Prop 8

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Zelgadis

Wow... I wonder how many houses they could have built for needy families for the money it cost to make that horrible thing...quote>

 

Thank you, Zel.  That's an excellent example.

 

Why should the rest of us pay more taxes because the people who built that are tax exempt?

 

Why should donations to build that be a tax write off?

 

"People who are hungry, people who are starving - matter more than your feet and hair"

Okay, that might not be the best source to quote.  but I always liked that line.

 

 

 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

That sounds like a regional thing.  That is not the case where I come from.quote>

A region that happens to dominate a rather significant chunk of the United States.

And, yet, we still have guys who have gotten rich running "non-profit" organizations.   The system is not working.  quote>

So we're supposed to fix the problem by punishing everyone?

 

Maryland schools rank 1st in nation in analysis by 'Education Week'

Seems pretty responsible to me.  I would rather my money go towards that than to go towards another shiny palace for a con man.quote>

Very well.  Don't donate your money to an organization that you suspect is a fraud.  But in arguing to tax a church that was otherwise tax exempt, you are on some level telling your fellow Americans that they don't have the right to decide where their donated earnings are going.

Maybe not.  Maybe the average little rural church is nearly broke.  But what about the ones that are raking in millions of dollars and not using it for charitable works?   When a church shows a annual profit of $4 million [link], how can it possibly be considered a non-profit organization?quote>

Perhaps you remember my post about how to reform the US healthcare system.  I ran across an interesting fact while doing some research for that post.  According to the IRS, a tax exempt organization does not necessarily have to spend its money to legally qualify as tax exempt.  The IRS allows them to post annual profits.  This is based on the understanding that for many non-profit organizations, the ability to earn and store funds is necessary to weather economic situations like the one we are in now, or simply so they have the financial assurances to expand their operations to be as much help as possible.  Thousands of tax exempt organizations, be they religious or not, depend on this to be able to function.

Secondly, I'm curious to know just what $4 million is supposed to accomplish.  If you split among the states, thats $80,000, or enough to pay for about 3 new teachers.  If you give it all to the federal government, it's yearly income has gone up about 0.0000016%.

I have to be honest, I don't really see what the heck this would accomplish in the way of meaningful change.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

 

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

That sounds like a regional thing.  That is not the case where I come from.quote>

A region that happens to dominate a rather significant chunk of the United States. quote>

I suspect this is another one of those urban / rural cultural differences. 

And, yet, we still have guys who have gotten rich running "non-profit" organizations.   The system is not working.  quote>

So we're supposed to fix the problem by punishing everyone? quote>

How about fixing the system?

Very well.  Don't donate your money to an organization that you suspect is a fraud.  But in arguing to tax a church that was otherwise tax exempt, you are on some level telling your fellow Americans that they don't have the right to decide where their donated earnings are going. quote>

What level is that?  My fellow Americans are free to donate to whatever or whomever they feel like donating to. 

Perhaps you remember my post about how to reform the US healthcare system.  I ran across an interesting fact while doing some research for that post.  According to the IRS, a tax exempt organization does not necessarily have to spend its money to legally qualify as tax exempt.  The IRS allows them to post annual profits.  This is based on the understanding that for many non-profit organizations, the ability to earn and store funds is necessary to weather economic situations like the one we are in now, or simply so they have the financial assurances to expand their operations to be as much help as possible.  Thousands of tax exempt organizations, be they religious or not, depend on this to be able to function. quote>

Which makes perfectly good sense.  and doesn't justify things like Ian was talking about.

Secondly, I'm curious to know just what $4 million is supposed to accomplish.  If you split among the states, thats $80,000, or enough to pay for about 3 new teachers.  If you give it all to the federal government, it's yearly income has gone up about 0.0000016%.  quote>

I believe that was net profit.

I have to be honest, I don't really see what the heck this would accomplish in the way of meaningful change. quote>

Maybe slow down the extremists who are trying to take over the government?

[fukuda 351]

Heh, don't complain. Churches are tax exempt in the US, but we are forced to fund the catholic church (yes, the one that needs it the most) using our taxes. I guess separation of church and state failed somewhere...

