S
scipio337
Guest
You miss my meaning. Stripping the tax exempt status would be a violation of free exercise principles.
- Status
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
In the story I cited; Jesus is asked specifically whether or not taxes should be payed to which he replied, unequivically, YES.
No Church would be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. They still have the option of paying taxes instead.
The US Constitution does not exempt religious institutions from the rule of law.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. The judge based his decision on existing caselaw and secular reason as demonstrated in the written ruling.
How so?
G
Good_News_1
Guest
Do you care to defend the logic of the quote? You did find the heart of the rationale.
One way to state the logic: gender roles in marriage have changed, and are more flexible. Therefore, gender is irrelevant to marriage.
A second way to state it is: at one time marriage had defining characteristics relating to procreation, social status, and the role of women. Now, marriage has no characteristics: marriage is circularly defined by the court as “choosing a spouse” and forming a household.
There is the usual specious argument: that because the state doesn’t force people to prove their willingness and ability to have children, procreation isn’t the goal of marriage, and has nothing to do with marriage.
But if the nature of marriage is to share a household, how can we take it seriously as a civil right anymore? A generation ago, marriage meant a great deal - it meant social acceptance. A couple would be subject to social disapproval if they had children outside out wedlock.
So, the defenders of traditional marriage state that marriage, traditionally, has been a set of social and legal structures to encourage and facilitate reproduction, and to further aims like chastity. And I don’t think the judge thinks this is wrong - I think it is self-evident - he just thinks these factors don’t matter anymore. But, while he acknowledges that marriage is something different that it used to be, he doesn’t come to grips with what it is. And his conclusion seems to be it is NOTHING. It is a right to live together under one roof, with no particular social consequence to the choice. I have no problem with people living under one roof certainly.
The first logical question is, from my persepctive, to define marriage. If it is a roommate arrangement, nothing more, then we can’t pretend it is a civil right. It it is amophorous and undefined, naturally one can’t defend an exclusion. If it has purpose and meaning, then someone is going to be excluded as not fulfilling the purpose. The fact that the legal restriction don’t exactly match its purposes does not mean it has no purpose.
C
crazzeto
Guest
That is a punishment for breaking a law, this is unacceptable
No one is asking it to, but then again I’m not so sure rule of law exists in this nation anymore… Not when a law can be overturned on the basis that the intention of the voters was impure. There is no constitutional basis for this, and there certainly is not consitutional protection for homosexual marriage.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
You are joking, right? Please tell me that you’re joking.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
It will be a long and winding road to the Supreme Court, and when this gets to the SC it will be affirmed there–imo. That will mark the day when our liberties will truly begin their decay because it will not be long after that (within ten years) that gays start pushing to have laws drafted to force churches to marry same sex couples. After all, look at how strongly they fight for the word “marriage.” For them “civil unions” with equal rights under the law is not enough because they see it as not being equal. Well, how long before they also say there is no equality in churches not be forced to marry same sex couples?
Before you cite the constitutional religious protections please understand that all it takes is some new laws written under the umbrella of discrimination and/or hate crimes to convince congress and the judiciary that churches are taking away fundamental rights given to others. As it stands the RCC is already in a weakened public relations postion after the horrors of the abuse crisis (no accident in the timing there btw).
For all the grand universities and colleges, and for all the amazing technology of the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, etc., and for all of the unspeakable volumes of data available to most people within seconds on their computers…nothing in humanity has really changed all that much. People still see only what they want to see and history will once agains repeat itself and liberties will be lost by the truckloads. Very sad.
Before you cite the constitutional religious protections please understand that all it takes is some new laws written under the umbrella of discrimination and/or hate crimes to convince congress and the judiciary that churches are taking away fundamental rights given to others. As it stands the RCC is already in a weakened public relations postion after the horrors of the abuse crisis (no accident in the timing there btw).
For all the grand universities and colleges, and for all the amazing technology of the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, etc., and for all of the unspeakable volumes of data available to most people within seconds on their computers…nothing in humanity has really changed all that much. People still see only what they want to see and history will once agains repeat itself and liberties will be lost by the truckloads. Very sad.
C
Corki
Guest
Perhaps that because the non-profit code does not, in fact, prohibit non-profits from lobbying and/or political activities as long as they are directed at issues and not individual candidates.
While it may be “just a matter of time,” I doubt it will be within the next two decades. Over half the states have constitutional provisions for one man/one woman only marriage. A few states might flip in the next few years but other states are becoming more socially conservative rather than less. And all those states aren’t “overwhelmingly polulated by evangelicals”.
