate in the political process. By that argument, you could say that a lot of organizations are “churches” as well, just secular ones. They fall under the same sort of non-profit status.

Do your research. The only thing the law prohibits non-profit churches from doing is using their status as a church to endorse a particular candidate, not a political issue. Regardless of how much money the LDS church gave, they are still within their legal rights, just as GLAAD is within their legal rights to do so. And just as I could donate money to the LDS church (who does not even pay their clergy) and take a tax write-off for it, I could also donate money to GLAAD and take a tax-write off. Both organizations are within their rights to support their causes.

Once again, do the research. Study constitutional law. The separation of church and state does not mean that churches cannot be involved in government or political issues. It means that the government cannot establish a state church and force its citizens to be a part of it.

yeesh. homework, folks. Everyone has the right to raise money, organize, and support political causes.

You are confusing organizations with individuals. Our government always has, and always will treat organizations differently from individuals. Simply look at the difference between corporate income tax and personal income tax for verification.

We do find the interference of the church in politics to advance their anti-gay agenda to be worthy of criticism and that may be why Ihave been a bit lax in inforcing the policy as well as I think I should have, but at this time I’m going to insist that comments be related to issues rather than all-inclusive attacks on the denomination.

Remember when the mayor of Salt Lake took the city budget in for the First Presidency to approve?

Think any other church in Salt Lake would be allowed to buy a section of a major downtown thoroughfare and make it into part of it’s personal fiefdom, along with an abridgement of constitutional rights?

Remember when the First Presidency called on the legislature to find a way to outlaw homosexual acts after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws?

Are you aware you can no longer share your home with your lover as joint mortgage holders with right of survivorship? Now, in order to leave him/her your house you have to have several legal documents drawn up by a lawyer, with no guarantee that new laws won’t be passed trying to nullify even that?

Remember when Judge David Young (a member of the Quorom of Twelve, I believe) said that a gay murder victim, who was bludgeoned three separate times over a 12 hour period, with the murderer leaving between each attack, only to come back, said the victim was equally at fault for his murder because he “partied” with his killer? That same judge told a woman she couldn’t go back to using her maiden name (even though her husband had beaten her) because “it might confuse her children”? He was FINALLY ousted after he said a 14 year old rape victim had contributed to her rape by dressing the wrong way!

All of this was accomplished without a peep from the Mormon population, not a PEEP!

Live out of Utah for a while in a state that doesn’t despise you and you might not have such a rosy picture of life behind the Zion curtain.

Btw, I only mentioned my connections to underline that my opinions were not formed in a vacuum, but by the people of Utah themselves.

EMILY K — “They have a rank-and-file army of millions of followers that are willing to blindly follow the church in everything. It’s CREEPY.”

I think there’s an element of creepiness to any mass display of like-mindedness. Whether it’s a Nazi rally or a Battlestar Galactica convention. “Blindly follow” I’m not so sure about. Have you ever asked a Mormon why they voted or contributed a certain way? I was firmly on the “No on 8″ side, but I never encountered an LDS “Yes” voter who hadn’t thought things through.

SCOTT P — “I’m related to both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young…I always watch my back around Mormons, especially ones from Utah, it’s just common sense.”

In my own life, the ratio of snake-in-the-grass Mormons to self-effacing, non-jackass people has been, like, 1 to 200. That’s my experience, it’s highly biased and subjective, and maybe I don’t see the truth because I’m secretly a scumbag myself, and therefore oblivious. It’s totally possible.

But here’s my suspicion: For every Scott P, a former Utahn who hated life among the LDS, there are many more people who have never been back-stabbed by Mormons, and on the contrary, have only had gracious interactions with them. Not fake-gracious, not sarcastic-gracious. Straight-up, Obama-style “we can disagree without being disagreeable” gracious.

By the way, a Utahn distantly related to Brigham Young is about as rarified as a Scotsman with a “Mac” surname. Dude had 60 kids. So you can strike that from the “Special Distinctions” section of your resume, along with “Enjoys pizza.”

My bottom line: Prop 8 was wrong, and many in the LDS Church felt that way and said so. If that spoils the picture of Mormons as homogeneous and creepy, sorry.

Go ahead and make your lists of grievances against individual members of any tribe — the Jew who gave you a bad haircut, the black who stole your watch, the Jehova’s Witness classmate who nixed your third-grade field trip to the blood bank. But that’s a paranoid, swirly-eyed way to live.

I’ve stated such facts as are consistent with the tax code and current law and you have now declared your opinion.

I think I’ll let it rest. Those who wish to can share your stong objection.

I must strongly disagree that a contribution to a church amounts to a contribution from the government simply because that contribution can be a tax deduction.

It is the legislature’s choice as to what does and what does not constitute a proper deduction from taxable income. The individual taxpayer can’t decide that for himself.

And what are you saying about a person’s income anyway? That it really belongs to the government?

Whether the earnings contributed to a church, or any other kind of organization, are taxed or not doesn’t change the fact that the contribution came from the individual (or group) who owned the money in the first place. It’s his money, not the government’s.

I thank you for not getting anything I said.

You claim,

It is perfectly legal for the government to put whatever strings they want on their benefits.

This is my point of contention. The government requiring churches to limit their speech in order to receive a government benefit. (That isn’t just any old string.) It is a generally recognized principle of constitutional application that this unconstitutional.

Imagine, for instance, the government requiring social security recipients to forgo political speech in order to get their checks. No court in this country would permit this. But with churches it’s okay? I don’t think so.

The government can offer the benefit or not offer it. It has no business demanding that people waive constitutionally protected liberties in order to receive them.

Apple pays taxes; churches don’t. Which makes churches more or less subsidized.

Apple pays taxes because it is a profit-making business; Entities that do not exist to earn a profit — like churches and charities — are typically exempted from income taxes by Uncle Sam. The fact that an activity is not taxed does not mean it is being subsidized by the government; it merely means it isn’t taxed.

And I will remind you that church’s are exempted from income taxes to further protect their religious freedom. Gays are doing themselves no favor by insisting that churches should lose a privilege meant to protect religious liberty if these churches refuse to give up their constitutional right to free speech.

But either way they still have to comply with the law, which includes disclosing all of their contributions to political campaigns.

I already agreed with this point. Why do you bring it up again?