Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaks at the March for Marriage near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., last June. CNS photo
Posted on 04/09/2015 2:32:15 PM PDT by NYer
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaks at the March for Marriage near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., last June. CNS photo
Same-sex marriage currently is legal in 36 states — or 37, depending on the outcome of a dispute between state and federal courts in Alabama. But in only 11 of those states was it legalized by referendums or legislation. In the others, it was imposed by courts.
It is generally expected, though not certain, that the Supreme Court soon will follow this pattern and impose same-sex marriage nationwide. The court on April 28 will devote two and a half hours to oral arguments in four cases raising the issue and will hand down its decision in early summer.
If and when the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, the battle will move to a new stage.
The emphasis then will be on state and possibly federal legislative efforts to provide specific legal protection, over and above the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty, to institutions and individuals with conscientious objections to cooperating with marriages between persons of the same sex.
Proposed new laws for this purpose are pending now in at least nine states, and the number seems likely to rise if the Supreme Court gives its blessing to same-sex marriage.
But the recent controversy over a religious freedom law in Indiana (see Page 8) suggests that crafting such measures is not necessarily simple.
There already have been cases in which providers of wedding-related services like florists and bakers have faced potentially crippling fines for violating anti-discrimination laws by refusing on conscience grounds to provide flowers or wedding cakes for same-sex couples.
A poll commissioned by the Family Research Council and a coalition of pro-family groups found that 81 percent of Americans think government should let people “follow their beliefs about marriage” in work and business settings. The poll also found that 61 percent support allowing states to uphold traditional marriage and 53 percent agree that marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a woman.
| March for Marriage |
|---|
|
Just days before the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in the four cases involving same-sex marriage, thousands will gather in Washington in support of traditional marriage during the third annual March for Marriage on April 25.
On the website promoting the march organizers state, “For months, activist federal judges across the country have issued illegitimate rulings redefining marriage against the will of 50 million state voters and legislators who voted to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Please join us on April 25 for this critical March for Marriage to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to reaffirm the legitimacy of state marriage laws.”
For a detailed schedule of march events and other information, visit marriagemarch.org.
|
The Catholic Church, which does not recognize same-sex unions as marriages, has an obvious stake in the effort to strengthen legal protections. Besides its concern for the rights of conscience in general, the Church faces the prospect that specifically Church-related institutions or individuals will come under legal pressure to cooperate with legalized same-sex marriage or else go out of business.
Examples of what might lie ahead include lawsuits in which a Catholic high school teacher marries his same-sex partner and the principal declines to renew his contract; a Knights of Columbus council that rents out its hall for nonchurch social events refuses to rent to a same-sex wedding reception; a dissident priest performs a same-sex ceremony and the bishop suspends him.
In the minds of some observers, court-ordered legalization of same-sex marriage also raises the question of whether the Church should continue to serve as the agent of the state in registering marriages.
Besides the risk of increasing the Church’s vulnerability to legal pressure, the practice also implies that the Church and the state mean the same thing by “marriage.” But this is demonstrably not so once the state accepts same-sex unions as marriages. People who favor ending this particular church-state relationship say it adds to the confusion at a time when many Catholics already are confused about the meaning of marriage.
The present legal situation is the offshoot of a 2013 Supreme Court decision in a case called U.S. v. Windsor which overturned the key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act denying benefits of federal programs to same-sex couples.
At the time, the court said its action in Windsor shouldn’t be understood as calling into question the legitimacy of state bans on same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, a string of lower court decisions since then has taken the DOMA ruling as precedent for doing exactly that. Last October, the Supreme Court itself appeared to encourage that interpretation by refusing to accept several of these cases for review and thereby allowing the lower court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage to stand.
In November, however, a divided three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that this issue should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. The ruling applied to same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.
The Supreme Court agreed in January to consider four cases from these states. The Ohio case was listed first on the court’s order, and its name, Obergefell v. Hodges, is used collectively to cover all of them.
In accepting the cases, the court instructed the lawyers who would argue them to address two specific questions: first, whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional or the Constitution instead guarantees same-sex couples a right to marry; second, whether a state can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that took place in another state in which they are legal.
As expected, a large number of amicus curiae briefs have been submitted on both sides of the dispute, including one by the Obama administration arguing the case for same-sex marriage. During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama said he opposed legal recognition, but since then he has become an advocate of legalization.
When the Supreme Court accepted the Obergefell case and its companions in January, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement by Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco urging prayers that the court would uphold the right of states to “respect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Archbishop Cordileone, chairman of the bishops’ subcommittee for promotion and defense of marriage, called it “hard to imagine” how the traditional recognition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman could be declared illegal. Marriage understood this way is “a unique and beautiful reality which a society respects to its benefit or ignores to its peril,” he said.
In March, Archbishop Cordileone and two other USCCB chairmen wrote Congress endorsing pending legislation that would ensure the right of child welfare agencies acting for religious or moral reasons to place children for adoption or foster care only with married heterosexual couples. Such agencies have been excluded from making placements in Massachusetts, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia.
“Our first and most cherished freedom, religious liberty, is to be enjoyed by all Americans, including child welfare providers who serve the needs of children,” said Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami, chairman of the bishops’ domestic justice and human development committee, and Archbishop William E. Lori, chairman of the religious liberty committee.
The three archbishops supported the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2015. Their letter was addressed to the bill’s congressional sponsors, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming).
