Gay Marriage Discussion

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

…Once the government confers a benefit on one class of persons, the equal protection clause (at least the way equal protection has been interpreted)…

[/quote]

…and therein lies much of the problem. The 14th Amendment is without doubt the most fucked up piece of prose ever created in the US of A. It got grossly perverted over the decades. There’s no way it has been implemented in the context it was drafted and ratified.[/quote]

Well, even agreeing with you though that it is grossly distorted now from where it was decades past…it’s still legal precedent. And unfortunately where legal rationale goes legal precedent dictates that it be used as jjackkrash wrote in the present case…

That said, DB is hitting home runs as far as my personal opinion on this matter goes. I get a bit more upset every time I think about the subjugation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So how long until “Love Wins” turns into “Froth Mouthed Vengeance”?

I’ve already seen plenty of signs of it. It isn’t enough to enjoy beautiful freedom, no, people need now to destroy the institutions they see as the “enemy”.

This is going to get ugly, and the 1st is going to get shredded… [/quote]

You kidding me? Time magazine of all things has already run an article calling for the revocation of churches tax exemption status!

Unreal. And its just getting started.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So how long until “Love Wins” turns into “Froth Mouthed Vengeance”?

I’ve already seen plenty of signs of it. It isn’t enough to enjoy beautiful freedom, no, people need now to destroy the institutions they see as the “enemy”.

This is going to get ugly, and the 1st is going to get shredded… [/quote]

You kidding me? Time magazine of all things has already run an article calling for the revocation of churches tax exemption status!

Unreal. And its just getting started.[/quote]

I’m largely taking a “the ends are justify the means” approach here as I don’t want to have a legal stroke about the means. The court ruling has implications that have been laid out quite well, but end to the day freedom won.

Sweet, beautiful freedom.

If we can keep it, I’d be surprised.

Imagine if freedom was always this trendy?

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

You kidding me? Time magazine of all things has already run an article calling for the revocation of churches tax exemption status!

Unreal. And its just getting started.[/quote]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

You kidding me? Time magazine of all things has already run an article calling for the revocation of churches tax exemption status!

Unreal. And its just getting started.[/quote]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Totally immaterial. The only thing relevant to the discussion in this thread is this: why is their tax-exempt status apparently being revisited due, in part, to their opposition to gay marriage?

This is a punitive measure, nothing more, nothing less. There are all sorts of groups out there with tax-exempt status, but I can guarantee you that the only ones whose status is now being called into question are those with opposition to gay marriage.

I don’t like this one bit, and this is where this country is headed. You see it all the time.

Black civil rights rhetoric has somehow morphed into attacks on the white male under the code word “white privilege”.

Feminist rhetoric has become more about getting even than gaining equality. You know what feminism looks like now? It’s a construction company getting shut down for 3 days at the University of Santa Cruz because one of the male workers spent more than 3 seconds looking at a woman walking nude across campus. (I’m not kidding you. That shit happens all the time and I have friends who are building inspectors for UCSC and have to deal with that shit. They literally have a 3-second rule on campus; any and all non-students/faculty can be arrested or removed from campus for looking at ANY female for more than 3 straight seconds unless you are talking to them.)

We see this everywhere. There is a complete and utter lack of dialogue in this country about these sorts of issues. Bill Maher or Sean Hannity putting the token conservative/liberal punching bag they call a guest on their shows is not an open discourse. Being told, repeatedly, that you are a homophobic bigot because you disagree with a Supreme Court Justice’s rationale is not an open dialogue.

Anyone who is dumb enough to actually engage anyone on Facebook already knows this, though. But if you don’t know this, go on Facebook and tell your “friends” that you think Justice Kennedy arrived at his decision using a poor legal rationale and that the decision has further set the country back. In fact, just get right down to brass tacks and tell your Facebook “friends” that you think the Obergefell decision is a dark day for the freedoms of Americans. Watch that shitshow unfold and try to call it an open dialogue.

I cannot tell you how many people have already tried shooting me down for being a homophobe simply because I disagreed with Kennedy’s rationale. And these are people who KNOW that I know WAY more about the Constitution than they do, people who know my JOB is teach constitutional history to high schoolers. And they still have the nerve to shout me down instead of treat me like the resource that I am to them. Nietzsche was wrong: it’s not God who is dead, it is open dialogue.

I fucking swear, I think people think “unconstitutional” is perfectly synonymous with “not right”.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and therein lies much of the problem. The 14th Amendment is without doubt the most fucked up piece of prose ever created in the US of A. It got grossly perverted over the decades. There’s no way it has been implemented in the context it was drafted and ratified.[/quote]
I’d say that it has been implemented exactly as it was intended to be. I just wish that we could get an amendment abolishing the states now, so that the (poor)illusion can disappear.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

You kidding me? Time magazine of all things has already run an article calling for the revocation of churches tax exemption status!

Unreal. And its just getting started.[/quote]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Because, on the whole, they probably do more charity work in this country and abroad than any other organization the world has ever seen. Hospitals, schools, shelters, food banks, so on and so forth, and that isn’t even beginning to include all the volunteer hours members of the church do.

