[GCFL-discuss] Amendments

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

John, are you taking your own shot at this one?

It is true, non-profits do have to stay out of politics, at least
officially. Churches are not the same thing as non-profits, but they have
to stay out of politics to remain tax exempt. When Berkeley, CA required
non-profits to acquire a license, like businesses, some eager young man
in the revenue department tried to send out a letter requiring churches
to comply. It could have been an interesting legal issue, but the city
council told the revenue department to back off, so it was never formally
resolved. (I would have said that requiring a church to obtain a license
is Establishment, and closing down a church which fails to pay the tax is
Infringing the Free Exercise of Religion. Pat Robertson still manages to
publish his "Capital Investors Voters Guide" -- the last one I saw had
more to do with BTUs and energy production than faith and family. I'm not
sure where a sign on a church lawn fits. Nobody has filed a formal
complaint.

I'm not sure the Republican strategy is very coherent. I am skeptical of
any politician talking about motivating their "base" because most of us
ornery individuals will move a lot of different ways on a lot of
different things, and ignore others we are told to care about.

But yes, I think the legislative majority thought their "base" would
"turn out" for these items, and also that a fair number of people who
feel strongly about one item or the other would be drawn to vote
Republican. I don't think it is working very well. They are going to get
a big yawn out of it.

Actually, the writers of the Declaration of Independence spelled out only
three very general rights "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" --
without defining exactly what each one was. The rest of the document was
a litany of grievances against the King of England.

As to amendments: none of the subjects covered was obvious before the
amendment was passed, that is why it was passed. As to marriage, there is
already state law which specified husband and wife. There is not the
slightest chance the state supreme court is going to follow the lead of
Massachusetts -- which has holes in its reasoning you could drive a truck
through.

Siarlys