Same-sex Marriage Is In, Religious Freedom Is [on its way] Out

The legalization of same-sex marriage will usher in a new era where religious liberties will increasingly become restricted.

In the last year, the state of New Jersey revoked the tax exemption status of a church property because it refused to allow a lesbian couple to perform a civil union on its grounds.

The attorney representing the lesbian couple argued that the church discriminated against his clients and "could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man." And the court agreed. This is just a hint of what is to come in California.

There’s one word that explains why this will happen: Consistency.

In order for California to be consistent with its new legislation on same-sex marriage, it must restrict the religious liberties of Christians, Jews, and any other group that upholds a one-man-one-woman view of marriage. These groups enjoy privileges and protections given by the state, which now also endorses same-sex marriage. Since the law supports both same-sex marriage and groups who oppose the new legislation, it’s only a matter of time before pro-gay lawyers exploit the inconsistency.

That’s what happened in New Jersey. A tax exempt church refused to allow a same-sex civil union on their grounds and so it was argued that the state subsidized discrimination.

At stake are the tax benefits given by the state to churches, non-profit parachurch groups (e.g. STR) and clergy. But there are other examples with more at stake than tax benefits. And when religious beliefs clash with state laws that protect gay rights, can you guess who wins? Here’s a hint: It's not the party who’s found guilty of "discrimination."

Comments

[Micah Stott]

This seems like fear mongering to me. I don't understand why Christians feel the need to force their morality on others through laws. There is no "threat" to Christianity by homosexuals being allowed to marry.

As far as the threat to tax-exemption status, that seems like a very trivial thing to be upset about. Didn't Jesus say he'd provide for all of your needs? I'm sure he'll take the taxes into account.

[AaronSTL]

I don't think anyone's freedom to believe is in jeopardy. The law just seems to be catching up to reason. One can believe what one wants but beliefs must be justified if they are to impact the lives of others.

[Chris]

Micah,

This is not fear mongering. It is a realistic view of what is going on and what will get worse in the near future.

It is homosexuals that are forcing their immorality on others through the laws.

[ChrisB]

Given that in Canada there are passages of the Bible that it is effectively illegal to preach on, I think it's safe to say that freedom is in jeopardy.

[Micah Stott]

Chris,
I guess I don't understand "what" is going on. "What" will get worse? Immoral people get married every day and it's perfectly legal.

[ChrisB]

Micah, two things have been observed in other countries that have developed same-sex marriage.

1) When marriage means anything, it means nothing. Marriages go down in frequency. Replace our culture of frequent divorce with one where divorce is unnecessary -- and imagine the impact on the kids involved.

I won't deny that heterosexuals in the US have made a mockery and a mess of marriage, but that isn't an excuse to kick it while it's down.

2) When the government's official policy is that same-sex unions are equivalent to opposite-sex unions, anyone who goes against that policy quickly gets censored or otherwise penalized.

The recent suit against the Arizona(?) photographer who wouldn't take pictures at a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony is just a foretaste of what will hit if the government gives its blessing to same-sex unions.

You might think the 1st Amendment would protect us against this, but our experience with hate-speech laws and such have shown that is not likely to be the case.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Micah,
"
I guess I don't understand "what" is going on. "What" will get worse? Immoral people get married every day and it's perfectly legal."

If only they gays would adopt the concept of live and let live. The point here is that they have not done so. They have pushed and pushed for legislation that forces others to act in a manner that is inconsistent with their moral convictions. When a church, which is a non-profit organization, is forced to act that is inconsistant with their mission(statement?), or be considered off the list of non-profit organizations because they are acting, according to the government, in a discriminatory way toward a certain group, without a single consideration of the fact that they have done nothing but good things for the individuals of that group they disagree with, this amounts to nothing more than a political power move to club into submission those who disagree with a particular moral stance and deny them the means to follow the dictates of their conscience. I.E. the end of religious freedom and the only thing that this country can claim to having that is worth preserving...in my opinion as someone who has been raised in a Socialist state.

[Joel L. Watts]

I guess Micah doesn't see the reality of the situation. The homosexual couple tried to force their morality on Christians. Alan, Melinda, keep up the good work

[Mistereks]

The only thing being prevented is discrimination. If a church had religious teachings that Fred Phelps can spew his hate, the First Amendment must be in pretty good shape.

