President-Prophet Thomas Monson, the leader of the Mormon Church, clearly does not read history. If he did, he'd know that he and his apostles could not stand behind the stone walls and parapets of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, shoveling cash and lies into California without consequences. The Mormon Church's members have contributed some $22 million into Prop 8, a vicious campaign here in California seeking to strip fundamental marriage rights from same-sex couples, making them permanent second-class citizens.

The Mormon Church and its very junior partners in California owe all of us an apology. They seek to use the constitution to strip fundamental rights -- in this case of same-sex couples to marry -- away from millions of people. They lie in television ads. They blackmail. And then they invoke their religion to say that they are allowed to lie and hurt people, but not if they are caught.

Top officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed reports today indicating that they donated more than $180,000 in in-kind contributions to Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

The contributions included tens of thousands of dollars for expenses such as airline tickets, hotel and restaurant bills and car-rental bills for top church officials such as L. Whitney Clayton, along with $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time” for church employees.

The church said the expenditures took place between July 1 and the end of the year. The church’s involvement has been a major issue in the campaign and its aftermath. Individual Mormon families donated millions -- by some estimates more than $20 million -- of their own money to the campaign.

On top of that, some Prop. 8 opponents say church officials violated election law by failing to file campaign disclosure reports outlining church funds being spent on the campaign. Fred Karger, who filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission after the election alleging that church officials had not properly disclosed their involvement, said he thought today’s filing proves that his complaint has merit.

“They said they reported all their travel ... now, when there is a [complaint filed] they disclose 25 Southwest tickets just in October,” he said. “They were required to report this” in an earlier filing, he said. Church officials could not be reached for comment this evening.

(San Francisco, California) Six weeks into an investigation by California's Fair Political Practices Commission, the Church of Latter-Day Saints has admitted that it spent nearly $188,000 more on the campaign to approve Proposition 8 that it had initially stated.

The Mormon Church previously insisted that it spent only $2,078 to support the ban on same-sex marriage, something LGBT leaders said was implausible in light of a number of visits to California by high ranking church officials, ads allegedly produced with church funds and the large number of church staffers working on the campaign.

In a new filing with the state, the church now admits that among other expenses were $96,849 for "compensated staff time" for church employees who worked on the campaign, $20,575 for the use of facilities and equipment at its Salt Lake City headquarters, $26,000 for audio-visual production and travel expenses for church leaders to go to California.

he Church put an estimated $25 million into the battle to end gay marriage in California.

Last week in a separate case, a federal judge has denied a request by supporters of Prop 8 to keep secret the names of donors. The group behind the measure said public disclosure of their financial supporters put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

In denying the motion, the judge said the public had a right to know who gave money to state ballot measures.

With all the controversy surrounding the LDS Church's involvement in the Proposition 8 election in California last fall, a more subtle dust-up was brewing at the Hawaii State Legislature last month, pretty much over the same thing.

The exchange began with an e-mail she got from Frank Lueder, also of Hawaii, that informed her of HB444, a bill before the Hawaii Legislature that "is attempting to once again legalize same-sex marriage but under a new term, 'civil union.' If you wish relay your OPPOSITION to it, you could do so by [calling or e-mailing] your representative. You could access the list of ... House of Representatives from the e-mail address I just gave."

Some opponents of same sex marriage are locked in a legal battle to keep the sources of their war chest a secret.

The National Organization for Marriage is asking a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the State Ethics Commission.

Earlier this month the Commission voted to investigate N.O.M because they did not name the sources of its money.

"This week the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the release of names of people who signed R-71 petitions. The High Court will now consider whether to hear the merits of the case - whether people signing petitions are engaging in protected political speech."

"When contributions of $1,000 or more are made during the final days of an election–the time between the last campaign report required to be filed and the end of the election–late contribution reports must be filed within 24 hours of making or receiving the “late” contribution. The following failed to file a late contribution report as required by law

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to timely report making late non-monetary contributions totaling $36,928 in connection with the November 4, 2008, General Election. $5,539 fine."

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

Note: This database was updated 2/4/2009 with new records. These include itemized contributions donated between 10/19/2008 and 12/31/2008 as reported to the California Secretary of State.

1. Henry B. Eyring $0
2. Dieter F. Uchtdorf $0
3. Boyd K. Packer $0
4. L. Tom Perry $0
5. Russell M. Nelson $0
6. Dallin H. Oaks $0
7. M. Russell Ballard $0
8. Richard G. Scott $0
9. Robert D. Hales $0
10. Jeffrey R. Holland $0
11. David A. Bednar $0
12. Quentin L. Cook $0
13. D. Todd Christofferson $0
14. Neil L. Andersen $0

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints read a letter to all Minnesota wards on Sunday, Jan. 15 reminding church-goers that “the family is the fundamental unit of society” and urged them to re-read the “Proclamation of the Family,” which begins, “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

Church members were also asked to “prayerfully consider how to get involved,” according to a Minnesota Blogger.

The letter “concluded with a reminder that church buildings and directories are not to be used for political purposes – with this caveat: unless otherwise directed,” the article continued.

All we asked in Proposition 8 was the right to exercise OUR vote. We just asked for religious privilege to cast a vote. We did not want to be disenfranchised. Institutionally, not a single dollar, not one red cent, of money from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went into Proposition 8, or any other comparable proposition that I know of. Now, a lot of Latter-day Saints got involved, and a lot of Latter-day Saints, particularly in California, donated their own time and money to do it, so I’m not being coy, I’m not dodging the fact that there was a terrific involvement and a fairly heavy price to pay – people being fired from their jobs, and people being blackballed in services that they had rendered and were no longer asked to render, and so forth, but that’s ok, that’s the price you pay fora lively democracy. So we choose very carefully what we see those moral issues to be, and we saw that as a moral issue. We saw that not as a political issue, and NEVER, EVER, EVER did we say that somebody could not express his or her vote in a contrary way. Nobody was blocking the ballot box, nobody was slashing tires, you know, as you approach the precinct. I’d really be disappointed if there was some kind of effort to deny somebody their free exercise. But, again, all we we’re asking for is the chance to have our free exercise, and some seem to think that was not right, that we oughta sit down and shut up, and we sit down and shut up quite a bit, but on some things, on that one, we chose to be a little more vocal, a little more visible, and by “we” I just emphasize totally this is a voluntary, lay participation with no money and no formalization institutionally, but something we all cared about, I’m not minimizing that we cared about it. And we’ve taken issues on gambling, we’ve been quite visible when legislation comes along to put casinos in places and various kinds of gambling, we just … that flops over from political to moral for us, and so we’ve been kinda visible on that. We have this quirky -- quirky to you … quirky – we have this health code where we see some of the damage that comes from alcohol and drugs and whatever, so we’re pretty visible about that; that doesn’t tend to get down to legislation as much as we are just kinda vocal about it, we talk about the damage that does to homes and families and parents and kids. So, yeah, there aren’t a lot of them, but where we have them we haven’t been shy, and we hope it’s always appropriate, we hope it’s always allowing everybody else exactly what we’re asking for and that’s the freedom to express an opinion and cast a vote and we’ll all go wherever democracy takes us, but we do feel pretty obligated to stand up for what we believe, and then you kinda let the chips fall where they may.

Proposition 8 is a measured response to the California Supreme Court's decision declaring traditional male-female marriage unconstitutional as a matter of State law.

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and no such counsel or party made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief. Letters from all parties consenting to the filing of this brief have been submitted to the clerk.

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates."

Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman,

which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children.

Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three fourths of the states."