A critical argument at the Supreme Court regarding gay marriage

[WVPATX]

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court on whether same-sex marriage should be a “right,” the Obama administration admitted that religious schools teaching marriage as the union of one man and one woman could lose their tax-exempt status as a non-profit if the high court redefines marriage.

As marriage and religious liberty expert at the Heritage Foundation Ryan Anderson observed, when Justice Samuel Alito asked the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status if it affirms marriage as the union between a man and woman, Verrilli responded, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.”

 

[TarHeelEer]

As marriage and religious liberty expert at the Heritage Foundation Ryan Anderson observed, when Justice Samuel Alito asked the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status if it affirms marriage as the union between a man and woman, Verrilli responded, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.”

It will be a bigger issue than just tax exempt status.

 

[WVPATX]

I agree. However, taking away the tax exempt status of religious institutions such as universities and churches is absolutely huge and will great hurt if not destroy many.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I agree. However, taking away the tax exempt status of religious institutions such as universities and churches is absolutely huge and will great hurt if not destroy many.

That may close some individual churches, but that won't be enough. That will only be the start.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Next we'll ban the Bible!!!

 

[WVPATX]

Next we'll ban the Bible!!!

You disagree with Alito's question and the government's response?

 

[mule_eer]

Why would that affect the tax exempt status of a religious school?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

You disagree with Alito's question and the government's response?

No. I'm mocking the hand-wringing in the thread.

 

[Mntneer]

You disagree with Alito's question and the government's response?

Yes. I do.

Mountain... meet mole hill.

 

[mule_eer]

So I looked it up myself. The precedent is the 1983 decision that pulled the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University because they did not allow interracial dating or recognize interracial marriage. How would this apply in the case of same-sex marriage? I don't think it extends to TEACHING about the religious definition of marriage. That's a separate issue.

 

[WVPATX]

So I looked it up myself. The precedent is the 1983 decision that pulled the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University because they did not allow interracial dating or recognize interracial marriage. How would this apply in the case of same-sex marriage? I don't think it extends to TEACHING about the religious definition of marriage. That's a separate issue.

The government attorney admitted it would be an issue. Did you even read his comments to Alito?

 

[Mntneer]

A minor issue for some of these schools to work around.

Meanwhile, God forbid if states recognize the unions of two men or two women.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Meanwhile, God forbid if states recognize the unions of two men or two women.

 

[WVPATX]

A minor issue for some of these schools to work around.

Meanwhile, God forbid if states recognize the unions of two men or two women.

Alito, who is a heck of a lot smarter than are we, thinks it's an issue. It's easy when you're not impacted to say its a minor issue. I think the Administration thought Hobby Lobby was a minor issue as well.

 

[Mntneer]

They can't lose tax exempt status for teaching what they feel marriage is and isn't, or better yet, what the historical record of marriage or what the bible says about marriage.

 

[WVPATX]

If a church won't perform gay weddings, Alito is concerned they and their school could lose their tax exempt status just like Bob Jones a University lost its status.

 

[Mntneer]

Schools shouldn't be performing weddings, whether religious schools or not.

 

[mule_eer]

The precedent is for Bob Jones University that lost it's tax-exempt status because it had a policy that did not allow interracial dating or marriage. It had nothing to do with them not performing those ceremonies, but the expulsion of students who broke those rules. This isn't about what you teach, but what rules you enforce.

 

[WVPATX]

As marriage and religious liberty expert at the Heritage Foundation Ryan Anderson observed, when Justice Samuel Alito asked the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status if it affirms marriage as the union between a man and woman, Verrilli responded, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.”

Alito asked a very broad question and Verrilli, to his credit did not dodge. "It is going to be an issue." It certainly sounds like a religious institution may lose its tax exempt status if it chooses to affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Schools shouldn't be performing weddings, whether religious schools or not.

Why? Especially a school like Bob Jones.

 

[WVPATX]

Schools shouldn't be performing weddings, whether religious schools or not.

Classic liberal response. Telling religious institutions what they should and shouldn't be doing. Heck, I thought this was a free country with religious freedom. These are private schools after all.

 

[MountainBill]

If they were to lose tax exempt status for teaching that then the church should probably turn that over to the state. No more religious marriages. Marriage should only be performed by a civil servant. Also, once this ruling comes down legalized polygamy will be right behind it. No getting around that.....

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court on whether same-sex marriage should be a “right,” the Obama administration admitted that religious schools teaching marriage as the union of one man and one woman could lose their tax-exempt status as a non-profit if the high court redefines marriage.

As marriage and religious liberty expert at the Heritage Foundation Ryan Anderson observed, when Justice Samuel Alito asked the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status if it affirms marriage as the union between a man and woman, Verrilli responded, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.”