If “you” means the Catholic Church as a religious organization, than you are (currently) right, the Church doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages. But the “you” here isn’t the Catholic Church; it’s all the individuals and groups that comprise the Church. Just a few reasons “we” should care:
- Restrictions on how charitable groups within the Church can minister to the public. (already happening i.e. Catholic Charities)
- Restrictions on what can and cannot be taught in Catholic schools.
- Forced recognition of many types of “alternate” family structures being forced on public school children, their parents and school employees.
- Restriction on speech, limiting or harrassing clergy and lay leaders from teaching what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals.
- Losing identity as mothers and fathers, socially and legally. (already happening in some states where birth certificates no longer list “mother” and “father” but simply “parents”)
- Restriction of legitimate employment opportunities for those who disagree with same-sex “marriage”.
Non sequitur. As has been pointed out, the Church only considers marriages invalid if one of the parties is Catholic and they marry outside the Church. Most marriages, where the parties are free to marry, are considered valid by the Church.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I know loads of faithful Catholics who live in California!
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Of course…that is my point. It would sicken me to live there. Right is wrong and wrong is right in CA, and I see no way to reverse the mess.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
The problem with this argument is you are equating being Catholic and being homosexual as the same thing. Until recent times, homosexual behaviour was considered deviant behaviour, and the Catholic Church and all true Christians still deem it as such. The Church says any sexual behaviour that is not open to life is morally wrong. That means sex can not just be used as entertainment or just something to make you feel good. Sex must always be open to creating life. That is why artificial contraception is wrong, and why any sex outside of marriage is wrong.Yes.
I have in the last page or on this one explained it more fully, but I will give you a simple question to ponder;
If at some point because you were Catholic and just because you were Catholic; you were denied the right to be married. And you were only allowed it to be called a civil union; wouldn’t you feel that the law views YOU as less than human.
If EVERYBODY else can get married, straight, gay, white, black, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic, Protestant, Baptists, whatever. They can all get MARRIED and you CAN’T. Now you get the same benefits but for you it is called a civil union.
Wouldn’t you feel a little bit like the law deems you as less then human??
Being Catholic, despite all those who might argue to the contrary, is not deviant behaviour.
Also, homosexuals are definitely allowed to marry. But like the rest of us, they must marry someone of the opposite sex. Those who have sex with animals are not allowed to marry animals, pedophiles are not allowed to marry children, brothers and sisters are not allowed to marry one another, and we are all restricted to marrying one person at a time. Homosexuals are not the only group with restrictions. We must make choices in every facet of life, and marriage is not an exception.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
And all of those faithful Catholics need to be there. California, and most of the United States, has become a mission field, in desperate need of the Gospel.
C
Corki
Guest
:banghead::banghead: Tax-exempt status isn’t about the Church paying taxes. Another thread currently on CAF notes that even many large “for profit” corporations do not pay taxes because the don’t show “below the line” profit. The Church doesn’t make profits so, even without tax-exempt status, they won’t be paying “Caesar”. The negative effect of loss of tax-exempt status is that individuals who donate to the Church won’t be able to claim the donation as a deduction. That means less funds for the Church to use in charitable and faith activities.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I agree with you list…very good points and they prove we are already seeing the loss of liberties in this country.Perhaps that because the non-profit code does not, in fact, prohibit non-profits from lobbying and/or political activities as long as they are directed at issues and not individual candidates.
While it may be “just a matter of time,” I doubt it will be within the next two decades. Over half the states have constitutional provisions for one man/one woman only marriage. A few states might flip in the next few years but other states are becoming more socially conservative rather than less. And all those states aren’t “overwhelmingly polulated by evangelicals”.
If “you” means the Catholic Church as a religious organization, than you are (currently) right, the Church doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages. But the “you” here isn’t the Catholic Church; it’s all the individuals and groups that comprise the Church. Just a few reasons “we” should care:
Non sequitur. As has been pointed out, the Church only considers marriages invalid if one of the parties is Catholic and they marry outside the Church. Most marriages, where the parties are free to marry, are considered valid by the Church.
- Restrictions on how charitable groups within the Church can minister to the public. (already happening i.e. Catholic Charities)
- Restrictions on what can and cannot be taught in Catholic schools.
- Forced recognition of many types of “alternate” family structures being forced on public school children, their parents and school employees.
- Restriction on speech, limiting or harrassing clergy and lay leaders from teaching what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals.
