Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Political discussions
danefan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 7989
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:51 pm
I am a fan of: UAlbany
Location: Hudson Valley, New York

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by danefan »

Chizzang wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
Let's not act as if the GOP has seized the intellectual high ground this election. While it's true that the Dems have given us 'Big Bird' and 'Binders', the GOP has given us three and a half years of birth certificates, Romney himself mentioned them a few weeks ago while in Michigan. The star of the GOP convention was an empty chair. When Obama lost the first Presidential debate the Dems admitted it was because he didn't do a good job. When Ryan lost his debate and Romney lost the second Presidential debate the GOP blamed it on Biden and Obama for being rude. I'm supposed to vote for Romney because Biden interrupted Ryan? or because Biden laughed too much?

As far as plans for fixing the economy are concerned; neither guy has one. If Obama had a plan he would have fixed things already. When Obama ran in 2008 he ran on 'Hope and Change'. 'Hope and Change' isn't a plan, it's a catchy slogan that sounds better than 'Cross Your Fingers' or 'I'm Black and a Democrat'. If Romney had a plan he would spell it out. The only reason that Romney isn't running on 'Hope and Change' is because it's already taken.

Vote for whoever you want, but the idea that the Dems brought us to new lows is silly. Neither side can lower the bar so low that the other side can't get beneath it.

Strong post...
Regardless of who you're voting for
+100

At least I live in a state where my presidential vote doesn't matter.

Focus on the elections that really matter in this cycle.....Congressional elections. The only thing either Romney or Obama has the political juice to really do is maybe appoint a Supreme Court Justice to two. But even then, without a strong Senate backing it won't matter. Congress is what matters right now.
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by CID1990 »

kalm wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Sometimes it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, Kalm.
Nice dodge to a serious question. :dunce:
It isn't a dodge at all. If you cannot see the difference between voting solely over economic well being and prosperity vs voting solely over who is more likely to be in favor of gay marriage, then no amount if spilling ink on this board is going to help you.

You made a stupid analogy, Houndawg Jr, own it.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19274
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Palermo Italy

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by Chizzang »

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:
Nice dodge to a serious question. :dunce:
It isn't a dodge at all. If you cannot see the difference between voting solely over economic well being and prosperity vs voting solely over who is more likely to be in favor of gay marriage, then no amount if spilling ink on this board is going to help you.

You made a stupid analogy, Houndawg Jr, own it.
For a guy who makes such a big fuss about elitist liberals and all that
Your attitude sure smacks of elitism
Why is what you value (money) so much more important than ethics..?


curios... :suspicious:
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
dbackjon
Moderator Team
Moderator Team
Posts: 45623
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:20 am
I am a fan of: Northern Arizona
A.K.A.: He/Him
Location: Scottsdale

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by dbackjon »

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:
Nice dodge to a serious question. :dunce:
It isn't a dodge at all. If you cannot see the difference between voting solely over economic well being and prosperity vs voting solely over who is more likely to be in favor of gay marriage, then no amount if spilling ink on this board is going to help you.

You made a stupid analogy, Houndawg Jr, own it.
1) Gay Marriage IS an economic issue
2) Romney is a bad idea on many, many levels - if you think it is all about gay marriage, you are very, very wrong.
:thumb:
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by CID1990 »

dbackjon wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
It isn't a dodge at all. If you cannot see the difference between voting solely over economic well being and prosperity vs voting solely over who is more likely to be in favor of gay marriage, then no amount if spilling ink on this board is going to help you.

You made a stupid analogy, Houndawg Jr, own it.
1) Gay Marriage IS an economic issue
2) Romney is a bad idea on many, many levels - if you think it is all about gay marriage, you are very, very wrong.
1) Yes, Lance, I know that it is, just as protecting the Red A$$ed Owl and making sure you empty standing water on your property to thwart mosquitoes are also economic issues, but countries do not rise and fall on your ability to marry your boyfriend or whether or not the Red A$$ed Owl is extinct.

2) For some people, it IS just about this one issue or that one issue, and the campaigns are more than happy to pander to those people with silly SH!t.

