Canada Life Claim Form Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Before we get into that discussion (do abortion restrictions work), we need to clarify how abortion restrictions work. Then we need to discuss, briefly, what effects are morally relevant (if any). Then we can get into whether, from the pro-life perspective, abortion restrictions have the intended effect. Lastly, we should clarify that culture plays a larger role in abortion than law. Law is the starting point. <If TLDR, go to Part III>PART I: How do abortion restrictions laws actually work?For reference, you should review both Missouri’s recent abortion law (Missouri HB126 | 2019 | Regular Session) and Alabama’s law. Alabama HB314 | 2019 | Regular Session. You will need to click into and open a PDF. The super short version of the MO law is that it bans elective abortion after 8 weeks, with a typical assortment of exceptions (e.g. medical emergency). The law also does a number of interesting things with trying to help mothers carry the pregnancy to term, so it establishes resources and procedures to try to help the mother. Alabama’s law is an outright ban with a typical assortment of exceptions.The key point to take from both laws is that NEITHER law criminalizes the mother’s actions. The mother who gets an illegal abortion is not subject to criminal prosecution. The doctor or person who performs the abortion is guilty of a mid to high level felony.To sum up, ideal pro-life legislation would restrict elective abortion but provide for genuine medical exceptions, failed pregnancies, and when the unborn child is failing to thrive. If your pro-life position is more informed by moral agency of the pregnant mother, you would also allow for rape and incest exceptions. In addition, the laws would not criminally sanction the mother, but would do so anyone who assisted.Finally, pro-life would like to see the supplanting of Planned Parenthood with Pregnancy Help centers and a more organized and better funded process to assist pregnant mothers in bringing their pregnancies to term and accessing resources once the baby is born.PART II: Let’s clarify effects in terms of moral paradigm.The intended effect of any prohibitive law is to deter the prohibited conduct. The hope is that the law is sufficiently strong enough to actually deter such conduct and thereby reduce it’s occurrences. Do laws against rape stop all rape? No. Do laws against theft stop all theft? No. However, such laws are designed to deter. An abortion restriction isn’t any different; so, there is no higher benchmark to which abortion restriction can, or should, be held. From the pro-life perspective, all we care about is the deterrence effect.The reason that is all we care about is we are not moral utilitarians. Pro-life movement is not based on a utilitarian or consequentialist ethic, the ends do not always justify the means. Not killing unborn humans is a moral imperative. We are not going to judge the moral worthiness of prohibiting abortion based on its effects on the individual or society. What if we did that in other contexts? We have laws against murder, but poor people are a net drain on society, so we will let the government exterminate the poor? That is a utilitarian ethic at work.If you have seen Avengers Infinity War and Endgame, Thanos is a pure consequentialist (pure utilitarian). Thanos is the image of Pro-Choice. Thanos is saying that too much life is a burden, and therefore that justifies extermination. That is, literally, the pro-choice position. The fetus would be a burden on the mother in some fashion (and even on society), so, let’s kill that unborn child.The Avengers are pro-life. They fight for the right of everyone in the universe to live regardless of the possible detrimental effects that may have. Life, not killing people, is a moral imperative.PART III: Do abortion restrictions work as intended.In developed countries, abortion restrictions have the effect of reducing abortions. Is it the only variable that reduces abortion? No. However, abortion restrictions do impact the prevalence of abortion…in developed countries.The reality is only four countries have no legal restriction on abortion: China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Canada. Fifty-nine countries, U.S. included, have abortion restrictions that entail a gestational age limit on elective abortion. In all but four of those countries, the gestational age limit is 20 weeks or less. The rest of the countries have varying degrees of fairly restricted abortion laws and all but New Zealand are 3rd world countries.The best data point for evaluating the prevalence (and relative success of abortion restrictions) of abortion in a country is the percent of pregnancies that end in abortion. That is a more specific data point than abortion rate. Abortion rate is simply the number of abortions per women of child bearing age. Abortion rate doesn’t tell you anything specific. The percent of pregnancies that end in abortion informs you about the prevalence of abortion in that country. I am going to abbreviate this data point as POP (percent of pregnancies that end in abortion).[1][1][1][1] [Note, I am citing the chart for ease, but the site and the sources have more data to your heart's content and it all tracks the same]China’s POP is 29.04%, Switzerland’s is 10.78%. The rest of the developed countries fall within that range.Here is the interesting point. Pro-choice often try to argue that free health care and contraception lead to reduced abortion. Now, their sleight of hand in that argument is they look at shit-hole countries. But let’s look at the developed countries.POP rates: China 29.04%, Sweden: 24.89%, France 21.22%, Canada 21.12%, Denmark 20.98%, U.K. 20.72%, Norway 19.16%…U.S. 18.7%. Notice something? All those countries with a greater percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion than the U.S., yet all have largely subsidized healthcare.Nearly all the listed countries have slightly more liberal laws on abortion than most U.S. States, France and Denmark being exceptions as they tend to limit elective abortion at 12 weeks, but they do provide exceptions for health (which can be just about anything). Canada and China have no legal restrictions, Sweden allows elective abortion up to viability.If we were to further restrict abortion, abortion rates would go down because the mother’s calculus changes. Remember, abortion restrictions dry-up the availability of abortion and increase the cost in terms of money and risk. At this point the pro-abortion crowd just assumes all these women will get illegal abortions. However, there is ZERO evidence to support that assumption. You would not see a 1 to 1 ratio between legal and illegal abortion if abortion is made mostly illegal. Even the Washington Post had to call BS on these types of claims, and that women die by the thousands when abortion is made illegal. [2][2][2][2]In developed countries, those countries with more restrictive abortion laws tend to have fewer pregnancies end in abortion than those with less restrictive laws (looking at you Canada). That is all pro-life is seeking.However, that isn’t the whole story.PART IV: CultureAbortion is more a culture war than a legal war. Switzerland has a low prevalence of abortion primarily due to the homogeneity of their culture. They also have a somewhat restrictive scheme. Elective abortion is restricted to 12 weeks, but as I understand it, the exceptions are pretty vast and token. Canada has a similar health system but has an abortion prevalence twice that of Switzerland. Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. Abortion restrictions do work. The law can help set a baseline and push-back against the concept of crass individualism and start promoting courage, personal responsibility, frugality, duty, and respect.As I said in Part I, ideal legislation would provide education, resources, and assistance to help the mother carry the pregnancy to term and raise the child. To the extent abortion restrictions have other effects is like wondering how many people we could have saved from heart disease if all the money that went to the American Diabetes Association went to the American Heart Association instead. It is at this point that the pro-abortion crowd marches out the unsubstantiated parade of horribles. However, such narratives are just fanciful creations. They don’t provide anything of substance to debate. It is like debating whether unicorns exist.Protecting the Defenseless - The Lifeguard InitiativeFootnotes[1] Percentage of pregnancies aborted by country (listed by percentage)[1] Percentage of pregnancies aborted by country (listed by percentage)[1] Percentage of pregnancies aborted by country (listed by percentage)[1] Percentage of pregnancies aborted by country (listed by percentage)[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/

MYTH # 1Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTDepicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children." A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.THE FACTSAccording to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.MYTH # 2Same-sex parents harm children.THE ARGUMENTMost hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.THE FACTSNo legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America's official position with regard to same-sex parents is that "lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts."A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.MYTH # 3People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.THE ARGUMENTMany anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that "if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition." He also has repeatedly said, "Fathers, if you don't hug your sons, some other man will."A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.THE FACTSNo scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that "experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation" and added that it's unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College, noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”MYTH # 4LGBT people don't live nearly as long as heterosexuals.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier "choice," often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt or foster children.THE FACTSThis falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron's statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News' "This Week."However, like virtually all of his "research," Cameron's methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron's methods "just ridiculous."Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.MYTH # 5Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.THE ARGUMENTThis claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their "unusual brutality" would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, "the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history," the book claims. "While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism," Lively and Abrams add. "To the myth of the 'pink triangle' — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the 'pink swastika.'"These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.THE FACTSThe Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-line refutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was "entirely controlled" by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler's inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler's orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were trying to eradicate.When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: "We must exterminate these people root and branch. ... We can't permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated."MYTH # 6Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would "jail pastors" because it "criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda."In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association." This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.THE FACTSThe claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who "oppose the homosexual lifestyle" is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their "sexual orientation" (among other factors) — "protect pedophiles," as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or "protect" pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.MYTH # 7Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.THE FACTSGays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries "ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness." Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. "But when the integration became a reality," the report said, "there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions." Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. "None of the dire predictions of doom came true," the Palm Center report said.Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.MYTH # 8Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.THE ARGUMENTAnti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable "choice," even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that "homosexual activists" managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.THE FACTSAll major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: "Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination ... increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health."Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather, social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.MYTH # 9No one is born gay.THE ARGUMENTAnti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.THE FACTSModern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal "choice." A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world's largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that "[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors." Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.MYTH # 10Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.THE ARGUMENTIf people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.A number of "ex-gay" religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can "come out of homosexuality." The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, "You don't have to be gay!" Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as "a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality."THE FACTS"Reparative" or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were "rare" and that "many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions" after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that "there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation" and asked "mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation." The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that “[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own study in 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”1. “We need to protect marriage.”The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their HomophobiaWhile we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”Clearly not a Biology graduate.21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.People actually use this argument.23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”Person B: “That sounds nice.”Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

