Any church who refuses to perform "gay marriages" will be destroyed (vanity)

[TigerClaws]

Joun Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the US, said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The fIght to redefine marriage has implications for every church in America. If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it's tax-exempt status. This situation would be analogous to cases where churches post Civil Right refused interracial marriage. The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.

Pastors refusing to perform these ceremonies which go against the clear word of God could also be sued personally for damages and attorney fees under Civil Rights law. Homosexuals have tried to make their campaign analagous to the struggle of African Americans. A host of legal protections is what they truly want.

These are just two obvious legal consequences facing every American church and minister. Every church in America will either be in the gay marriage business or shut down. Thats the fight being waged right now.

[MrB]

Churches should be more than willing to lose their “tax-exempt status” in order to stand by the Truth.

Some notes, though:
No church has EVER lost this status.
Even if your pastor “crosses the line” from the pulpit, the church is only responsible for taxes prorated for the relative amount of time spent on the topic compared to the whole amount of “church time” spent during the whole year.

This could be fought off for a long time, unless the AC and the left in general wants to just “cry havoc”.

[wideawake]

(often more or less sham) process of getting an annulment

It's rarely a sham these days.

That's for two reasons:

(1) The rules are being more strictly followed (my wife's cousin went through an extensive process despite the fact that her first marriage met exactly none of the criteria for a Catholic marriage) and

(2) Probably 50% of Catholic marriages or more involve spouses who have defective intent.

It is very difficult to argue that Ted Kennedy or Joan Kennedy, who was raised in Riverdale in the 1940s and went to Sacred Heart, did not understand and agree to the conditions of a valid Catholic marriage.

Thanks to "the spirit of the Council" very few young Catholics are versed in Casti Connubi.

[Sherman Logan]

Sorry. I don’t claim to be anything resembling an expert, but it’s not exactly controversial to point out that annulments are often viewed, at least by non-Catholics, as a ritualistic way of getting around the Church’s laws on divorce.

Considering what annulment is supposed to mean, when a couple married 20 years with several children routinely have their marriage annulled, I hope you don’t expect outsiders to take the process seriously. Especially when it is also obvious that those taking advantage of this loophole are often rich and powerful men.

Not that there’s anything new in this. The Pope’s refusal to grant such an annulment, which was generally routine for monarchs, is what caused Henry VIII to rebel against the Church.

I’m sure many annulments are perfectly legitimate. I’m also sure a good many are the loophole in action. Since I doubt God believes in loopholes, I’m not sure what good those who take advantage of it think it will do for them.

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks to "the spirit of the Council" very few young Catholics are versed in Casti Connubi.

Seems to me then that the Church ought to make sure that anybody they marry fully understands what is involved.

Maybe they should do like the surgeons and put together a "fully informed consent" video and then have the blissful couple sign a bunch of forms. :)

Unless of course the unexpressed purpose is to leave a door open for a future annulment.

[turn_to]

I don’t understand the “The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status” part.

Does that mean a synagogue must legally marry a catholic couple (if the couple wanted)? How can a church of one religion be forced to marry a couple of another religion?

[apillar]

The Supreme Court upheld any church refusing to perform a legal marriage would lose tax-exempt status.

Could you post what name of the case that was decided in? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying I've never heard of such a case in all my studies of law and religon. Heck, my pastor will refuse to perform heterosexual marriages if he doesn't think the couple is ready for marriage. I was under the impression that a pastor could refuse to perform any marriage ceremony whatsoever.

[wideawake]

Seems to me then that the Church ought to make sure that anybody they marry fully understands what is involved.

Since the late 1980s, this is certainly the case in America - that parishes no longer take the theological knowledge base of people seeking marriage for granted, but instruct them in the doctrine of the sacrament.

Unless of course the unexpressed purpose is to leave a door open for a future annulment.

Most annulments that actually get granted are based on people who deceived their way through marriage preparation.

[apillar]

Here is what the IRS regulations list as permited and banned acts for religous tax exempt status: Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

I see nothing about performing marriages whatsoever. Heterosexual, biracial, or homosexual...

[wideawake]

when a couple married 20 years with several children routinely have their marriage annulled

Again, this is hardly "routine" and is actually quite rare.

The Pope’s refusal to grant such an annulment, which was generally routine for monarchs, is what caused Henry VIII to rebel against the Church.

It was hardly routine. Where is this long list of routine royal annulments?

I’m also sure a good many are the loophole in action.

What is "the loophole"?

[GeronL]

Churches should have accepted the edict to register with the IRS in 1978. 1978 is when freedom of religion was really killed.