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

How about fixing the system?quote>

By what means?  Simply stripping everyone of their tax exempt status is punishing those who are doing good to get at those who are exploiting the system.  (To say nothing about the potential ethical challenges of such an action.)

What level is that?  My fellow Americans are free to donate to whatever or whomever they feel like donating to.quote>

But in taxing them, the government is now being given authority to dictate how a portion of that money is being allocated.  They are free to donate to whatever or whomever, but they are partially stripped of any control they may have had in how those donations are allocated.  (I guess I didn't explain it so well the first time.)

I believe that was net profit.quote>

So if the government taxed the Roman Catholic Church as if it was a business, then the government would have access to an additional $4 million in potential tax revenue.

I don't know if you're aware of this, (so forgive me if I'm insulting your intelligence) but US businesses aren't taxed on their income, but rather their earnings.  If GM made $75 billion in income a year (which isn't an unrealistic figure), and it spent $70 billion that year keeping itself running (again, a realistic number), GM is only taxed on the remaining $5 billion.

Also, I'm sure that if they were forced to spend the additional $4 million or be taxed on it, I'm sure they could spend that money in ways you wouldn't approve of.

Maybe slow down the extremists who are trying to take over the government?quote>

No, it wouldn't.  If anything, it'd add fuel to the fire.  The extremists would still make their voices heard, and you would have just given them ammo to use against you.  It would polarize people, and it bring supporters to their cause, and it would look like (or be spinnable into) a case of the government just reaching further and further into American's private lives.  They are the charismatic ones, and they would be able to line people up to their cause.  It's a lose-lose situation for non-extremists; you take away tax exempt status and it will look (or be made to look) like the government is growing more evil.  And if you give it back to them in an effort to appease them, you'll only embolden them to push harder for their agenda.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

By what means?  Simply stripping everyone of their tax exempt status is punishing those who are doing good to get at those who are exploiting the system.  (To say nothing about the potential ethical challenges of such an action.) quote>

I'll admit that I never saw a reason for them to have tax-exempt status in the first place and the growth of the megachurches and things like BBJ have just worked to solidify that notion.

I don't know how to audit the records of a tax-exempt organization to weed out the pork.   I would take better accountant than I am to answer your question.

But in taxing them, the government is now being given authority to dictate how a portion of that money is being allocated.  They are free to donate to whatever or whomever, but they are partially stripped of any control they may have had in how those donations are allocated.  (I guess I didn't explain it so well the first time.)  quote>

I didn't get it that time either.   Since when do people who donate to an organization have any control in how those donations are allocated?

Every year, my cousin asks me to sponsor him in the polar bear plunge to raise money for Special Olympics and a friend asks me to sponsor her in a walkathon for breast cancer research.   Fine with me; I'm happy to sponsor them.  But I don't have any delusion that I have any control over what those organizations do with the money.

So if the government taxed the Roman Catholic Church as if it was a business, then the government would have access to an additional $4 million in potential tax revenue. quote>

Well, no, because not all of that was earned in the USA. 

I don't know if you're aware of this, (so forgive me if I'm insulting your intelligence) but US businesses aren't taxed on their income, but rather their earnings.  If GM made $75 billion in income a year (which isn't an unrealistic figure), and it spent $70 billion that year keeping itself running (again, a realistic number), GM is only taxed on the remaining $5 billion. quote>

I wasn't the best accounting student but I did manage to pick up that much 

Also, I'm sure that if they were forced to spend the additional $4 million or be taxed on it, I'm sure they could spend that money in ways you wouldn't approve of. quote>

Like funding their political action committees which they shouldn't have in the first place.

Maybe slow down the extremists who are trying to take over the government?quote>

No, it wouldn't.  If anything, it'd add fuel to the fire.  The extremists would still make their voices heard, and you would have just given them ammo to use against you.  It would polarize people, and it bring supporters to their cause, and it would look like (or be spinnable into) a case of the government just reaching further and further into American's private lives.  They are the charismatic ones, and they would be able to line people up to their cause.  It's a lose-lose situation for non-extremists; you take away tax exempt status and it will look (or be made to look) like the government is growing more evil.  And if you give it back to them in an effort to appease them, you'll only embolden them to push harder for their agenda.quote>

Okay, I can see the logic to that.  but it does feel like appeasing extremists.

