Several words come to mind-back handed, insincere, fake. Tom, you might have been a good actor once, but I've seen your very last and final movie. Tom Hanks says he's sorry he told FOXNews.com that Mormons who supported California's constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage were "un-American." "Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as 'un-American,'" the actor said in a statement through his publicist. "I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination." "But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American," the statement continues. "To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are 'un-American' creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use 'un- American' lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have." The "Big Love" producer made his original remarks at the Los Angeles premiere of the HBO series last week. “The truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told FOXNews.com. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now.” Read Tom Hanks' original statement in full. Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, responded that "expressing an opinion in a free and democratic society is as American as it gets." Bill McKeever, a rep for the Mormonism Research Ministry, added, "Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience."
now I am not defending Hanks here, so don't think I am. I believe he should keep his opinions to himself on matters of this sort, and it is only his celebrity which allows them to be published or distributed. That said, I can see a "separation of Church and State" issue concealed in this rather thoughtless utterance. Should a Church (LDS) be able to be a PAC style contributor to a ballot issue funding? I don't know if that is totally "kosher" really, but the Catholic Church does it (less openly I suspect), and any number of protestant churches probably do as well. Not being a constitutional lawyer (like Hanks as well), I dunno the answer, but my opinion will stay isolated in Montana not irritate millions of other Americans or the international media. That is unless my fellow Rogues are insulted by the query.
The constitutional concept behind separation of church and state was never that churches should have no ability to influence public opinion, or that they should remain completely apolitical. Indeed, churches in America had a long and honored tradition of influencing public opinion in colonial America and the early Republic. What the Founding Fathers were concerned about was that the church (organized religion) should not have place in the actual process of government, nor form a branch of government, official or unofficial. That churches participate in public life, influence public thought, and generally express political opinion, does not violate either the letter or the spirit of the constitutional prohibition against combing church and state organs.
I mentioned I am not versed in this area, but I still wonder if overt (rather than covert) contributions by a church to a fund to support/defeat a political position might not "cross the line" a tad. As I said, Hanks was out of line and even he (or his publisists) recognized it. That was my only query, have any other churches done the "up-front" contribution and publishing of their position on a single ballot subject as the LDS did? To the best of my recollection the "churches" always seemed to make generic statements against a position, and their monetary support was rather "under the radar".
1) Despite not having advanced education in this area, you did quite well. Although the Bill of Rights specifies that churches not be created by government, become a part of government, or recognized by goverrnment, they are free to influence public policy. 2) The seperation of church and state is not found anywhere in the Constitution. The phrase was found in a letter between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It was included in a Supreme Court decision (which then becomes precedent- "stare decisis") by a then Supreme Court which had no problem in over reaching in it's authority. The Warren and Burger Court of the 1960's and 70's, frequently used article 7, section 22 of the Constitution in many of their decisions. That part of the Constitution allowed the government to intervene in cases of "interstate commerce". I even worked on a case where the Supremes ruled on a dispute between bus drivers in San Antonio. While the case was unique to San Antonio and had no relevance outside of San Antonio, I really felt the court was way over reaching in it's authority, not only when they heard the case, but when they ruled on it. The recent Rehnquist/Roberts court of the 1990's-21st century loves using the tenth amendment, frequently sending cases back to lower courts-in that states have rights not exclusively set for the federal government in the Constitution. This is why, in recent times, the Supremes will not rule on gay marriage. Nowhere in the Constitution does the subject of marriage come up, therefore it is a state issue. As much as gay advocates wish otherwise, the Supremes will not run to their rescue on the issue of gay marriage. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ( a left leaning court) has already ruled on the issue, saying that gay marriage is a states rights issue. Hanks and his ilk only chance is convincing wide swaths on the public and the way they are whining is not winning them brownie points.
No where in the Constitution is the matter of abortion mentioned, yet that didn't stop the US Supreme Court from issuing a ruling on a woman's "right" to an abortion (I know, the Court actually issued a ruling on the right to "privacy"). I sure wouldn't bet the farm on the US Supreme Court staying out of the homosexual marriage issue. The spirit of judicial activism is alive and well and will continue to be so just as long as Liberal (excuse me, "progressive") judges are appointed to the Court.
The Roe v Wade decision (1973) was part of that over reaching Burger/Warren court mentioned (art 7, sec 22 was justification on Roe v Wade as well as a wide swath of "progressive" decisions). The present Roberts court, like I said, is very much a states rights court. To return to the scary Warren/Burger days would require two of the conservatives on the court to retire. As a group, the libs are older than the conservatives, so (and I'm guessing) we have at least ten more years of conservative decisions.
They're not going to make homosexuality compulsory? Or are they? YouTube - Dick Emery - Clarence Army Careers Sketch http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=-21jxA8gigQ Best and Warm Regards Adrian Wainer
Why should churches contributing to funding of referendums "cross the line"? They are not part of the governmental process anymore than individual citizens contributing to political action groups would be. Churches do not become part of the government simply because they have a political agenda to advance any more than any public organization does. If a group of citizens decides to pool their money in order to place a ballot initiative on the ballot, that does not make them a part of the government, or part of the governmental process; what is the difference if a church does the same thing?
The trouble is that some churches, lobbies, groups etc.. have more money than others, this is how some politicians end up winning elections, simply because they have more cash and financial support. This could be dangerous for democracy, as money influences the ballot.
That's how Obama won! He vowed not to take contributions from private citizens, but then went back on that promise. Money definitely influences elections, always has over here. Churches have a right to contribute to whoever they would like to. It is my belief that part of the problems of this country are because we cut the Church out of the process, even though our constitution says nothing about separation of Church and state! Anyway, not trying to start a debate about that, just saying everyone, group, church or individual has the right to throw their money at whoever they want. I have to add this, that yes I agree Skipper, it not only could be, it is a problem for Dempcracy. The lobbyists and so called "special interest" groups have far too much influence on how government operates!
So what? Some individuals have far more money to throw at elections than other individuals, That's why groups of people form PAC's to pool their money so that they can wield greater political influence. Churches do the same thing, it's not unethical. Why is it "dangerous" for democracy for money to influence elections? Money, or more accurately, wealth, has always influenced elections, which is a good thing. Since all forms of government, no matter, how primitive, are fundamentally concerned with the creation and allocation of wealth in society, the operation of government and wealth are inextricably intertwined. Democracy is simply a system of government which attempts, through wider participation of individuals in the process of government, to assure a more equitable allocation of wealth. Democracy is not threatened by wealth, rather it is threatened by a lack of wealth, when people are tempted to overthrow democracy and seize all political (and therefore economic) power for themselves in order to accumulate wealth without reference to a stable government. I agree with Big Fun; having churches participate in elections, to the extent that they help influence public opinion in more people than would otherwise be the case, is actually helpful to democracy.
I always hate getting to threads were I have stuff to say and people have already said it. That in mind... The United States of America is a republic not a democracy. Second money does not influence elections as much as we think. Yes it helps but if you have a candidate who is favored they usually win, no matter the money spent on either side. Money of course does not hurt. What happened in California is odd. When prop 8 came up there was a multi-denominational group that formed to support it, of which the LDS church was a minor player (as numbers go). Yes substantial amounts of money was donated by LDS people and some from the LDS church itself. But with only 375,000 Mormons in California, blame can not squarely rest here. Yet Mormons have been the target of blame and why? That is the real question. Church and State as mentioned above is not constitutional and as it is currently understoof was never intended. This is why Obama needs to be listened too, in his inaugural address he said that we need to remember the Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers. (sarcasim is intended here.) (Remember that he also said the constitution is funemetally flawed.)