I have assisted several hundred Americans to renounce/relinquish their U.S. Citizenship for the past 27 years. For many individuals, it comes as a surprise to them that they have US citizenship and they do not know what the tax and financial ramifications are of US citizenship on themselves, their family, and their executor.The first step for many who think they may be US citizens is to confirm same and begin to understand the tax ramifications of this discovery. I cover those issues here my answer to I was born in Canada by an American mother, so am I an American citizen?Once an individual understands that they are a US citizen and that status is accompanied by very specific tax and financial filing obligations, then the individual should closely examine the pros and cons of keeping US citizenship.The first step is to contact a qualified accountant to understand the cost of bringing themselves into compliance with U.S. law. Without being in compliance, renunciation by itself is worst than useless in dealing with prior and future tax liability.I do not do compliance work, but have watched the results of countless clients who I advised to go through this step. Almost universally, the individual had vastly overestimated the cost (in professional fees and actual tax liability) of coming into compliance. This was because they were frightened by on-line forum hysteria; had assumed the imposition of an Exit Tax (Expatriation Tax) and also had not taken into account Foreign Tax Credit for the tax that they had paid to their current country of tax residence.Once one knows the actual cost of coming into compliance (accounting fees, tax, interest penalties (if any)) then one needs to add on the cost of expatriating ($2350 Expatriation Fee; possibly the imposition of Expatriation Tax if they are considered a “Covered Expatriate” after their accountant complete a draft https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/...; and then finally possibly legal fees to assist in the process).Once one has the cost of renunciation, then one needs to access the value that they place on US citizenship. Setting aside blind patriotism for a moment and looking at practical issues, the value that one places on retaining US citizenship depends greatly upon their position in life. Here are three different examples:24 Year Old US citizen graduating with a Masters of Computer Science or Finance. Unmarried and childless: Given that this person is at the start of their career, they would probably place a great emphasis on the value of their uninhibited ability to work (at least in the beginning of their career) in these fields in the US. Undoubtedly, employment opportunities are significant. They may also want to be able to pass on US citizenship to their future children;64 Year Old Canadian Citizen who was born in the US but moved to Canada when a young child: This person would essentially think of themselves as primarily Canadian. Their career and child rearing life periods are over. They may view the future avoidance of on-going compliance and hassle of remaining a US taxpayer in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act era to be worth more than retaining a US citizenship;45 Year Old High Net Worth Individual Venture Capitalist: This person is continually weighing the value of being in the US for business versus the on-going and future (estate) tax liability. This person may not be ready to expatriate at this time, but is prudently getting a Back Up Plan in place to allow them to execute a renunciation if and when they deem appropriate for them. (Peter Thiel, Trump Adviser, Has a Backup Country: New Zealand; How Today’s Rich Families Are Different; Lesperance & Associates " Could the loss of carried interest double your tax bill?)Once an individual has determined that for themselves, compliance and renunciation is appropriate, then they have to decide if it is worthwhile to retain legal counsel to assist or try and do it themselves. One might want to retain legal counsel if there is a matter of required co-ordination with tax counsel and accountants because one is subject to the Expatriation Tax Regime. In addition, there is sometimes a co-ordination and timing issue for setting up the Renunciation Interview. Finally, some individuals determine it worthwhile to have an experienced advisor make sure that the paperwork is properly completed and that they are properly prepared for the interview questions and future US border official questions. Those who retain counsel are individuals who believe that the cost of fees is minimal compared to the cost of not doing their expatriation and departure from the US tax system properly.Whether retaining counsel or not, the renouncing individual or their counsel, needs to schedule an appointment with US Citizen Services at a US mission outside of the US. At that interview, a US Consular official will go through various paperwork. Although many missions have their own specific additional forms, they all must complete this documentation (7 FAM 1260 RENUNCIATION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP ABROAD).Once the renunciation interview is completed at the US mission, then the individual is no longer a US citizen under US law. However, in order to also get out of the US tax system, it is necessary for them to file the IRS form 8854. A significant portion of which is an attestation that they are fully up to date and compliant with their US tax obligations. They will also need to file a terminal US tax return and appropriate filings such as Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) for the short year from January 1st to their date of renunciation.The final step in the process is that the US Mission will forward the documentation that it receives to the State Department in Washington. Officials there will review the material to ensure that the renunciation was properly completed. If so, then they will issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/d...) confirming that the individual ceased to be a US Citizen as of the expatriation interview date.Note: Relinquishment of US Citizenship: In certain specific cases, an individual can demonstrate both a potentially relinquishing act and an intention to relinquish US citizenship (Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality and Dual Nationality). If the individual meets this standard then they might be able to claim that they lost their US citizenship (and therefore basis for tax liability) at a much earlier date. In these types of cases it is definitely worth retaining experienced counsel to determine a) if you have a proper potentially successful case; and b) correctly file a relinquishment claim. Relinquishment applications take much longer to process (and therefore determine if successful) but may have great financial value if possible and every effort is made toward success.Unfortunately, I have seen many cases filed which were either weak or dead at the outset or poorly documented. The individual was often under the mistaken belief that they had lost their US citizenship (and US tax liability) until their application was ultimately rejected. Given that such cases can take a minimum of a year and often 2 or more years to be reviewed and assessed, it is critical to know at the outset whether an application is potentially viable.