Scary part is, extremists don't think they are extremists.  They think what they are doing is normal.

[Lambert14 0]

um, I think the whole tax exempt thing is missing the point. The LDS chucrch broke the law by donating large amounts of nonmonetary lobbying tools to get legislation passed. They cant do that...

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Lambert14

um, I think the whole tax exempt thing is missing the point. The LDS chucrch broke the law by donating large amounts of nonmonetary lobbying tools to get legislation passed. They cant do that...quote>

 

We may be straying a bit off topic (we do tend to do that).

Getting back on topic . . .

What "nonmonetary lobbying tools" are we talking about?

and why can't they do that?

(btw, I agree they shouldn't be doing that.)

[mcarch 15]

Originally posted by: The Bluejay "i thought there was a law seperating church from state so the state has no right to interfere with the church"

It also works the other way around: Relgion shouldn't interefere or influence laws.quote>

 

There is supposed to be a seperation of church and state... however if you look around...

All Fed. employees get Christian Holidays off... do the Fed. employees get  any other Religious Holidays off?  No.

and speaking of religion, recalling from my high school days in a Catholic school, the Catholic Church actually does not strongly condemn homosexuality. In fact, they allow gays/lesbians to be part of their Church...and there is this organization sponsored by the Church (can't remember what it is called) for Homosexual Catholics. So I just wondered why so many Catholics despise homosexuality, when the Magisterium and the Pope say otherwise...

...I am not a Catholic, and this is a few times when religion classes actually helped me in life...so if there is a Catholic who wants to correct me, go ahead.quote>

I am Catholic and Gay.  You are correct.  For the most part, people who use the Curch to backup their beliefs are extreamists.  These people exist in ALL religions/beliefs.

About Marriage being a Religious thing.  It is.  However, Marriage is also considered a contract by law in the United States.  I'm not saying that LGBT people want to use Marriage as a legal suit, they do have beliefs as well.  Those beliefs should also be recognized as well as the legal issue.  Every human being no matter what qualifications are entitled to certain inalienable rights, not from a government or other people.

[Lambert14 0]

Commercials, flyers, call centers, advertisements, yard signs, Internet sights, viral videos and numerous other items that they did not represent the costs on there documents. Under the IRS code for tax exempt institutions, a tax exempt group cannot do a substantial amount of lobbying or political pushing for or against anything. The LDS Church donated large amounts of items and money to the no on prop 8 campaign. They have claimed only 20000 dollars worth of actual monetary donations, but make no mention of all the non monetary donations given. The IRS needs to define substantial, and then needs to request all the monetary documents from the LDS to determine how much money they actually donated to the campaign. Many of the estimates put them at 70% o the total funding. If the IRS does there job, there is no way this wouldnt classify as substanital andd the LDS church loses its tax exempt status as punishment

[_Atticus 10]

I agree, violating the law should get the LDS church its tax-exempt status removed, or at least put on probation. But that should not mean that the rest of religious institutions get theirs removed.

-Pingangster

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: pingangster

I agree, violating the law should get the LDS church its tax-exempt status removed, or at least put on probation.  quote>

Agreed.

But that should not mean that the rest of religious institutions get theirs removed. quote>

Not yet.   But I believe the auditors need to look for similar violations.

 

I also believe that money spent on pork like BBJ should be taxed.

 

 

[belfastuniguy 18]

Instead, many spend their money working to make sure deviants like me don't ever get married and building crap like Big Butter Jesus:quote>

Exactly Zel, in addition to providing tax exempt money to support anti-abortion rallies, criminal damage to abortion clinics and legal assistance to those accused of it as well as a campaign of blatant homophobia.

Churches have in my personal opinion have every right to express their opinions but they have no right in my eyes interferring or even attempting to influence the realm of civil rights and government. I respect religion but I am a very very strong advocate of secular government and a total and complete separation between church and state.

I hope the LDS are punished and then maybe other churches will take note.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I hope the LDS are punished and then maybe other churches will take note.quote>

I doubt they will be. It would be political suicide for anyone to try and punish a religious institution. Might even be unconstitutional.