GraceG wrote:
“If they are trying to force NON-501-3c Business to cater gay weddings against their will, they will certainly try to force churches who get a 501-3c handout from the fed gov in terms of tax breaks to do what they tell them to do.”
maybe it is time enough, for the churches across America, each and every one separately, to hold a meeting of everybody in the congregation -both ‘members’ and attendees, and decide which they love MORE: “the lord their god”, or, “the financial benefits and community status of their IRS-granted 503-c”.
Watch how many of them fold once they make their decision, because of their predictable deathgrip on their 503-c status!
Thanks, Mrs. Don-o for the personal response. My heart breaks. What keeps me going is knowing that you are better and posting, lol!!!
A good and appropriate response. If you, court and political system, force me to do something by law, that is against my conscience, I will take what you pay/owe and contribute to charities that will uphold my beliefs/conscience. Of course I realize the battle then goes into the ‘tax exempt’ field.
[[No need to riot yet. States simply need to get ready to reject and nullify this unconstitutional federal act.]]
Not going to happen, states are too spineless and won’t want to lose their federal handouts
[ maybe it is time enough, for the churches across America, each and every one separately, to hold a meeting of everybody in the congregation -both ‘members’ and attendees, and decide which they love MORE: “the lord their god”, or, “the financial benefits and community status of their IRS-granted 503-c”.
Watch how many of them fold once they make their decision, because of their predictable deathgrip on their 503-c status! ]
That is an excellent Idea, right now there is a government strangle hold on the churches that the bastard LBJ placed upon them when he was a senator in the 50’s. It is time to unshackle the churches to help win the culture war.
[[No need to riot yet. States simply need to get ready to reject and nullify this unconstitutional federal act.]]
Not going to happen, states are too spineless and won’t want to lose their federal handouts
I gotta wonder, if a state can pass a pot legalization laws, can’t they pass a law saying that the fed gov use of 5013c is illegal in that state?
Besides aren’t drug laws “Stronger” that some piddly IRS regulation????
I have a better idea- whenever a gay couple comes in to demand a cake or catering for wedding, just close your business for vacation the week of the wedding
I pray you are right. Expect Texas to lead the way and I hope Tennessee is not far behind.
Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church
Tax Inquiries and Examinations of Churches
Congress has imposed special limitations, found in section 7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. The IRS may begin a church tax inquiry only if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes, on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing, that an organization claiming to be a church or convention or association of churches may not qualify for exemption, may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of IRC § 513), may otherwise be engaged in taxable activities or may have entered into an IRC § 4958 excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person.
It used to be Freedom of religion, then that was taken away. Then it was Separation of Church and State, now that’s going away. Next up with be the State operated and managed “Church” that only operates under the guidance and leadership of the State. The Bible will no longer be used in the Church, replaced with a court ordered theology that worships the State as “God”.
We’ll see. You may be right.
But if enough people of a state force it, it should happen even if it meant recalling and reelecting those who will represent them in the state, including governors who are notoriously worried about their precious federal funds. In the end it all comes down to the money.
People have to say ENOUGH!, screw the federal funds. If the state was smart, limited their government, and let the free market economy operate, it wouldn’t be long before that state would be more financially sound than the bankrupt feds.
In another era, these judges would have to lock their doors at night.
Can you also pass out pamphlets at their wedding stating that homosexuality is a sin? After all, it is your first amendment right — both speech and religion.
Let them sue you and find out there is no such status, waste their time. lol
Fairly interesting end run. Good thinking.
[[People have to say ENOUGH!, screw the federal funds.]]
Sadly that will never happen anymore- it was proved the last election nwhen they REelected him thinking he would give them all kinds of free stuff- a woman even declared she voted for him again to get her ‘some of dat obamamoney” and when asked where she thought the money would come from she got a rap eating grin on her face, shrugged her shoulders and declared “It’s Juss free, dats all”
We’ve slipped too far down the rabbit hole to get back out I’m afraid- States will NOT defy him o anything for fear of losing their federal dollars- and you can bet Indiana and Arkansas BOTH just recently caved due to threat of losing federal dollars
Place no hope, zero hope, that the Supreme Court will reject same sex "marriage."
It's a done deal. It will be 5-4, perhaps 6-3 with Judas Roberts voting with the evil vermin again.
We are living in the End Times, and there is no putting on the brakes at this point.
Evil is running amok and having a field day.
[[I gotta wonder, if a state can pass a pot legalization laws, can’t they pass a law saying that the fed gov use of 5013c is illegal in that state?]]
They can, but this admin supported legalizing drugs- it doesn’t support churches and WILL threaten them with loss of tax exempt status which will be enough to make many of them cave- and states simply keep caving time and time again- I had hopes Jan brewer would stand up to president but even she eneded up caving and taking money for the HC law- Indianna just caved, Arkansas just caved- I dunno- it’s pretty dismal
[[Besides aren’t drug laws “Stronger” that some piddly IRS regulation????]]
I dunno- people go to prison for tax evasion too-
Actually, my favorite thing to do would be to make the donation in THEIR name and if possible with their address. I would love to see their faces when the open a letter from one of those organizations that says, “Thanks for your wonderful contribution, with money like this we will be able to stop gay marriage in its tracks!”
Not donating in my own name would affect my ability to take a tax deduction, but some things are simply priceless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.