Also, if people want to bitch about “keep religion out of government” how can they ask for them to be taxed in the next breath, that is involved in government. Once you tax them, they can start publicly endorsing candidates… You want Rome that involved in our elections?

DB already pointed out the blatant “revenge” factor of the situation.

[quote]magick wrote:

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Because they’re not-for-profit organizations. Lot’s of NFP’s have tax exempt status like NPR and Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Because they’re not-for-profit organizations. Lot’s of NFP’s have tax exempt status like NPR and Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace.
[/quote]

A better question is why is “religious” enough to qualify something as a non-profit organization. Can’t a church be tax exempt for similar reasons as NPR and the others you mentioned? Or if it can’t meet those standards, tax them?

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

You kidding me? Time magazine of all things has already run an article calling for the revocation of churches tax exemption status!

Unreal. And its just getting started.[/quote]

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Totally immaterial. The only thing relevant to the discussion in this thread is this: why is their tax-exempt status apparently being revisited due, in part, to their opposition to gay marriage?

This is a punitive measure, nothing more, nothing less. There are all sorts of groups out there with tax-exempt status, but I can guarantee you that the only ones whose status is now being called into question are those with opposition to gay marriage.

I don’t like this one bit, and this is where this country is headed. You see it all the time.

Black civil rights rhetoric has somehow morphed into attacks on the white male under the code word “white privilege”.

Feminist rhetoric has become more about getting even than gaining equality. You know what feminism looks like now? It’s a construction company getting shut down for 3 days at the University of Santa Cruz because one of the male workers spent more than 3 seconds looking at a woman walking nude across campus. (I’m not kidding you. That shit happens all the time and I have friends who are building inspectors for UCSC and have to deal with that shit. They literally have a 3-second rule on campus; any and all non-students/faculty can be arrested or removed from campus for looking at ANY female for more than 3 straight seconds unless you are talking to them.)

We see this everywhere. There is a complete and utter lack of dialogue in this country about these sorts of issues. Bill Maher or Sean Hannity putting the token conservative/liberal punching bag they call a guest on their shows is not an open discourse. Being told, repeatedly, that you are a homophobic bigot because you disagree with a Supreme Court Justice’s rationale is not an open dialogue.

Anyone who is dumb enough to actually engage anyone on Facebook already knows this, though. But if you don’t know this, go on Facebook and tell your “friends” that you think Justice Kennedy arrived at his decision using a poor legal rationale and that the decision has further set the country back. In fact, just get right down to brass tacks and tell your Facebook “friends” that you think the Obergefell decision is a dark day for the freedoms of Americans. Watch that shitshow unfold and try to call it an open dialogue.

I cannot tell you how many people have already tried shooting me down for being a homophobe simply because I disagreed with Kennedy’s rationale. And these are people who KNOW that I know WAY more about the Constitution than they do, people who know my JOB is teach constitutional history to high schoolers. And they still have the nerve to shout me down instead of treat me like the resource that I am to them. Nietzsche was wrong: it’s not God who is dead, it is open dialogue.[/quote]

Thank fuck-all that SOMEBODY is doing the job to teach high schoolers Constitutional history. Good job DB. And excellent post on exactly what is happening here. And has been happening for a number of years already.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Because they’re not-for-profit organizations. Lot’s of NFP’s have tax exempt status like NPR and Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace.
[/quote]

A better question is why is “religious” enough to qualify something as a non-profit organization. Can’t a church be tax exempt for similar reasons as NPR and the others you mentioned? Or if it can’t meet those standards, tax them?[/quote]

A church meets all the requirements any other 501C3 meets. A “religious” for-profit institution would not be tax exempt.

However, because of the First Amendment a church does enjoy special protection (note: not special benefits) that a scientific or educational not-for-profit doesn’t receive.

In other words, religious-ocity isn’t enough to get tax-exmept status.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

Why should churches have tax exempt status?[/quote]

Because they’re not-for-profit organizations. Lot’s of NFP’s have tax exempt status like NPR and Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace.
[/quote]

A better question is why is “religious” enough to qualify something as a non-profit organization. Can’t a church be tax exempt for similar reasons as NPR and the others you mentioned? Or if it can’t meet those standards, tax them?[/quote]

A church meets all the requirements any other 501C3 meets. A “religious” for-profit institution would not be tax exempt.

However, because of the First Amendment a church does enjoy special protection (note: not special benefits) that a scientific or educational not-for-profit doesn’t receive.

In other words, religious-ocity isn’t enough to get tax-exmept status.
[/quote]

When people bring this up I think they only mean to remove the religious exception part. If a church still doesn’t pay taxes for other reasons then that is a different debate.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
When people bring this up I think they only mean to remove the religious exception part. If a church still doesn’t pay taxes for other reasons then that is a different debate.[/quote]

Let me clarify. A church qualifies for tax exempt status primarily because it is a religious organization. However, being a religious organization isn’t enough, it must also meet all the other requirements that other tax-exempt institutions must meet.