- Losing identity as mothers and fathers, socially and legally. (already happening in some states where birth certificates no longer list “mother” and “father” but simply “parents”)
- Restriction of legitimate employment opportunities for those who disagree with same-sex “marriage”.
Funny thing is, when it is someone else’s liberty, many do not care…but when it becomes THEIR loss of liberty they will care then.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Exactly. Catholic institutions (schools, diocesan places of employment, etc.) are bound by secular law. (So are other religious institutions) Depending on the law or the category of law, not all laws are enforced consistently, and not all practices are investigated consistently in all religious institutions. However, take this to the bank: When it comes to “discrimination” (an intellectually perverted term, by the way, when it comes to strict legal interpretations of that word, which is applied overbroadly and inaccurately in the general media and public), count on the Advocacy lobbies to be out in full force on this one, requiring the Church (eventually) “not to exclude,” “not to discriminate” from including gay couples in the sacrament of marriage.
If you think this is an exaggeration or “hysteria,” please read carefully the actual wording of the decision, which registered strong opinions about religious teaching itself, calling it ‘unfounded,’ etc.
Lies won yesterday, big time.
E
Exalt
Guest
Bob Jones University is a university. That’s waaay different than a Church or some other house of worship. A Church already regulates membership in ways that would certainly not be permitted at university (at least if that university wants breaks from the government). Revoking a Church’s tax exempt status because it refused to marry someone for any reason (or denied membership for any reason, or whatever) would likely not happen.
Though I think the tax exempt status of Churches might be challenged for a totally reason on First Amendment grounds. Let me see if I can find it… Ah yes, FFRF v. Geithner. We’ll see if anything happens with it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Another record-it took 484 post for someone to bring up the homosexual priest scandal
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Well said, and that is exactly why I believe the RCC in the USA will be forced underground because it will NOT EVER concede to marrying same sex couples.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Cardinal George Decries Court Decision Striking Down California Marriage Law
Archbishop Kurtz Joins Cardinal George in Criticism
Notes That Voters Have Upheld Traditional Marriage at Every Turn
Calls Marriage Essential to Well Being of Society
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, decried the August 4 decision of a federal judge to overturn California voters’ 2008 initiative that protected marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good,” Cardinal George said. “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
Joining Cardinal George in his criticism of the court decision was Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage. Archbishop Kurtz noted that “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot. This understanding is neither irrational nor unlawful,” he said. “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”
usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-145.shtml
Archbishop Kurtz Joins Cardinal George in Criticism
Notes That Voters Have Upheld Traditional Marriage at Every Turn
Calls Marriage Essential to Well Being of Society
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Francis George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, decried the August 4 decision of a federal judge to overturn California voters’ 2008 initiative that protected marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of any society. The misuse of law to change the nature of marriage undermines the common good,” Cardinal George said. “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
Joining Cardinal George in his criticism of the court decision was Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage. Archbishop Kurtz noted that “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot. This understanding is neither irrational nor unlawful,” he said. “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”
usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-145.shtml
E
estesbob
Guest
This is interesting. Are you telling us that people who engage in homosexual behavior are suddenly going feel great about themselves because a homosexual judge said they had a right to marry? HeDo you really believe that all of a sudden the overwhelming majority of people in the country that believe that homosexual behavior is disordered and deviant are suddenly going to change their mind because of this judge’s decision?
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Absolutely.
The question before the court is best summed up as; “What is the right to marry and who can excersie it?” As the Judge pointed out, while the circumstances included in the right to excercise it have broadened, the definition of marriage as an institution of the State itself has not changed.
You’re looking at the issue from the wrong perspective. Procreation may be the goal of marriage when viewing it as an institution of religion but that was not the issue brought before the Judge. The Judge was tasked with deciding whether or not procreation is the goal, and/or requirement, of marriage* as an institution of the State* and he, correctly, found that it never has been.
The meaning of a marriage is not defined by the State or society at large nor can it be. Only the parites directly involved can give it meaning.
I agree that the judge doesn’t necessarily believe that such things are wrong but he isn’t necessarily saying that such factors, universally, don’t matter anymore. They certainly matter to religion, as it is the proper venue for such views, but what he is saying is that they don’t matter in the context of the State and it is not appropriate or constitutional for the State to dictate such things and/or use them as justification for narrowing the application of civil rights.
Defining the right of marriage and marriage itself as an institution of the State can, ultimately, only be accomplished by the Supreme Court.
- Status