The Methodist building in New Jersey was not a church, but a public accommodation owned by the church. It was used for many non-religious purposes and the court rightly found the church had every right to withhold its use for whatever reason they like -- as long as they don't ask the rest of us to subsidize that discrimination in the form of tax breaks.

The Catholic church has denied marriage in its churches to divorced people for centuries. The Mormon church allows only members in good standing to be married in its temples. NO church will be forced to perform any marriage it doesn't choose to.

This is alarmism based on a falsehood.

[Mistereks]

CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS POSTING.

The second sentence should read: If Fred Phelps can spew his hate without prosecution, the First Amendment must be in pretty good shape.

[Mike Westfall]

Hmmm...

Not sure how the OGCMA was "discriminating" against homosexuals.

There are no same-sex "marriages" in New Jersey, only civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Did the church group allow commitment ceremonies for heterosexual civil union and domestic partnership non-marriages? If not then there was no discrimination.

Just because civil unions in New Jersey have "substantially all of the rights and benefits of marriages" doesn't mean that they are the same thing as marriages, else the NJ law would not have left the distinction. It would have just declared them to be marriages. The church group allowed marriage ceremonies, not civil union non-marriage commitment ceremonies, regardless of whether the two getting civilly unioned were a same- or hetero-sex couple.

Where's the discrimination? If anywhere, it's in the N.J. law that doesn't bless the civil union with the appellation, "marriage."

Hopefully, the courts will slap down this NJ Attorney General's ruling.

[Micah Stott]

I guess I don't see the "reality" of the situation.
Maybe I've missed something here, have Christians always refused to do business with people that do not share their morals? Did that photographer refuse to take pictures of Mormons or children that were born out of wedlock? Would she take pictures of people who cursed or lied?

A ridiculous lawsuit is a ridiculous lawsuit, I hate to point out that New Mexico does not even recognize gay marriages nor are they legal. You should probably pick a different example to preach about the horrors of gay marriage.

God gave humans free will, or at least the illusion of it. Would it hurt if his followers gave humans the same courtesy?

[bc]

Micah, generally speaking, I don't think most Christians would object to anyone freely choosing whatever paths they wish to take, so I don't think the "free will" objection you offered is valid. It would be accurate however to say that many Christians do object to a cultural push to make homosexuality a morally benign, normative behavior.

I think the photography issue goes past a matter of people doing business with others whose morals don't line up with their own. Undoubtedly, that photographer has done work for people who have done things he/she doesn't agree with. The difference here is that to shoot the wedding of a homosexual couple would be to participate in the essence of where the moral disagreement lies. This would not be the same as shooting the wedding of someone who lies or curses; the wedding wouldn't be about lying or cursing or a celebration of lying of cursing.

[ChrisB]

Micah, whatever you or I may think of refusing to shoot the wedding, don't you think she has that right?

You DO have the right to refuse to take pictures of illegit children. You wouldn't, though, if they were declared special protected class. That is what we're nearing on the SSM issue.

[Kevin W]

Governments enforce contracts. Governments enforce laws. Homosexual adults can enter into contracts like married people but what the activist wants is public acceptance. The Government isn’t in the business of changing minds (thank goodness) or granting public acceptance.

What is desired from the activists should be impossible, and is impossible, for any government to provide.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Micah,
" guess I don't see the "reality" of the situation.
Maybe I've missed something here, have Christians always refused to do business with people that do not share their morals?"

Under certain conditions I think that the answer is yes. If someone wishes to coerce a Christian to in some way facilitate the robbing of a bank, no business will be conducted of that kind. When something is plainly wrong, then we, as Christians have the God given right to follow the dictates of our conscience as is the case in the same sex unions.

[Mike Westfall]

> A tax exempt church refused to
> allow a same-sex civil union on
> their grounds and so it was argued
> that the state subsidized
> discrimination.

Not exacting taxes from an organization is now the same as supporting that organization with subsidies?

Orwell would be double-plus proud.

[Micah Stott]

These are good points. I guess I would compare the treatment Christians give homosexuals to the same type of treatment I have seen single mothers receive both inside the church. Both are cases of sexual immorality and both, according to Christianity, involve broken people who probably need to be shown love and acceptance more than anything else.

I wonder if the photographer would have refused to take a picture of a family had she found out the parents weren't married and the newborn was born out of wedlock? Wouldn't that also be partaking in the "essence of where their moral disagreement lies"?

