I will give Ronald Rychlak props for one thing — bringing the objection of religious institutions to gay and lesbian couples marrying to the bottom $$$ line.
Regardless of what it is called, legal sanctioning of homosexual relationships creates a host of unintended consequences and constitutes a serious threat to religious liberty.The piece cites the NJ complaint by a lesbian couple who wanted to use a Methodist ministry-owned pavilion for their civil union ceremony. While it was allowed to ban same-sex couples, the Garden State revoked the ministry’s tax-free status.Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.
What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can’t fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions — such as loss of tax benefits — being imposed on churches.
These people fail to realize that the government doesn’t have to subsidize, through tax-breaks, a church’s ability to discriminate. More whining:
If homosexual marriages or civil unions are the equivalent of traditional marriages, you can’t discriminate. If you do, at the very least you put your government benefits at risk.And so, this means what? Should BJU be allowed to ban interracial dating? It appears the world didn’t come to an end when that onerous policy was abandoned. These folks want Uncle Sam to subsidize their ability to discriminate.This is the same rationale that was used by the Supreme Court in 1983 to uphold stripping Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status due to its racial policies.
8 Responses to “More bleating about marriage equality’s threat to religious liberty”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Mass revocation of church tax-exemption will not happen. Ever. It’s about as likely as eliminating the home interest deduction. So that argument is a red herring, as is the whole panoply of religionist attacks on marriage equality.
LGBT people serve the same purpose to the religionists that “terrists” serve for the unscrupulous politician - as a tool for generating fear and outrage which are used to keep the sheep obedient and distracted (and giving money to “the cause”).
Will we (some of us) ever wake up and recognize the truth? Or will we just keep pretending that if we can keep some people from being happy, god will favor us (or some such rot)?…
this wouldnt even happen because all gay rights legislation has a stiuplation protecting “religious liberty”
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/
There was some similar bleating about religious liberty back in the early eighties about Bob Jones University being forced to give up its tax exempt status for the sake of racial segregation. BJU lost in the Supreme Court, but I doubt the present Court will be so thoughtful.
The issue of comparing ministers to justices of the peace is idiotic. Ministers are not paid or licensed by the state; jop’s are. You don’t get the options as a state official of getting to do only the legal jobs you want. Frankly, even as a religious person, legal marriage should be handled by state officials. THose of us who want to marry in a church can do that too, before or after getting the county registrar to sign the legal papers. OF course that’s about as likely as President Bush admitting he’s run the worst administration in 150 years.
The state should get out of the marriage business and the church should get out of the civil unions business- then everybody’s happy!
Seriously, the French have that two-tiered system, and so should we. All couples must have a civil union - in other words a domestic contract that includes provisions for dissolution, perhaps even bill sharing. THings that are of fiduciary verifiability - to be recongnized as a “united couple.” Other suggestiosn to this name welcomed
For those that want recognition of said union within their specific religious community, great! And said community can ten sanction or not. Call it mariage if they want - blessed union, or religiously recognized union -RRU. Whatever - its that religion’s (or club’s, or cult’s) business.
Sacraments and legal contracts are not the same and we need to stop treating them as such.
Religious liberty? You really want to go there, Mr. Rychlak?
Okey dokey.
The state of Colorado will not recognize certain marriages conducted under the care of our meeting. Why? Because the people being married don’t possess the requisite anatomy.
In a nutshell, our Quaker meeting says they’re married. The state refuses to recognize that marriage.
“We marry none. It is the Lord’s work and we are but witnesses.”–George Fox
In short, what the priests/minister will miss is the customary fee for filling out the officiant line on a marriage license, which is anywhere from $10 to $150. (Or in our case, a pint of Jack Daniels)
I’ll stay out of their houses of worship if they’ll stay out of my marriage…
I’ve got a proposal to end this problem, and dozens of other potential problems:
Remove automatic tax exempt status for churches, temples, synagogues, and all other religious institutions.
A religious ediface is a for profit business and if they were taxed as such there wouldn’t be any problems at all.