Then again, this is the Mormons we're talking about. A not insignificant number of Americans believe them to be a bunch of heretics, so it might not go down as bad as it would seem to try and sanction or punish them somehow.

As for the tax-exemption issue, I believe that needs to be examined on a case by case basis. The church of Scientology, for instance, is in no way "non-profit". Most churches, on the other hand, are. I'd say the way to tell the difference would be to examine the institution and see if they're selling anything or making contributions compulsory in any way. If they are, then they're definitely for profit and deserve no tax exemption. If they aren't, let them keep their tax exempt status.

But of course that won't happen, either. The government can't touch religion in this country. Having religious institutions be tax-exempt no matter what is designed to protect said institutions from being suppressed by the government. Taxing some but not others would appear to be playing favorites. And taxing them all would be just plain oppressive.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The church of Scientology, for instance, is in no way "non-profit". quote>

Agreed, hence the UK and Irish governments do not class them as a religion but class them as a cult and ban them from using tax exempt status bar for VAT. Something they detest greatly and makes me laugh rather a lot.

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The church of Scientology, for instance, is in no way "non-profit". quote>

Agreed, hence the UK and Irish governments do not class them as a religion but class them as a cult and ban them from using tax exempt status bar for VAT. Something they detest greatly and makes me laugh rather a lot.quote>

Not to mention Germany where scientology is actively fought against as a cult oganization

[hawkpride147 1]

i think we should just leave it alone...the people voted...TWICE...who cares if you agree or not, this is a democracy. it was put to the people twice and both times, the people voted the same. if you take this vote away from the people, what vote are you going to disallow next? the point is, a line has to be drawn. there has to be a point at which a vote cannot be overturned. otherwise, you risk moving into a dictatorship, tyranny, or communistic society. none of which would come close to benefiting the US.

when the people vote, that should stand. it was what our country was built on...

and before any of you call me a homophobe, or that i'm a bigot, or that i don't understand, or anything along those lines, realize this: my fiancee's mom and sister are lesbians. one of my closest friends is a lesbian. 2 guys i consider to be my best friends are gay. yes i am straight, but i do understand the issue, i understand the people, and i do feel for them. but when the people vote, it shouldn't be for naught.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: hawkpride147 i think we should just leave it alone...the people voted...TWICE...who cares if you agree or not, this is a democracy. it was put to the people twice and both times, the people voted the same. if you take this vote away from the people, what vote are you going to disallow next? the point is, a line has to be drawn. there has to be a point at which a vote cannot be overturned. otherwise, you risk moving into a dictatorship, tyranny, or communistic society. none of which would come close to benefiting the US.

when the people vote, that should stand. it was what our country was built on...quote>

Democracy shouldn't be about allowing the majority to restrict the freedoms of the minority. What if the majority of the population had voted to reintroduce slavery, would that be acceptable? Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.

and before any of you call me a homophobe, or that i'm a bigot, or that i don't understand, or anything along those lines, realize this: my fiancee's mom and sister are lesbians. one of my closest friends is a lesbian. 2 guys i consider to be my best friends are gay. yes i am straight, but i do understand the issue, i understand the people, and i do feel for them. but when the people vote, it shouldn't be for naught.quote>

"some of my best friends are gay"

[ilikehotdogsalot 307]

Originally posted by: Lambert14

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The church of Scientology, for instance, is in no way "non-profit". quote>

Agreed, hence the UK and Irish governments do not class them as a religion but class them as a cult and ban them from using tax exempt status bar for VAT. Something they detest greatly and makes me laugh rather a lot.quote>

Not to mention Germany where scientology is actively fought against as a cult oganizationquote>

!!!I'm an alien from Marz!!!

[belfastuniguy 18]

i think we should just leave it alone...the people voted...TWICE...who cares if you agree or not, this is a democracy. it was put to the people twice and both times, the people voted the same. if you take this vote away from the people, what vote are you going to disallow next? the point is, a line has to be drawn. there has to be a point at which a vote cannot be overturned. otherwise, you risk moving into a dictatorship, tyranny, or communistic society. none of which would come close to benefiting the US. quote>

That arguement was made by Patriots some time ago and was utterly torn apart by myself and others. Like I mentioned previously a majority vote that denies civil rights to a minority is wholly unacceptable, to use an example I mentioned earlier. Say a majority black population in America calls for a vote to deny the now minority white population the rights that they were denied under segregation. Your flawed arguement would mean you have no right to oppose or protest against such an outcome.

