Skip to comments.Sen. Mike Lee: Churches Should Not Be Forced to Perform Gay Marriage
Posted on 12/28/2013 10:48:58 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Sen. Mike Lee says a bill he introduced would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to any person or group that refuses to perform gay marriages.
"What we're talking about here is the freedom of religious belief, the freedom of a church, for example, to adhere to its own religious doctrine so that it cannot be discriminated against by the government," the Utah Republican said in an interview with Newsmax.
Lee said the federal government's failure to protect religious liberty citing Obamacare mandates for contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs was a key motivation for him to introduce the "Marriage and Religious Freedom Act," which protects clergy from being punished if they refuse to perform gay marriages.
"This is something that the overwhelming majority of Americans would support and the overwhelming majority of Americans would be disappointed if they discovered Congress would be unwilling to pass something like this," Lee said.
Lee's bill was introduced before Congress recessed for the holidays. It has the support of Republican Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. A bipartisan companion measure in the House is sponsored by Republican Reps. Raul Labrador of Idaho and Chris Smith of New Jersey, as well as Democrats Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Maybe he should try to bring some religious freedom back to the military while he is at it.
There, fixed it.
Here is a thought: how about remove any “tax exempt status” and let people and organizations decide for themselves what they want. This is all about the $$$ when you let IRS dictate what you believe in.
The battle between good and evil continues. May Mr. Lee fight on the side of good.
R's and D's are pretty much the same ... the Tea Party is not really official and has within itself enough libertarianism to water down what a lot of Tea Partyers would like to be dogma.
Christians are pretty much etched in stone and NO Christian would recognize gay anything and all the other ungodly crap Congress foists upon us.
We're programmed to be warriors for the Lord, so we might even be induced to pick up arms against a Satanic force.
It's a thought worth thinking about ... perhaps discussing.
You'd think he was a conservative.
If we failed to march lock-step with the Uniparty we will be accused of helping re-elect Obama. It happens a lot.
Irrelevant. Our judicial overlords will require it.
I agree with getting rid of the income tax, and your point is one reason for doing away with it.
One point: church offering plate money is not taxed because it is protected by the first amendment. What this bill by Lee does is protect the individual tax filer's charitable deduction from his own income.
Time for a domestic modern day Crusade.
Who would have ever thought that refusing to violate the tenants of your faith would be grounds for punishment by the government?
Homosexuality is part of Obama’s religion, and the pop religion that leftist government embraces, so when government tells Christian churches to perform marriages for dykes and fairies, it crosses the church and state line, which trumps the gay and straight line. Let government officials perform marriages for queers, so that the perverted couples might have all the holy blessings the bureaucratic gods can impart, and leave decent people alone.
But God made them male and female so that they could multiply and fill the earth!
When you love $$$ and want to avoid taxes, you have to play by the government rules. Can’t serve two masters.
RE: But God made them male and female so that they could multiply and fill the earth!
Not sure if you can use this argument anymore... we have artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood and adoption... all of which the homosexuals can take advantage of.
I feel that if a law needs to be involved at all, and government is involved, whether for the affirmative or negative, the battle is already lost, and the secularists have won - because we are saying that government shall set the bounds of religious behavior.