Now, your reading assignment is to actually read my post, and then slap yourself on the forehead and say, "Oh!"
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 31511
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by Gil Dobie »

Chizzang wrote:God is going to be very angry about this
My God won't be :kisswink:
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 68785
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by kalm »

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:
Nice dodge to a serious question. :dunce:
It isn't a dodge at all. If you cannot see the difference between voting solely over economic well being and prosperity vs voting solely over who is more likely to be in favor of gay marriage, then no amount if spilling ink on this board is going to help you.

You made a stupid analogy, Houndawg Jr, own it.
You completely dodged it.

Of course there's a difference between the two but they both can and do represent single issue voters. And in certain instances, voting out of economic self interest is contrary to the greater good of the country...or whatever populist/socialist phrase you used.

News flash to Cid: Sometimes your shit does stink. :lol:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20316
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by JohnStOnge »

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "single issue" voting. If you think one issue is more important than any other and it's of sufficient importance then you SHOULD put it at a higher priority.

Extreme example to illustrate the principle: At some point in the future some guy is President and everything is wonderful as far as the economy and your personal well being. There hasn't been a deficit since he's been in office. You agree with his philosophies on the economy and just about everything else.

But you find out he wants to amend the Constitution to eliminate the right to practice the religion you choose and you can see that he's got some support from that. He's a cult of personality charismatic leader.

That's just one issue. He wants to eliminate freedom to practice religion and he's building support for doing it.

But surely you wouldn't blame anyone for ignoring all of the other positive things and voting against that person based on that single issue.

Now, I don't think homosexual marriage is like that. In fact you know that I think it's ridiculous that this country is even talking about marriage between homosexuals much less actually doing it. I think it's sick. But if someone thinks it's important enough so that it's a single issue that transcends all others to them that's the way it is.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20316
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by JohnStOnge »

JohnStOnge wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with "single issue" voting. If you think one issue is more important than any other and it's of sufficient importance then you SHOULD put it at a higher priority.

Extreme example to illustrate the principle: At some point in the future some guy is President and everything is wonderful as far as the economy and your personal well being. There hasn't been a deficit since he's been in office. You agree with his philosophies on the economy and just about everything else.

But you find out he wants to amend the Constitution to eliminate the right to practice the religion you choose and you can see that he's got some support for that. He's a cult of personality charismatic leader.

That's just one issue. He wants to eliminate freedom to practice religion and he's building support for doing it.

But surely you wouldn't blame anyone for ignoring all of the other positive things and voting against that person based on that single issue.

Now, I don't think homosexual marriage is like that. In fact you know that I think it's ridiculous that this country is even talking about marriage between homosexuals much less actually doing it. I think it's sick. But if someone thinks it's important enough so that it's a single issue that transcends all others to them that's the way it is.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
BlueHen86
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 13555
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:40 pm
I am a fan of: The McManus Brothers
A.K.A.: Duffman
Location: Area XI

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by BlueHen86 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with "single issue" voting. If you think one issue is more important than any other and it's of sufficient importance then you SHOULD put it at a higher priority.

Extreme example to illustrate the principle: At some point in the future some guy is President and everything is wonderful as far as the economy and your personal well being. There hasn't been a deficit since he's been in office. You agree with his philosophies on the economy and just about everything else.

But you find out he wants to amend the Constitution to eliminate the right to practice the religion you choose and you can see that he's got some support for that. He's a cult of personality charismatic leader.

That's just one issue. He wants to eliminate freedom to practice religion and he's building support for doing it.

But surely you wouldn't blame anyone for ignoring all of the other positive things and voting against that person based on that single issue.

Now, I don't think homosexual marriage is like that. In fact you know that I think it's ridiculous that this country is even talking about marriage between homosexuals much less actually doing it. I think it's sick. But if someone thinks it's important enough so that it's a single issue that transcends all others to them that's the way it is.
Quoting yourself now? :rofl:
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by CID1990 »

kalm wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
It isn't a dodge at all. If you cannot see the difference between voting solely over economic well being and prosperity vs voting solely over who is more likely to be in favor of gay marriage, then no amount if spilling ink on this board is going to help you.