[TXnMA]

You posted the key to the whole issue. If any church bases its beliefs on Scripture, then,

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

doesn't leave much "wiggle room" for interpretation.

~~~~~~~~~

With that clear a prohibition on those who perform perversions, no church which calls itself scriptural can condone such acts by performing the sacrament of marriage for those who admittedly do so.

In that case, applying the force of law against such a church is a clear violation of two aspects of the First Amendment:

1) "Congress shall make no law respecting [with respect to, regarding] an establishment of religion."

2) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

But, to be honest, the law granting tax-exempt status to churches already appears, on its face, to violate 1), above.

~~~~~~~~~

This issue is two-edged sword:

A) Arguing from 1) could result in all churches losing exempt status -- independent of the queer "marriage" issue. (This what I expect the queers and their leftist backers to do...)

B) Arguing from 2) above would appear to be the most effective (and safest) defense for churches who refuse to perform "marriages" for perverts who violate Leviticus 20:13...

Clearly, requiring churches to violate Leviticus 20:13 is "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."

~~~~~~~~~~

But, IMHO, the real hidden agenda of the queers and their leftist supporters is not to obtain church "marriage", but to damage all churches by forcing them to pay taxes...

[Lou L]

IMHO ALL churches should voluntarily give up their tax free status.

So parishioners can be taxed yet again, to pay for their freedom to worship and associate?

The power to tax is the power to destroy; accepting the idea of being taxed would allow unsavory politicians to throw all kinds of taxes at churches, sbuffing them out, one by one.

[qwerty1234]

>>If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it’s tax-exempt status.

Simply not true...isn’t there enough legitimate things to worry about without making stuff up?

[Salvation]

I can’t speak for other churches, but I know the Catholic Church can speak to issues. It’s when a candidate is openly endorsed that the tax free status is challenged. Endorosements cannot be done, period.

[freekitty]

The gays have been tied to Fascist rising.

[qwerty1234]

>>If same sex marriage is made law of the land, any church refusing to perform a ceremony can lose it’s tax-exempt status.

...and if this was true, the catholic church’s refusal to allow female priests would have caused them to lose it’s tax-exempt status a long time ago. That has not happened, and won’t... that what that whole ‘separation of church and state’ part of the constitution is about.

[Sherman Logan]

Don’t have time to track down a “long list,” but here are three obvious and famous examples:

Eleanor of Acquitaine, who “annulled” her marriage to the King of France and married the King of England. I’m unsure why the French King let her get away, since she took about half his kingdom with her.

Henry IV of France, who annulled his marriage to his childless first wife so he could marry Catherine de Medici. He had lots of leverage with the Pope because he’d recently converted to Catholicism and could obviously convert back if thwarted.

Louis VII of France, who annulled his marriage to his first wife in order to marry the Queen dowager so he could retain control of Brittany. This was considered particularly seamy even at the time. The Pope in this case was Alexander Borgia, who even most Catholic historians recognize was not exactly a shining star of probity.

There many, many more. During the Middle Ages the Church was by necessity as much a political as a religious institution, and political necessities, such as the need for a male heir, were taken very seriously. Especially if the king contributed large sums of money to the Pope and cardinals.

[Elendur]

Simply not true...isn’t there enough legitimate things to worry about without making stuff up?
///
1) his civil-rights analogy looks solid to me.
-
2) look what happened to the Catholic adoption agencies,
that were forced to close their doors,
for refusing to let the faction of 2% gays adopt
(especially with the new study showing the risk!).
-
3) look at what is happening in Europe,
where they are already making progress, towards FORCING
Churches to perform gay weddings.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...annulments are often viewed, at least by non-Catholics, as.."

Opinions unsupported by facts, and circulated by the ignorant or deceitful to the biased and gullible, are of little intrinsic interest.

"Considering what annulment is supposed to mean, when a couple married 20 years with several children routinely have their marriage annulled..."

First, I hope you are not uninformed about what an annulment is "supposed to mean." It has to do with the validity of the matrimonial bond, and hence of the vows. If one or both of the people who vowed themselves to each other, were ineligible, unwilling, or incapable of a binding vow, then the attempted marriage lacks a sacramental bond no matter how many years they have been together or how many kids they have.

A very common example would simple deception or fraud at the outset of the marriage: having withheld from the marriage partner some important information, such as, a previous marriage.

"I hope you don’t expect outsiders to take the process seriously."

Any informed and intelligent person would do so.

"Especially when it is also obvious that those taking advantage of this loophole are often rich and powerful men."

You may have been deceived by publicity and missed the actual facts: most annulments are not to rich and pwerful men. You should look into the actual statistics before you venture forth with a howler like that.

"...annulment, which was generally routine for monarchs...

Not so. Royal infidelity with multiple mistresses was far more common than annulment. The lengthy difficulties, and often impossibility, in getting a finding of nullity, probably boosted the mistress situation.

I think you have demonstrated your lack of evidence. I'm out the door now, or I'd have provided links.

Have a day.

[onedoug]

‘Pastor a FReeper?