 

[WVPATX]

If they were to lose tax exempt status for teaching that then the church should probably turn that over to the state. No more religious marriages. Marriage should only be performed by a civil servant. Also, once this ruling comes down legalized polygamy will be right behind it. No getting around that.....

I believe Alito made that same point when he asked the government lawyer if four lawyers could wed?

 

[Mntneer]

Classic liberal response. Telling religious institutions what they should and shouldn't be doing. Heck, I thought this was a free country with religious freedom. These are private schools after all.

Why? Especially a school like Bob Jones.

Why? Because it's a school, not a church. I have had close friends that have attended Regent University as well as Liberty. Performing marriages were not on the docket, teaching students was.

IMHO too much is being made of the issue, and if the churches were smart they would have sought to strip the right to define a religious institution, like marriage, from the states and leave it solely in the hands of the churches.

 

[Mntneer]

If they were to lose tax exempt status for teaching that then the church should probably turn that over to the state. No more religious marriages. Marriage should only be performed by a civil servant. Also, once this ruling comes down legalized polygamy will be right behind it. No getting around that.....

What's wrong with polygamy? If a man is crazy enough to take on more than one wife.... good luck to him, because he'll need it.

Marriage should strictly be a religious institution handled by churches, where should a church choose they could marry two men or two women, etc. States shouldn't have any role in it what so ever. The whole act of getting a marriage license was pointless and stupid, and only creates this blurred line between church and state in regards to marriage.

 

[WVPATX]

Why? Because it's a school, not a church. I have had close friends that have attended Regent University as well as Liberty. Performing marriages were not on the docket, teaching students was.

IMHO too much is being made of the issue, and if the churches were smart they would have sought to strip the right to define a religious institution, like marriage, from the states and leave it solely in the hands of the churches.

What right do you have to tell a religious institution what they can do and what they can believe? I assume that they feel they can both teach and fulfill their religious mission. The framers would be turning over in their graves if they knew about this.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Why? Because it's a school, not a church. I have had close friends that have attended Regent University as well as Liberty. Performing marriages were not on the docket, teaching students was.

IMHO too much is being made of the issue, and if the churches were smart they would have sought to strip the right to define a religious institution, like marriage, from the states and leave it solely in the hands of the churches.

It's a private institution founded in religion. Whose to say what they can and can't do when it comes to religious activity. Are they not protected from persecution for their religious beliefs?

 

[WVPATX]

It's a private institution founded in religion. Whose to say what they can and can't do when it comes to religious activity. Are they not protected from persecution for their religious beliefs?

Not any more if the Supreme Court changes the definition of marriage.

 

[Mntneer]

What right do you have to tell a religious institution what they can do and what they can believe? I assume that they feel they can both teach and fulfill their religious mission. The framers would be turning over in their graves if they knew about this.

I'm not telling them what they can and can't do, and what they can and can't believe, and the issue of gay marriage will not prevent them either way. Will they be at risk over losing tax exempt status? Maybe, that's a choice they may have to make, but it won't stop them from doing what they believe in.

What right do you have though to tell two men or women they shouldn't be allowed to get married? If a church or religious institution pops up and supports it and believes in it, shouldn't they be allowed to do what they do and believe what they believe? Or is that only limited to those that think like you do?

 

[WVPATX]

I'm not telling them what they can and can't do, and what they can and can't believe, and the issue of gay marriage will not prevent them either way. Will they be at risk over losing tax exempt status? Maybe, that's a choice they may have to make, but it won't stop them from doing what they believe in.

What right do you have though to tell two men or women they shouldn't be allowed to get married? If a church or religious institution pops up and supports it and believes in it, shouldn't they be allowed to do what they do and believe what they believe? Or is that only limited to those that think like you do?

You're the one trying to change the definition of marriage. And taking away the tax emempt status of churches is unconscientionable. But liberals have long sought to destroy religion so this would be a feather in your cap.

 

[TarHeelEer]

if the churches were smart they would have sought to strip the right to define a religious institution, like marriage, from the states and leave it solely in the hands of the churches.

Thank you, I've been trying

 

[Mntneer]

You're the one trying to change the definition of marriage. And taking away the tax emempt status of churches is unconscientionable. But liberals have long sought to destroy religion so this would be a feather in your cap.

So you're cool with Scientology avoiding taxes?

I'm not trying to change anything. I just believe it's wrong to tell two people that they can't get married.

 

[WVPATX]

So you're cool with Scientology avoiding taxes?

I'm not trying to change anything. I just believe it's wrong to tell two people that they can't get married.

You're absolutely changing the very definition of marriage. The impact on religious institutions could be very detrimental and unelected people may be forcing this issue on them without regard for religious liberty. The Founders would be appalled.

 

[Op2]

IMHO too much is being made of the issue, and if the churches were smart they would have sought to strip the right to define a religious institution, like marriage, from the states and leave it solely in the hands of the churches.