[Duke87 1,070]

Just to play the devil's advocate (or is that god's advocate?) for a minute here...

(In italics is not my opinion)

There are many who would say that same sex marriage is not a civil right, that same sex relationships are all well and good but that we simply can't treat them as though they're no different from and on the same level as heterosexual couplings. That it would be bad for society to have things like gay parenting be acceptable, for children to be exposed to such things.

And furthermore, if the proposition is struck down, it sets a horrible precedent. There's far too much legislation from the bench as it is. This is not about protecting the minority from the majority, it's about the minority using the courts to shove their way of life down the throats of the majority that does not approve of it. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

Gays do not desire merely acceptance and equality, they desire sameness. They want it to be sen that there's no difference between them raising a family and between a heterosexual couple raising a family - and there clearly is a difference seeing as they are incapable of reproducing without getting a third party involved, and since it's bad for the children psychologically to not have a parent of both genders. Gay parenting is selfish and oppressive. It destroys children's lives. Gays also are actively attacking the church, which is trampling on the church's civil rights. They may be entitled to practice their relationships, but that isn't enough for them. They want all the Christians out there to accept it and approve of it. That is unfair to the Christians and the church.

... yeah, I had a bit of an argument with my mom and my sister (both devout Catholics) on this matter last night. That's basically their arguments regurgitated, and summed up.

[Meg 368]

Weren't many of these same arguments used against interracial marriage?  

During my lifetime, many states had laws against interracial marriage on the books.    Some of them had such laws on the books during the lifetime of many of people here. 

 

Nowadays, it can still raise eyebrows in some places but a non-trivial percentage of people don't pay too much attention to it.  

For instance, most people are unaware of, and don't care about, the fact that Barack Obama's half-sister is married to an Asian-Canadian.   (His brother happens to be a friend of Dirk's, which is the only reason I even heard about it.)

 

 

[Lambert14 0]

Legislation from the bench can be a good thing. Rulings help move this county forward in a progressive manner when the people refuse to vote to do it. Allowing abortion, evolution ot be taught in schools, desegregation, bi-racial marriages, these were all given to us by the courts whose job it is to uphold the constitution and protect everyone's rights. Marriage is a civil institution, not religious. As many have stated before, marriage is granted by the government, not churches or anyone else. These rights should be available to same sex marriages. There will always be a difference, its not about saying we are all identical, its saying under the law we all deserve the same rights and abilities. Also, many heterosexual couples nowadays need a third party to step in to help with pregnancies, my mother and three of my aunts all had to have invitro. Also, the idea that it is bad for children is bull, more then 50% of marriages nowadays are divorced, those kids only have one parent and you make do with what you got. Having two parents that love you is more important then what sex they are. Also, if you look at the professional studies, there is no significant difference between a same sex parent family and an opposite sex parent family. These are lies forced upon us by the churches and focus on the family who live to mislead people and make them fear. Churches openly say that being gay is a sin and you are going to hell. Churches post signs saying I am going to burn. Churches allow hate crimes by telling there congregations that we are sinners and christians must punish the sinners. Churches cant even read there own bible and see that being gay is not a sin, what is referred to is idolatry and rampant debauchery and not respecting your own body. There are more sins committed by heterosexual couples in a marriage, then by gay or lesbian couples. We dont want or seek approval, we dont care if you accept it or not, we want our civil rights granted to us and to be treated equally under the law.

[_Atticus 10]

if you look at the professional studiesquote>

Would you like to share these professional studies with us?

Also, , there is no significant difference between a same sex parent family and an opposite sex parent familyquote>

I respectfully disagree.

These are lies forced upon us by the churches and focus on the family who live to mislead people and make them fearquote>

This view of "churches" (generalizing much?) is a bit exaggerated, in my opinion. Saying that they "force" their view is not completely accurate. They do make their opinion known, but they don't use any coercion to "force" people to believe these "lies". Also, fear what, exactly?