You made a stupid analogy, Houndawg Jr, own it.
You completely dodged it.

Of course there's a difference between the two but they both can and do represent single issue voters. And in certain instances, voting out of economic self interest is contrary to the greater good of the country...or whatever populist/socialist phrase you used.

News flash to Cid: Sometimes your **** does stink. :lol:
You have a reading comprehension problem, George. There's nothing I can do for you.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 68785
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by kalm »

CID1990 wrote:
kalm wrote:
You completely dodged it.

Of course there's a difference between the two but they both can and do represent single issue voters. And in certain instances, voting out of economic self interest is contrary to the greater good of the country...or whatever populist/socialist phrase you used.

News flash to Cid: Sometimes your **** does stink. :lol:
You have a reading comprehension problem, George. There's nothing I can do for you.
I know that's the closest you will get, so thank you! :kisswink:

Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BlueHen86
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 13555
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:40 pm
I am a fan of: The McManus Brothers
A.K.A.: Duffman
Location: Area XI

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by BlueHen86 »

CID1990 wrote:
dbackjon wrote:
1) Gay Marriage IS an economic issue
2) Romney is a bad idea on many, many levels - if you think it is all about gay marriage, you are very, very wrong.
1) Yes, Lance, I know that it is, just as protecting the Red A$$ed Owl and making sure you empty standing water on your property to thwart mosquitoes are also economic issues, but countries do not rise and fall on your ability to marry your boyfriend or whether or not the Red A$$ed Owl is extinct.

2) For some people, it IS just about this one issue or that one issue, and the campaigns are more than happy to pander to those people with silly SH!t.

Now, your reading assignment is to actually read my post, and then slap yourself on the forehead and say, "Oh!"
I'm not a fan of single issue voters, but I think that if you are going to focus on a single issue it should be the economy.

However, when it comes to the issue of gay rights, I have less of a problem with the homosexual who is voting because they want the same rights as everyone else, than I do with the person who is denying them those rights.
User avatar
Grizalltheway
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 35688
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:01 pm
A.K.A.: DJ Honey BBQ
Location: BSC

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by Grizalltheway »

BlueHen86 wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
1) Yes, Lance, I know that it is, just as protecting the Red A$$ed Owl and making sure you empty standing water on your property to thwart mosquitoes are also economic issues, but countries do not rise and fall on your ability to marry your boyfriend or whether or not the Red A$$ed Owl is extinct.

2) For some people, it IS just about this one issue or that one issue, and the campaigns are more than happy to pander to those people with silly SH!t.

Now, your reading assignment is to actually read my post, and then slap yourself on the forehead and say, "Oh!"
I'm not a fan of single issue voters, but I think that if you are going to focus on a single issue it should be the economy.

However, when it comes to the issue of gay rights, I have less of a problem with the homosexual who is voting because they want the same rights as everyone else, than I do with the person who is denying them those rights.
Exactly. I guarantee you if Cid liked dicks (and I'm not wholly convinced he doesn't, considering he met with D1B one-on-one) he'd be singing a different tune on this.
User avatar
Bronco
Level3
Level3
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:12 pm
I am a fan of: Griz

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by Bronco »

Here's a strange report
Union members making negative gay references to a gay member of Browns campaign

I would have suggested they use the popular "Brown Staffer" chant instead of what they were yelling
Scott Brown staffer heckled by Elizabeth Warren supporters for being gay
Last night Ross Hemminger, Youth Coordinator for the Scott Brown for Senate campain, was heckled by pro-Warren supporters at the Brown-Warren debate. A source at the event told me that the hecklers were union members who were organized by the Warren campaign for a “stand-out.”

The incident happened when Hemminger started chanting “Go, Scott, go!” on the megaphone. The Warren supporerts chanted back “You sound gay!” A few others chimed in “You take it up the ass”


http://twitchy.com/2012/10/11/tolerance ... being-gay/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. Al Swearengen
Image
http://www.whirligig-tv.co.uk/tv/childr ... bronco.wav" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by CID1990 »

Grizalltheway wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
I'm not a fan of single issue voters, but I think that if you are going to focus on a single issue it should be the economy.

