I imagine they get sent to the church orphanage/foster home.

Isn't it more likely that they call the police to report the abandonment, and social services to come and get the kid?

So it's okay for gay people to have a chance at being socially kicked in the head by being taught rigid social rules that they won't fit into, only to discover this on their own at a relatively late age and thus be under the impression that they are wrong, sick, dirty or otherwise untouchable outcasts for being honest with themselves? Just not straight people, huh?

Sorry, that's ridiculous. No one here is urging that schools start telling little boys and little girls to marry each other. The scenario you describe would, in a world where gay or straight isn't something that gets everyone's panties in a twist, go something more like..

Boys/Girls/Boy&Girl say, "We're gonna get married when we grow up!"
Adult, "Haha. Okay. Hey, who wants lunch?"

..and then everyone continues their day, without any efforts(deliberate or otherwise) to set their children up for a fall either way.
Sounds to me like a decent way to go.

If memory serves, the first place the child would be taken is the hospital or a clinic to treat for possible exposure-related illnesses. The next step after that depends on the church in question. Some will report the abandonment, some won't. If the church actually operates an orphanage, and not all, or indeed many, do, then the child will usually be placed there. If not they enter the state foster care system.

It doesn't really matter if the baby is given directly to a church by the parent. It's still perfectly reasonable for the way the church manages adoptions to be regulated by the state. I couldn't just run out and start collecting abandoned babies to give away to whomever I felt like.

A nice stockpile for when Glomdoring needs to summon Mother Night

It wasn't the point in California, and it isn't the point in California.

In California, with our without prop 8, gay couples can adopt, live together, love each other, and have all the rights and responsibilities that married people have if they so choose.

The question raised to California voters was basically "Do you want the state to recognize, and thereby have your children be taught in our public schools, that marriage is to be defined as only between a man and a woman?"

It has nothing to do with the rights given to same sex couples (they already have all the rights and privileges and responsibilities that marriages have), nor does it have anything to do with defining love or commitment, or daily family structure.

You would think that California did not have domestic partnerships giving equal treatment under the law, based on the protests and video clips such as these.

I couldn't just run out and start collecting abandoned babies to give away to whomever I felt like.

Do you think we need to have classes and laws that tells people that being into S&M is ok? Perhaps we should classes explaining the virtues of the foot fetish, and panty lovers to children as well?

Lol. What the F. Are you calling homosexuality a fetish?

I'm not sure why everyone is just focusing on California. What about other states that passed two propositions, one to ban gay marriage and another to only let married couples adopt (and no, civil unions do not count as marriage under their law)? In my eyes, as soon as there is any kind of separation, be it in terminology used or whatever, the system is being set up for easy divisiveness.
Baby farming! (An actual line from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore, referring to the art of being a foster parent)

I'm not sure why everyone is just focusing on California. What about other states that passed two propositions, one to ban gay marriage and another to only let married couples adopt (and no, civil unions do not count as marriage under their law)? In my eyes, as soon as there is any kind of separation, be it in terminology used or whatever, the system is being set up for easy divisiveness.

qs