Churches openly say that being gay is a sin and you are going to hellquote>

Once again, this generalizes quite a bit. I don't know about Protestant churches, but the Catholic Church's official position on this issue is different from what you say. It says that being homosexual is not a sin. Acting on it, however is. If you die while in the state of sin, you will go to hell. (not preaching, or trying to make a statement, just relaying the views of the Catholic Church).

Churches post signs saying I am going to burnquote>

Mainstream churches don't condone these actions, but there are some extremists out there that do these things.

Churches allow hate crimes by telling there congregations that we are sinners and christians must punish the sinnersquote>

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, so I won't comment. I would appreciate, however, if you explained to me what you mean.

There are more sins committed by heterosexual couples in a marriage, then by gay or lesbian couplesquote>

This could be true or false, but how could you possibly know?

we want our civil rights granted to us and to be treated equally under the law.quote>

Technically, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. They are not denied anything that heterosexuals are allowed.

Also, the idea that it is bad for children is bull, more then 50% of marriages nowadays are divorced, those kids only have one parent and you make do with what you got.quote>

So homosexual marriages would never end in divorce?

-Pingangster

[Lambert14 0]

Here is one of the professional studies done by the Canadian Government : http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf

Our government hasnt touched the issue yet or any other reliable and unbiased group.

A child needs a loving and caring family, how is a hetero or homo parenting different in that regard?

Churches force there views when they push them into law...

I dont know about mainstream churches, but evangelical churches do and they are mainly mainstream in the south here.

Many gay hate crimes, when asking the perpetrators, they use religion as justification for there actions.

If you go through the bible, there are many restrictions on when a hetero couple can have sex, when they cant, restrictions against divorce, rules regarding families and other such things disregarded nowadays by christians.

Homosexuals are denied there pursuit of happiness and are made to feel as second class citizens. No laws protect my job, my home, me and my husbands marital rights, my children if they are not genetically related, adoption rights, and many other rights heteros take for granted.

I never said homosexuals wouldnt divorce... but there would be more families in number staying together and more families to take cae of kids, even if the percentage staed where it is now.

Any other questions?

[Lambert14 0]

Here is a condensed version of the canadian government's report:

About the report:

The report that the Canadian Conservative Party, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, apparently hoped would never see the light of day is titled "Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types." It is dated 2006-JUL. 2 It was only released after a request using the Access to Information Act by the lead author. The report notes that:

"Canada has recently debated a profound redefinition of 'marriage' by extending its parameters through the legalization of civil marriage between same-sex adults"

It was issued approximately twelve months after marriage was extended to same-sex couples across Canada.

The report was prepared by a team led by Paul D. Hastings who holds a Ph.D. in Applied Developmental Psychology. The group included Johanna Vyncke, Caroline Sullivan, Kelly E. McShane, Michael Benibgui. and William Utendale. It was supplied to the group that commissioned the report: the Family, Children and Youth Section of the Canadian Department of Justice.

The report is a 74 page meta study that summarized the results of over 100 individual studies into various family types and parenting competencies.

A point of confusion:

Quality of parenting:

The report states:

"Research has consistently shown little difference in children's social competence, parental socialization, and family functioning between families of heterosexual parents and families of gay or lesbian parents. The few differences that do emerge consistently suggest that:

1.

Gay and lesbian couples tend to have a more egalitarian and satisfying balance of child-care tasks than heterosexual couples.

2.

Gay and lesbian parents may be marginally more effective socialization agents than heterosexual parents, and

3.

Children with gay or lesbian parents may be more concerned with or even experience more discrimination due to their parents' sexual orientation, although this does not appear to interfere with their social competence.

From the perspective of risk and protective factors, the marginally, more effective socialization practices of gay and lesbian parents might act to protect their children from the adverse effects that could otherwise result from concern about or experience of teasing, bullying and discrimination because of the sexual orientation of their parent(s). Additionally, the marginally more positive home environment that likely results from lesbian and gay parents' greater support of each other's childcare activities might provide a marginally more supportive context for children's development of feelings of security and self-worth."

In one study, "mothers reported that 18% of children had experienced some form of homophobic discrimination from peers or teachers, and adverse social events that would be a source of stress unique to children raised in gay and lesbian families."