However, when it comes to the issue of gay rights, I have less of a problem with the homosexual who is voting because they want the same rights as everyone else, than I do with the person who is denying them those rights.
Exactly. I guarantee you if Cid liked dicks (and I'm not wholly convinced he doesn't, considering he met with D1B one-on-one) he'd be singing a different tune on this.
What tune?

I got two Log Cabin Republicans in my family. They are pro gay marriage like I am but they are voting Romney.

If I was a stool pusher I'd still think the same way.

Nice try with the fag baiting, BTW.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by CID1990 »

Grizalltheway wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
I'm not a fan of single issue voters, but I think that if you are going to focus on a single issue it should be the economy.

However, when it comes to the issue of gay rights, I have less of a problem with the homosexual who is voting because they want the same rights as everyone else, than I do with the person who is denying them those rights.
Exactly. I guarantee you if Cid liked dicks (and I'm not wholly convinced he doesn't, considering he met with D1B one-on-one) he'd be singing a different tune on this.
What tune?

I got two Log Cabin Republicans in my family. They are pro gay marriage like I am but they are voting Romney.

If I was a stool pusher I'd still think the same way.

Nice try with the fag baiting, BTW.
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25486
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by CID1990 »

Fvcking Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
BlueHen86
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 13555
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:40 pm
I am a fan of: The McManus Brothers
A.K.A.: Duffman
Location: Area XI

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by BlueHen86 »

CID1990 wrote:Fvcking Tapatalk
You can say that again. :lol:
User avatar
D1B
Chris's Bitch
Chris's Bitch
Posts: 18397
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:34 am
I am a fan of: Morehead State

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by D1B »

Grizalltheway wrote:
BlueHen86 wrote:
I'm not a fan of single issue voters, but I think that if you are going to focus on a single issue it should be the economy.

However, when it comes to the issue of gay rights, I have less of a problem with the homosexual who is voting because they want the same rights as everyone else, than I do with the person who is denying them those rights.
Exactly. I guarantee you if Cid liked dicks (and I'm not wholly convinced he doesn't, considering he met with D1B one-on-one) he'd be singing a different tune on this.
One on one? Your whore of a mother called the meeting and brought her film crew too. The place was packed with numerous cs.com Illuminati. :nod: Look for "A Night of 101 Rusty Trombones", starring your mother, on a disgusting website near you soon.

Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39283
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by 89Hen »

kalm wrote:Of course there's a difference between the two but they both can and do represent single issue voters.
Seriously? :?
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 68785
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by kalm »

89Hen wrote:
kalm wrote:Of course there's a difference between the two but they both can and do represent single issue voters.
Seriously? :?
Of course.

(You need to keep with the game better and quit making me go back pages ago to see what kind of crap I was posting)
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
89Hen
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 39283
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:13 pm
I am a fan of: High Horses
A.K.A.: The Almighty Arbiter

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by 89Hen »

kalm wrote:
89Hen wrote: Seriously? :?
Of course.
I disagree. "Economic well being" is much better being compared to "civil rights issues". Here is a list of civil rights issues from civilrights.org:

Census
Civil Rights Enforcement
Constitutional Citizenship
Criminal Justice System
Disability Rights
Education
Equal Opportunity
Hate Crime
Health Care
Housing & Lending
Human Rights
Immigration
Indigenous Peoples
Jobs & Economy
Judiciary
LGBT Rights
Media &
Technology
Poverty & Welfare
Racial Profiling
Religious Freedom
Seniors/
Social Security
Transportation Equity
Voting Rights
Women's Rights
Workers' Rights

Gay marriage is a subset of of one of the subsets of civil rights. It is a single issue.
Image
User avatar
D1B
Chris's Bitch
Chris's Bitch
Posts: 18397
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:34 am
I am a fan of: Morehead State

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by D1B »

Hey 89Prick and Col Fartbreath,

Perhaps you two assholes need to donate more to those catholic fuckwads, the KOC!
The Knights of Columbus, the U.S. Catholic fraternal organization known for its wide-ranging charitable work and parish fish fries, has been a significant contributor to political efforts opposing same-sex marriage across the country, according to a study commissioned by a coalition of Catholic groups that support same-sex marriage.