Wiki put it well: The most common type of tax-exempt nonprofit organization falls under category 501(c)(3), whereby a nonprofit organization is exempt from federal income tax if its activities have the following purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals.

If you remove the religious exemption, many churches would probably fail though some would continue to receive tax exempt status under charitable or educational grounds.

That being said, in the past churches have been afforded much more protection than say, Little League, by virtue of the First Amendment.

My knowledge is informed by but also limited to my time spent on the business side of my church. There were things we could do (fish fry’s and bingo night) to raise money, but also things we weren’t allowed to do without jeopardizing our tax-exempt status (renting out parking spots in our lot).

The idea that the Federal government would benefit if we were a taxable organization is a joke. There’s isn’t a Catholic Church in Chicago that runs any kind of appreciable accounting net profit. And of course everyone who works for the church, including Priests, pay income tax.

The biggest area of relief is from property tax. It is enormously significant.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
exempt from federal income tax if its activities have the following purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals.
[/quote]

I am charitable and religious (in my way); I educate people on a semi-regular basis; I watch scientific documentaries and have made multiple vinegar volcanoes; I read lots of books and have even written one; I tested the public safety of a downed branch in a roadway just the other day: I found it lacking and removed it from the street; I not only foster but directly compete in amateur sports competition, and I prevent cruelty to both animals and children whenever the occasion arises and it is appropriate for me to do so. I think I have some paperwork to fill out.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think I have some paperwork to fill out.[/quote]

Absolutely.

And when you distribute all those donations you receive to yourself to pay your salary, you’ll be paying income tax just like you do now.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think I have some paperwork to fill out.[/quote]

Absolutely.

And when you distribute all those donations you receive to yourself to pay your salary, you’ll be paying income tax just like you do now.
[/quote]

But I will live in a tax-free palace that reaches to the sky with yearning Gothic splendor.

I’m just kidding, of course. I’m not arguing against the TE status of religious organizations.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I fucking swear, I think people think “unconstitutional” is perfectly synonymous with “not right”.[/quote]

This. Every time. And it is bad on both the left and the right.

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

We see this everywhere. There is a complete and utter lack of dialogue in this country about these sorts of issues. Bill Maher or Sean Hannity putting the token conservative/liberal punching bag they call a guest on their shows is not an open discourse. Being told, repeatedly, that you are a homophobic bigot because you disagree with a Supreme Court Justice’s rationale is not an open dialogue.

Anyone who is dumb enough to actually engage anyone on Facebook already knows this, though. But if you don’t know this, go on Facebook and tell your “friends” that you think Justice Kennedy arrived at his decision using a poor legal rationale and that the decision has further set the country back. In fact, just get right down to brass tacks and tell your Facebook “friends” that you think the Obergefell decision is a dark day for the freedoms of Americans. Watch that shitshow unfold and try to call it an open dialogue.
[/quote]

I’m a little late to the party, but here’s the problem - it becomes at 14th Amendment issue when states get involved in creating, legislating and regulating “marriage” benefits. This isn’t the first time the issue ended up at the High Court, as they used the exact same legal rhetoric in the Loving v. Virginia anti-miscegenation case in 1965, i.e., but the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses were invoked against Virginia’s law banning interracial marriage. Granted, that was a race-based case, but the institution of marriage vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment was the core legal issue, so same concept, different social issue.

I don’t believe the court erred in the outcome of the ruling, but I agree that the majority rationale is problematic in opening up the Pandora’s box of making marriage a fundamental right. That certainly was a compelling interest in prohibiting state’s from legally denying marriage benefits to same-sex couples, but it could have been done in a way to ensure religious liberty was protected going forward. The language in the Bob Jones case did stipulate that similar legal rationale couldn’t be used against strictly religious, non-educational institutions, but a change in venue is only a case law review away.

[quote]JR249 wrote:

I don’t believe the court erred in the outcome of the ruling, but I agree that the majority rationale is problematic in opening up the Pandora’s box of making marriage a fundamental right. That certainly was a compelling interest in prohibiting state’s from legally denying marriage benefits to same-sex couples, but it could have been done in a way to ensure religious liberty was protected going forward. The language in the Bob Jones case did stipulate that similar legal rationale couldn’t be used against strictly religious, non-educational institutions, but a change in venue is only a case law review away.[/quote]

The problem is that as I’ve noted, and as DB has so eloquently ranted about, the rationale is AT LEAST as important as the final outcome, because it is what sets the stage for the next 50-100 years of legal opinion. This was a clusterfuck of bullshit reasoning IMO. I agree with jjackkrash that this outcome was the only probable outcome after the case went to court, but via the 14th/suspect class/Equal Treatment route. The two (rationale/process and outcome) are of course inextricably tied in court opinions, but if in a hypothetical world I could choose only ONE of them…I would really have rather had a bad outcome but with solid reasoning to set up the next generation of cases instead of the reverse, which is what we got.