The fact that the churches didn't take it out of the hands of the state back when they could have tells you that they didn't believe it was solely a religious institution. Back then marriage was only man-woman and not only did the churches want it defined that way in church, they wanted it defined that way in the state too. If they thought it was solely a religious institution then they'd have demanded marriage be for the churches while letting the state do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't use the word marriage.

The only reason some want to define it as solely a religious institution now is because they no longer have the power to demand that the state define it exactly as they want it defined.

 

[dave]

The fact that the churches didn't take it out of the hands of the state back when they could have tells you that they didn't believe it was solely a religious institution. Back then marriage was only man-woman and not only did the churches want it defined that way in church, they wanted it defined that way in the state too. If they thought it was solely a religious institution then they'd have demanded marriage be for the churches while letting the state do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't use the word marriage.

The only reason some want to define it as solely a religious institution now is because they no longer have the power to demand that the state define it exactly as they want it defined.

Thats ridiculous. How exactly were churches to do that?

 

[WVPATX]

The fact that the churches didn't take it out of the hands of the state back when they could have tells you that they didn't believe it was solely a religious institution. Back then marriage was only man-woman and not only did the churches want it defined that way in church, they wanted it defined that way in the state too. If they thought it was solely a religious institution then they'd have demanded marriage be for the churches while letting the state do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't use the word marriage.

The only reason some want to define it as solely a religious institution now is because they no longer have the power to demand that the state define it exactly as they want it defined.

The fact remains that you're changing the very definition of marriage through unelected judicial fiat with which the Founders would vehemently disagree. And in the process risking the finances of churches and you're blaming the churches, lol.

As Alito observed, this will open the door to many other types of "marriage".

 

[Op2]

Thats ridiculous. How exactly were churches to do that?

Back then only men and woman could marry and the word used everywhere was marriage. If the churches wanted marriage to be solely a religious think then they could have lobbied the state to use a different word for it, which as I understand it is the main beef many such as TarHeelEer have now. They say "Churches should be allowed decide who does and doesn't get married and the state should use some other word." If that's what they think then they should have told the state that long ago.

I don't know what difference it would make if they got their way anyway. If they did then the official word for it via the state would be "civil union" or whatever and the official word for it via the church would be "marriage." But still some churches would decide to permit gay people to marry and gay people would get married in them. The common parlance word for it in society would still be "marriage" whereas the word "civil union" would just be a legality.

Gay people would still go around saying "I'm married" and then the people that are against gay marriage would respond "Not in my church you aren't." So what. The same could be said by a person of Protestant faith, for instance, of a heterosexual couple that was married in a Catholic Church.

 

[Op2]

The fact remains that you're changing the very definition of marriage through unelected judicial fiat with which the Founders would vehemently disagree. And in the process risking the finances of churches and you're blaming the churches, lol.

As Alito observed, this will open the door to many other types of "marriage".

That's a separate question of whether the state ought to permit gay marriage given that the state is involved in marriage. That's different from whether the state should be involved in marriage in the first place.

 

[dave]

Back then only men and woman could marry and the word used everywhere was marriage. If the churches wanted marriage to be solely a religious think then they could have lobbied the state to use a different word for it, which as I understand it is the main beef many such as TarHeelEer have now. They say "Churches should be allowed decide who does and doesn't get married and the state should use some other word." If that's what they think then they should have told the state that long ago.

I don't know what difference it would make if they got their way anyway. If they did then the official word for it via the state would be "civil union" or whatever and the official word for it via the church would be "marriage." But still some churches would decide to permit gay people to marry and gay people would get married in them. The common parlance word for it in society would still be "marriage" whereas the word "civil union" would just be a legality.

Gay people would still go around saying "I'm married" and then the people that are against gay marriage would respond "Not in my church you aren't." So what. The same could be said by a person of Protestant faith, for instance, of a heterosexual couple that was married in a Catholic Church.

So because they didnt copyright the word marriage years ago they wanted the state to take the word and redefine it. That is just dumb. Stop trying to think. You suck at it.

 

[Mntneer]

The fact that the churches didn't take it out of the hands of the state back when they could have tells you that they didn't believe it was solely a religious institution. Back then marriage was only man-woman and not only did the churches want it defined that way in church, they wanted it defined that way in the state too. If they thought it was solely a religious institution then they'd have demanded marriage be for the churches while letting the state do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't use the word marriage.

The only reason some want to define it as solely a religious institution now is because they no longer have the power to demand that the state define it exactly as they want it defined.

They didn't want it out of the states hands because it suited their beliefs and purposes, and if a state, through its constitutional means allows for gay marriage then there is no "judicial fiat" involved as you'd want us to believe.

But again... Mountain meet mole hill.