Since 2005, the Knights of Columbus has provided "$6.25 million directly to anti-marriage equality efforts" and has additionally provided about $9.6 million "for broader efforts ... to discriminate against gay or lesbian couples in the name of religious freedom," says the report, released Thursday.

Earlier this year, a coalition called Equally Blessed commissioned a study of the Knights' tax filings, annual statements and other public documents between 2005 and 2012. The result is a 37-page report, "The Strong Right Arm of the Bishops: The Knights of Columbus and Anti-Marriage Equality Funding."

Since 2005, several million dollars have gone from the Knights directly to organizations involved with state ballot initiatives on same-sex marriage, says the coalition, which is made up of Catholic groups Call To Action, DignityUSA, Fortunate Families, and New Ways Ministry.

The report also states that the Knights have yet to file their 2011 tax return because they asked for an extension of the April deadline, so the total sum for donations could be higher.
Catholics, spending your money on the the poor and needy! :lol:
The Knights' first public donations to efforts to oppose same-sex marriage noted in the report came in 2005, when it directed $100,000 through the Kansas City, Kan., archdiocese to a corporation supporting a Kansas state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, according to the group's tax filings and political donation records.

According to those records, the $100,000 accounted for over 74 percent of the total raised by the main group supporting the measure, which passed by a 70 percent margin.

The Knights' donations to groups opposing same-sex marriage totaled at least $2.28 million in 2008, according to an annual report attributed to the group's national leader, Carl Anderson.

Included in those donations were about $1.1 million in support of a California ballot measure known as Proposition 8 that outlawed same-sex marriage in the state after it had been allowed by the state's Supreme Court; and $515,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, the main political group supporting the proposition.

While Proposition 8 passed in 2008 by about 52 percent, it was ruled to violate the U.S. Constitution's right to due process in federal district court in 2010, a ruling a federal appeals court upheld in 2012. Other donations from the Knights that year went to efforts to oppose same-sex marriage in Connecticut ($275,000), Arizona ($100,000) and Florida ($200,000).

In 2009, the Knights again donated about $1.43 million to the National Organization for Marriage and donated $418,000 to the U.S. bishops' committee ad hoc committee, according to that year's annual report.

In 2010, the Knights donated almost $750,000 to groups fighting same-sex marriage measures, including a reported $722,150 to the U.S. bishops' ad hoc committee, according to tax filings.

In 2012, the group has given at least $100,000 to the Minnesota Catholic Conference's fund to fight a ballot measure in that state, which is also on the ballot this November. According to public records, the Knights' donations are the second largest to the fund after a $650,000 donation by the St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese.

According to public records, the Knights have also given at least $250,000 apiece to two organizations opposing same-sex marriage in Washington state and Maryland, where the matter is also on the ballot in November.
Classic catholic scumbags...
"Since the USCCB is part of the Catholic Church and does not have to report its charitable contributions, money given to the USCCB's anti-marriage equality efforts is essentially untraceable unless it shows up in specific state-level reporting requirements," the report states.

"This is especially important because it makes it difficult to ascertain how much the church has invested in influencing voters in Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota, where marriage equality-related initiatives are on the ballot in November 2012," the report says.

One tax lawyer noted for his work on nonprofit tax law told NCR it is unclear whether the Knights' donations might affect their status as a tax-exempt organization. The Knights' national organization, which reported total assets of some $16.9 billion in 2010, is classified as a "fraternal beneficiary society" by the Internal Revenue Service.
:ohno:
User avatar
D1B
Chris's Bitch
Chris's Bitch
Posts: 18397
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:34 am
I am a fan of: Morehead State

Re: Federal Appeals court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Post by D1B »

D1B wrote:Hey 89Prick and Col Fartbreath,

Perhaps you two assholes need to donate more to those catholic fuckwads, the KOC!
The Knights of Columbus, the U.S. Catholic fraternal organization known for its wide-ranging charitable work and parish fish fries, has been a significant contributor to political efforts opposing same-sex marriage across the country, according to a study commissioned by a coalition of Catholic groups that support same-sex marriage.