I don't think gay marriages are a threat to Christian or heterosexual marriages by any stretch of the imagination. For once, can Christians prove something by their works? Show the rest of the world what a whole and complete and christ-like family is, show how christian marriages are superior to non-christian or gay marriages. That's what the world is waiting for. It's not that we don't want to believe in all of this great stuff Christians preach about, it's that we don't see any difference between you and us. Everybody has arguments and opinions, it's just as easy to follow William Lane Craig as it is Ayn Rand or Richard Dawkins. But what really stands out is the type of life people live. That's something nobody can deny. Maybe Christianity doesn't reach out to as many people as you might think by telling us how immoral and wrong we are, rather than showing us what a moral and proper response looks like. This isn't directed to anybody on this forum, you have all been gracious and courteous, I guess it's just food for thought.

[TexasSeeker]

If this world still believe and obeyed the laws of Yahweh (God) as we are suppose to we would not be having this discussion because the penalty for this abomination would be carried out and others that may think to follow the footsteps of a homosexual would think twice. But we forgot God and threw out His law and statutes and judgments and now we are paying for it with legalized immoral behavior that brings death.

[Louis Kuhelj]

" wonder if the photographer would have refused to take a picture of a family had she found out the parents weren't married and the newborn was born out of wedlock? Wouldn't that also be partaking in the "essence of where their moral disagreement lies"? "

Taking photographs of moral criminals is no more a moral crime than taking pictures of Bonnie and Clyde. If it were, then the police should be arrested for taking mugshots. Your example is not an equivalent of actually facilitating the comission of the crime, which is the example I gave before.

[Joe]

A previous poster asked "What" is getting worse. To this, I respond ... the notion that it is one thing to be free to have religious beliefs but one is not free to allow those beliefs to guide their actions.

This it not tooooo surprising. Once can believe that murder is okay but the law prevents that ... and well it should. So apparently, not "supporting" what one sees scripture as saying is wrong (an act of ommission) is to be deemed in the same light as acts of commission (like murder).

So that is the "what" of "what is getting worse" ... now we are being legislated (and religion being restrained by) not only on what we do but what we DON'T DO.

How long can it be before Christian churches will be forced to allow Satanists to attend and even to join their congregations? After all ... a refusal would be a violation of the poor dear's religous freedom, right?

[bc]

"It's not that we don't want to believe in all of this great stuff Christians preach about, it's that we don't see any difference between you and us."

Outside of Christ, there is no difference between "you and us". We both have the same problem: we've rebelled against God. Christ is the difference-maker. He has bought your pardon. Posted your bail, so to speak. All you or I or anyone has to do is accept it.

[Rich]

I think the problem is that we're having civil institutions like government enacting laws regarding religious activities in the first place.

I'm not quite sure why it is that government has to be involved in marriage at all. Government shouldn't define marriage, perform marriage, license people to perform marriage, or recognize marriages. Tax forms should be filed by individuals, or by any pair of two people who care to combine their forms.

Once you get rid of civil recognition of marriage, then you don't have problems with civil authorities regulating marriage. Churches can then continue to define marriage as appropriate, and recognize marriages performed by others as appropriate.

[Ryan]

>>I'm not quite sure why it is that government has to be involved in marriage at all. Government shouldn't define marriage, perform marriage, license people to perform marriage, or recognize marriages. Tax forms should be filed by individuals, or by any pair of two people who care to combine their forms.>>

I kind of agree with you, but not completely, since I also think the family is an important social institution. Families SHOULD receive different tax benefits than single persons, not to punish, but to assist the family which is the basis for society. But I do agree in part with you.

[Sage S.]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - First Amendment to the US Constitution

This stuff is slated to reach the Supreme Court during the next President's term in office. The next President will probably nominate at least two new Supreme Court Justices (based solely on the ages of the two oldest Judges - 75 and 88).

Obama has stated that he will only choose Supreme Court Judges who share his political views, which include gay rights. McCain supports Justices who interpret and apply the Constitution without regard for political ideology.

Things to consider.

[Louis Kuhelj]

"m not quite sure why it is that government has to be involved in marriage at all. "

For the benefit of the children. (I.E. the next generation)
What kind of a country this is going to be is going to be determined by those children and it is certainly in the interest of the government to ensure it is the kind of country that the goverment wants with a clear goal of the "greatest good."