Proposition 8 take a break..we can reach our destination..but we're still a ways away

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I thought you were a stats guy? Are you trained in tax? If not, then why would you expect to be able to see it?

You mean things like calculating life insurance tax reserves, and understanding things like IRS codes 101f, 409A, 7702, 7702A and an assortment of revenue rulings?

Nope. Not me.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You mean things like calculating life insurance tax reserves, and understanding things like IRS codes 101f, 409A, 7702, 7702A and an assortment of revenue rulings?

Nope. Not me.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. You dont even deal with the entire section, just sub-sections.

You are not a tax guy, so give it a rest. Dont pretend to be one. You start sounding like Statman that way.

Do you ever do much 501 stuff, because if you did, it would actually be relevant to our conversation.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. You dont even deal with the entire section, just sub-sections.

You are not a tax guy, so give it a rest. Dont pretend to be one. You start sounding like Statman that way.

Do you ever do much 501 stuff, because if you did, it would actually be relevant to our conversation.

How about just giving a brief explanation why opposing Prop 8 endangers the church's tax exempt status.

The church throwing its support or opposition to various voting measures, including fundraising by its membership, is hardly a new development and yet their tax exampt status has never really been challenged.

You don't have to be a tax guy to know that. Hence, I fail to see how supporting Prop 8 endangers their exempt status.

Thanks in advance.

[TripletDaddy]

This is a very basic code section, but I am convinced that most have never read it.

In relevant part:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

With regards to lobbying specifically:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
****
Obviously, that the Church spends a "significant" portion of its time lobbying is not likely. The educational exemption goes out the window when we are told by religious leaders to teach the congregation on Sunday.

Overall, will it hamr their status? Extremely unlikely. But it certainly flirts with the line and is definitely NOT the behavior of a politically neutral organization.

[TripletDaddy]

Update: today, 2 talks in Sacrament....1 from Bishop, 1 from Stake President (1st C).

Stake Presidency shared the following:

1. 2 Sundays ago on the morning the letter was to be read, there was a video conference with all SPs in California and the 12, FP, and cannot remember whom else. The purpose was to reiterate the importance of this Prop 8 initiative.

2. The Stake has been given the goal of visiting every stake member household for the purpose of soliciting funds.

3. The talks were interesting, nothing new. Except the SP mentioned that one of the legal reasons we are against gay marriage is for reasons of adoption. The SP shared that in Boston, a suit was brought against the Catholic Church after gay marriage was made legal because the Catholics would not allow for gays to adopt through the CC adoption channels. As a result of the suit, the Catholic Church no longer handles adoptions in the state.

After the talk, a bunch of questions ran through my head....first and foremost was why the LDS Social Services in Mass was not also forced to allow gays to adopt through its channels.

After the meeting, I went up to the SP and politely engaqed him, asking for more info. He said that he was only sharing the story anecdotally.....the Catholic Church had been accepting federal monies to help run their adoption agencies and this were compelled by the state to not discriminate. The SP acknowledged that LDSSS does not accept federal money and would therefore not be compelled by lawsuit to "not discriminate." In other words, gay marriage would basically have zero effect on LDS adoptions through LDSSS.

I had never heard of this lawsuit before so I asked the SP for the reference. He said he would get back to me.

Hmmm...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Update: today, 2 talks in Sacrament....1 from Bishop, 1 from Stake President (1st C).

Stake Presidency shared the following:

1. 2 Sundays ago on the morning the letter was to be read, there was a video conference with all SPs in California and the 12, FP, and cannot remember whom else. The purpose was to reiterate the importance of this Prop 8 initiative.

2. The Stake has been given the goal of visiting every stake member household for the purpose of soliciting funds.

3. The talks were interesting, nothing new. Except the SP mentioned that one of the legal reasons we are against gay marriage is for reasons of adoption. The SP shared that in Boston, a suit was brought against the Catholic Church after gay marriage was made legal because the Catholics would not allow for gays to adopt through the CC adoption channels. As a result of the suit, the Catholic Church no longer handles adoptions in the state.

After the talk, a bunch of questions ran through my head....first and foremost was why the LDS Social Services in Mass was not also forced to allow gays to adopt through its channels.

After the meeting, I went up to the SP and politely engaqed him, asking for more info. He said that he was only sharing the story anecdotally.....the Catholic Church had been accepting federal monies to help run their adoption agencies and this were compelled by the state to not discriminate. The SP acknowledged that LDSSS does not accept federal money and would therefore not be compelled by lawsuit to "not discriminate." In other words, gay marriage would basically have zero effect on LDS adoptions through LDSSS.

I had never heard of this lawsuit before so I asked the SP for the reference. He said he would get back to me.

Hmmm...

The Boston Diocese recently made the news on this issue and case.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Boston Diocese recently made the news on this issue and case.

I started looking it up a little bit ago.

This article raised some very good points:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...kgwgh.asp?pg=1

And this article popped up......I forgot about this pro-gay rights guy....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._gay_adoption/

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I started looking it up a little bit ago.

This article raised some very good points:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...kgwgh.asp?pg=1

And this article popped up......I forgot about this pro-gay rights guy....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._gay_adoption/

I have a hard time taking any article seriously that uses the phrase "Adam and Steve."

I disagree that children in Mass. will suffer. These "unwanted" children will now be available to a larger pool of people (i.e gays). I disagree with the premise that the Catholic adoption agency can't be replaced by one or many that cater to a more inclusive group of people.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have a hard time taking any article seriously that uses the phrase "Adam and Steve."

I disagree that children in Mass. will suffer. These "unwanted" children will now be available to a larger pool of people (i.e gays). I disagree with the premise that the Catholic adoption agency can't be replaced by one or many that cater to a more inclusive group of people.

I agree with your points....but I do have a problem with the state telling a Church that does not use federal or state money that it also has to allow gays to adopt.....for the same reason that I am opposed to the state using religious reasons to prevent gays from marriage. State and Church need to stay out of each other's backyard.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I agree with your points....but I do have a problem with the state telling a Church that does not use federal or state money that it also has to allow gays to adopt.....for the same reason that I am opposed to the state using religious reasons to prevent gays from marriage. State and Church need to stay out of each other's backyard.

I can agree with that.

By the way, would you include blacks among those that are allowed to be barred?