Since 2005, the Knights of Columbus has provided "$6.25 million directly to anti-marriage equality efforts" and has additionally provided about $9.6 million "for broader efforts ... to discriminate against gay or lesbian couples in the name of religious freedom," says the report, released Thursday.

Earlier this year, a coalition called Equally Blessed commissioned a study of the Knights' tax filings, annual statements and other public documents between 2005 and 2012. The result is a 37-page report, "The Strong Right Arm of the Bishops: The Knights of Columbus and Anti-Marriage Equality Funding."

Since 2005, several million dollars have gone from the Knights directly to organizations involved with state ballot initiatives on same-sex marriage, says the coalition, which is made up of Catholic groups Call To Action, DignityUSA, Fortunate Families, and New Ways Ministry.

The report also states that the Knights have yet to file their 2011 tax return because they asked for an extension of the April deadline, so the total sum for donations could be higher.
Catholics, spending your money on the the poor and needy! :lol:
The Knights' first public donations to efforts to oppose same-sex marriage noted in the report came in 2005, when it directed $100,000 through the Kansas City, Kan., archdiocese to a corporation supporting a Kansas state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, according to the group's tax filings and political donation records.

According to those records, the $100,000 accounted for over 74 percent of the total raised by the main group supporting the measure, which passed by a 70 percent margin.

The Knights' donations to groups opposing same-sex marriage totaled at least $2.28 million in 2008, according to an annual report attributed to the group's national leader, Carl Anderson.

Included in those donations were about $1.1 million in support of a California ballot measure known as Proposition 8 that outlawed same-sex marriage in the state after it had been allowed by the state's Supreme Court; and $515,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, the main political group supporting the proposition.

While Proposition 8 passed in 2008 by about 52 percent, it was ruled to violate the U.S. Constitution's right to due process in federal district court in 2010, a ruling a federal appeals court upheld in 2012. Other donations from the Knights that year went to efforts to oppose same-sex marriage in Connecticut ($275,000), Arizona ($100,000) and Florida ($200,000).

In 2009, the Knights again donated about $1.43 million to the National Organization for Marriage and donated $418,000 to the U.S. bishops' committee ad hoc committee, according to that year's annual report.

In 2010, the Knights donated almost $750,000 to groups fighting same-sex marriage measures, including a reported $722,150 to the U.S. bishops' ad hoc committee, according to tax filings.

In 2012, the group has given at least $100,000 to the Minnesota Catholic Conference's fund to fight a ballot measure in that state, which is also on the ballot this November. According to public records, the Knights' donations are the second largest to the fund after a $650,000 donation by the St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese.

According to public records, the Knights have also given at least $250,000 apiece to two organizations opposing same-sex marriage in Washington state and Maryland, where the matter is also on the ballot in November.
Classic catholic scumbags...
"Since the USCCB is part of the Catholic Church and does not have to report its charitable contributions, money given to the USCCB's anti-marriage equality efforts is essentially untraceable unless it shows up in specific state-level reporting requirements," the report states.

"This is especially important because it makes it difficult to ascertain how much the church has invested in influencing voters in Washington, Maryland, Maine and Minnesota, where marriage equality-related initiatives are on the ballot in November 2012," the report says.

One tax lawyer noted for his work on nonprofit tax law told NCR it is unclear whether the Knights' donations might affect their status as a tax-exempt organization. The Knights' national organization, which reported total assets of some $16.9 billion in 2010, is classified as a "fraternal beneficiary society" by the Internal Revenue Service.
:ohno:
The catholic church - is that fucked up org really what jesus had in mind?
Post Reply