California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) announced today that they would investigate allegations that the LDS Church did not fully disclose non-monetary contributions to the Prop 8 Campaign.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate called for the investigation last week, writing a letter to the FPPC detailing many of the allegations, including:

Recent Comment by Mitch

“Thanks Madmax! I was apparently too deep in the ridiculousness of it all!…”

Read more…
• Church organized phone banks from Utah and Idaho
• Sending direct mail to voters
• Transported people to California over several weekends
• Used the LDS Press Office to send out multiple News Releases to promote their activities to nonmembers
• Walked precincts
• Ran a speakers bureau
• Distributed thousands of lawn signs and other campaign material
• Organized a “surge to election day”
• Church leaders travel to California
• Set up of very elaborate web sites
• Produced at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts all in support of Prop 8
• Conducted at least 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 Western states

These allegations are on top of the $22 million raised by Mormons in support of Prop 8, and according to Karger are in violation of the Political Reform Act.

While the LDS Church has not yet commented on the announcement, they have previously stated that they “fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act” and that “any investigation would confirm the church’s full compliance with applicable law.”

Roman Porter, executive director of FPPC said today that an investigation doesn’t necessarily mean there was any wrongdoing, and asked everyone to “reserve judgement.”

For more information…

• Karger’s letter to the FPPC
• Probe into LDS Church’s Prop 8 donations
• Why Catholic involvement in Prop 8 needs to be scrutinized as well

Jasmyne Cannick was on Fox News… again. How many times has she been on since Prop 8 passed? Has she appeared on any of the other networks? Doesn’t she realize she is being used? Fox News has never cared about civil rights or the black community, because it’s viewers don’t. Fox News is hardly a big tent network, and they are using her to drive a larger and more destructive wedge between gays and blacks. You know Fox News fans are eating it up. Here’s the clip.

And here is the LA Times Op Ed mentioned in the clip.

No-on-8’s white bias

The debate over Prop 8 and same-sex marriage continues. I’ve got three video clips and you should watch them in order. The first one may be a struggle to get through… but trust me it’ll be worth it in the end….

First Kirk “Growing Pains” Cameron on The Factor with Bill O’Reilly.

Boy, that was a little more than painful. Are you angry now? Now the ladies from The View…

As usual Whoopi is the voice of reason. Are you as frustrated as she is? And finally a much needed ray of hope…

That little girl is the future, and I hope we don’t have to wait until she’s 18 to experience it.

Cassandra Handley, author of VF.com’s “A Mormon View” blog, feels the Mormon church has been unfairly criticized since the passage or Prop 8. Vanity Fair published a conversation between Handley and Sue Carswell, representing the L.G.B.T. community, and moderated by Michael Hogan, V.F.’s executive online editor.

Here are few of the more interesting exchanges:

Hogan: But if it’s just about semantics, why is the Mormon church trying to change the constitution of the state of California?

Handley: We have something that we call the Proclamation of the Family that basically states our position on the importance of the family. We value family as being the most crucial institution in the world. And the first statement of that proclamation, which I don’t have memorized, is something along the lines of, We believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it says something along the lines of, We value procreation so much, and the way that procreation can take place is between a man and a woman.

Carswell: I’m sure there are members of your church who can’t have babies and go through fertility treatments, adoption. The same way that gay couples can and do in their own marriages.

I can’t understand why you would come to my wedding when you say what you just said. I’m not getting a civil union. I’m having a wedding. What’s the difference between the two that I’m not getting here? You would come to my civil union? Of course you would, according to what you’re saying. But you’d also come to my marriage, yet you’re saying that you’re against marriage.

Handley: The thing is, though, if this proposition had not passed, religious groups could have been forced to conduct same-sex weddings. And if they refused, they could have been open to legal action.

Hogan: That’s not really a rationale for changing the constitution of the state to say that same sex-couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married anywhere and that a bunch of people who’ve already been married now have to lose their marriage licenses. That’s an argument to say, You shouldn’t force us to conduct same sex marriages, which is a much more modest goal.

and…

Hogan: Let’s talk about definitions of marriage and how they have changed in the L.D.S. church over time, and the fact that there was a time when polygamy was recognized in the L.D.S. church.

Handley: There was a time.

Hogan: And when did that end?

Handley: In order for Utah to become a state, it obviously had to give it up. And this happened in the late 1800s. [Utah became a state in 1896.]

Before that, though, when the church was founded, there was gross prosecution. People were killed. They were tarred and feathered. Our first prophet [Joseph Smith] was martyred. So the first members fled from place to place. They faced hatred and resentment, much of it having to do with the practice of polygamy.

Hogan: This is what’s strange to me. Here’s a church with a history of being persecuted, having to find a place where it could practice its beliefs on its own, and eventually thriving in that place, in Utah. How did they get to the point where now they’re saying, “We want to dictate the laws of California to reflect our religious beliefs”? They didn’t want the law of other religions to affect them back in the day.

Handley: They wanted the L.D.S. voters in California to take the proposition into consideration.

The entire post can be viewed here.