Such bigotry is hardly unique to children with same-sex parents. It is also experienced by children who are black, of mixed-race, whose parents follow a minority religion, who are recent immigrants, with a different mother tongue, who are developmentally challenged, who are visibly disabled, or a multitude of other differences. The encouraging fact is that the vast majority of same-sex parents reported no homophobic prejudice from outside of the family.

Financial challenges:

The report discusses financial aspects experienced by same-sex parents:

"Relative economic hardship is common for gay and lesbian parents, as well. ... Gay men earn 11% to 27% less than heterosexual men with the same education, experience, and occupation, who live in the same region; lesbians also earn less than heterosexual women, although the difference is smaller. Lesbian mothers are more likely to experience job loss than heterosexual mothers, and lesbian mothers tend to be less affluent than heterosexual mothers."

"It is curious, therefore, that overall gay and lesbian parents are equally good, or marginally better, socialization agents than heterosexual parents. Their relatively greater financial stresses do not appear to undermine the quality of their parenting. Perhaps anticipating that their children may be at risk of social disadvantage due to discrimination, gay and lesbian parents may put extra effort into meeting the needs of their children and providing them with strong social and emotional resources. Thus, the expected deleterious effects of economic stress on the quality of parental socialization may be ameliorated to some extent by the added childcare motivation present in many homes with gay or lesbian parents."

(Citations deleted for clarity)

Compensating factor: Quality of the parents' relationship:

It seems likely that the high quality of parental socialization within lesbian and gay two-parent families acts to protect children from the adverse effects of this addition stress and discrimination. In turn, gay and lesbian parents are protected by the quality of their relationships with their partners. On the whole, lesbian and gay couples in two-parent families report sharing the tasks of child-rearing more equally than many heterosexual couples, and also report having more satisfying couple relationships."

Recommendations:

"Parents need to not be alone in the job of raising their children. Supportive and engaged partners, and accessible and supportive social networks, help parents to provide their children with the socialization experiences that foster the development of good social competence. The experience of stresses related to economic hardship and, in the case of lesbian and gay parents, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, undermine the quality of parental socialization when good social support is lacking. As a society, we should endeavour to eradicate poverty and discrimination because of their adverse effect on children and families. In addition, we should support the social factors that protect families against the adverse effects of these risk factors. All two-parent and one-parent families should be accepted and supported, and the positive social support networks of lone-parent and two-parent families should be fostered and encouraged."

Conclusion:

"The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion."

[Wrightguy0 40]

It's not about changing the definition of marriage, it's about rights and protection under the law. Say there are two men who love each other, lets call them Bill and Ted, they can't get married, but they think nothing of it at the time. Over the years they buy a house, But because they're not married only one of them can put his name down for ownership. Bill signs the deed. The next year they try to adopt a child, they find out that the state doesn't recognize applications from same sex partners, they then decide to hire a surrogate. after a few weeks of talk Bill and Ted decide that Bill should be the father. Three years go by and Bill and Ted are happy, they have a son, Tommy, and a home. One day Ted notices that Tommy is unresponsive, he rushes him to the hospital, after the doctor is done with the examination Ted asks if he could see his son, the doctor tells him that he'll have to wait for the boy's parent or guardian, Ted goes back into the waiting room to wait for Bill. Ten years later and things aren't going so well, Bill has cancer. He works hard to beat the disease but can't, he dies the next spring. The next few months are hard on both Ted and Tommy, but they get through. One day Ted and Tommy come home to find their Keys don't work in the locks. Bill had a sister, and when he died ownership of the house passed to her. She was in debt with her bank and decided to let them foreclose on Bills' house so she wouldn't have to leave her home. Ted gets a visit from Bill's sister, and her lawyer, who say it's not good for Tommy to be homeless, and despite protests from Tommy, they take him away.

That was Fictional, but situations used in that story are common and based off of real people's experiences. The Law doesn't protect Civil unions the same way it protects marriage, and there are a lot of things things that can happen. People are quick to forget that there is more to the issue than religion, some people want you to think that Prop 8 is simple, that it only targets one group. This Bill hurts people, families, children, it even hurts religion to some extent. Let's face it, the right wing churches will always find some aspect of love to attack lets just hope that they can never retroactively take rights away from people ever again.