While I don’t agree with you on prop 8, it’s nice to see you making an honest effort to point out the falsehoods on both sides of the debate. So keep up the good work, every now and then intelligent points DO rise above the background noise.

Oh, and by your own source Seasongood v. Commissioner establishes 5% as not substantial. Now it’s obvious that the Church didn’t hit that level even if you do count the $4800 of reimbursements as cash. But the Church also didn’t hit that level of activity if you consider the staggering scope of its worldwide activities.

In the case of gay marriage though, the MINORITY is completely unwilling to accept the vote of the MAJORITY and keeps looking for some way to punish that majority (or at least the party that they are convinced is responsible for creating that majority). Which brings us to the entire reason for the existence of this website, I say go ahead and fight your fight. I don’t think you will win this fight either though.

Especially since they basically TOLD members how to vote on it.

I for one would love to see the LDS church have to pay taxes.

“Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren’t required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful.”

I have already posted that parents, not legislators or courts, have the responsibility to teach their children right from wrong. The trouble here is while you may believe same-sex marriage is against some universal moral truth, nearly half of California’s people do NOT believe that. Even if schools were required to teach anything about marriage, abridging minorities’ rights in order to protect some children from ideas some people disagree with is not acceptable. Parents who disagree with same-sex marriage should teach their children that their family does not believe in it, just as parents who believe in strict creationism teach their children that the theory of evolution taught in school is wrong.

A few weeks ago children in a 1st grade class attended their teacher’s gay wedding in San Francisco on a school-organized field trip. The principal called it a “teachable moment.”

Kindergartners at Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science in Hayward, CA, were asked to sign pledge cards saying they would not use anti-LGBT language. Parents who felt their children were far too young for such a discussion, most at an average age of 5 who are just learning the basics of reading and writing, were not permitted to opt-out.

California Education Code Section 51933 states schools “shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.” According to the California Department of Education website, 96% of schools teach this curriculum. I live in California, and I have never received an opportunity to opt out of this curriculum. Why would I be able to opt out if gay marriage was added to the marriage curriculum?

If schools were not going to be targeted in the next phase of gay rights, why did the California teachers union feel the need to contribute millions to the No on 8 campaign?

“Regarding opt-out rights, an organization called the California Safe Schools Coalition published A Question & Answer Guide for California School Officials & Administrators. The Coalition’s Steering Committee includes The California Teachers Association, Equality California, American Civil Liberties Union chapters throughout California, State Senator Sheila Kuehl, and other prominent backers of No On 8 who have already raised millions of dollars to oppose the measure.

Here’s one of the questions and answers:

Can parents ‘opt out’ of their children’s participation in school programs that discuss sexual orientation and gender identity?

State law explicitly provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions” is not subject to the parental notice and opt out laws. Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual health education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs. California law does not support a broad parental veto regarding the contents of public school instruction.”

[Editor: Thank you for your comment. I wondered why you called me a "guy" until I realized I revealed that by way of being an Eagle Scout. I am doing my best to be honest and objective; still, I recognize that my own opinions prevent me from being 100% fair to both sides.]

What do you consider the effect of 26 U.S.C. § 4911(d)(2)(D) to be? That section defines “influencing legislation” as regards organizations, and it specifically excludes “communications between the organization and its bona fide members with respect to legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the organization and such members” from the definition of “influencing legislation.” By its terms this definition applies only to Section 4911 (and not to any other section such as Section 501), but I think the IRS will probably consider it persuasive in determining whether the Church improperly attempted to “influence legislation” by urging its members to donate time and money in support of Proposition 8. I’m very interested in your thoughts.

[Editor: Churches are exempt from Section 4911. The question is one of whether it met the "no substantial part" test. I tend to agree that it is relevant; ultimately, the IRS has to make a determination. A large number of filed complaints may have an impact on their opinion, or on the opinion of the next Congress when considering amending the tax code.]

[Editor: The problem is that the meaning of "substantial" is not written into law. I posted a couple of links in Common Misunderstandings.]

And it’s a nice touch to claim that this forum is open to both sides, but I notice that the editor puts his opinion into pretty much any post that disagrees with his position.

[Editor: Just because it's open to both sides doesn't mean I'm not biased. =) I tend not to respond unless I disagree.]

I think if they used that much tax-free money to influence any political situation at ALL ,they need to lose the tax exempt status.
I couldn’t agree more. Utah is such a Republican state because it’s ……