question about gay marriage

[chabibi]

Would a church or other place of worship have the legal right to refuse same sex marriages in the church, assuming both parties are members of the congregation already. If so what about black couples, asian couples etc...?

Morally I support gay marriage but im confused about the legal repercussions

[CORed]

No church is required to perform any marriage ceremony that it doen't choose to perform. If gay marriage is legal, gay couples will find churches that will sanction their marriages, or have civil ceremonies.

[zaxx19]

The state can barely coerce the Catholic Church to protect young citizens...much less marry gays.

[MelchyBeau]

If I remember correctly, when one wants to get married in the catholic church, they must meet with the priest. The priest decides if this is legitimate, blah blah blah. The priest then can refuse to marry the couple. However they can still be married under the eyes of the law.

I believe that a church should have the right to refuse marriage to anyone they want to. It is a private organization. The government must recognize these marriages. Thus the peoples rights are protected.

If I remember correctly an organization has the right to deny membership to anyone. There was a university that forbid interacial dating. They changed the policy, but I don't believe it was due to legal action. Certain states have laws that would force the organization to accept a specific member. This is a big mess right here.

I would believe the church that instituted this policy should be more worried about the community than the government.

congratulations, you just reopened a can of worms
Melch

[cardcounter0]

You questions shows complete ignorance between what a Church is and what the legal definition of Marriage is.

So are you suggesting that a Baptist Church should be legally forced to "marry" two Jews?

Obviously, a Church can and does discriminate on any basis that they choose, when it comes to marriage.

And legally, there is a thing called "marriage" that has a completely different basis.

So one can get a marriage license, and go to a Justice of the Peace and get married in the middle of a Pool Hall, and legally they are "married", without any Church or religion being involved or recognizing the marriage.

Likewise, one could get married and have their marriage blessed by the Pope, and approved by the Dali Lama, but without the proper legal marriage certificate, legally the "marriage" doesn't mean squat.

[ACPlayer]

If I remember correctly an organization has the right to deny membership to anyone

My understanding is that a PRIVATE organization can deny membership to anyone. If it gets any federal or govt money then it cannot discriminate. Most universities feed on the federal trough so they cannot discriminate by law.

Churches are pseudo private in that they get support from the govt in the form of tax breaks (including property taxes and corp income taxes and tax breaks given to the congregation in the form of deductions for charitable contributions). I would like to see all these tax breaks removed as they serve no economic purpose and are a form of govt intervention in religion (which should be between a person and his god). But these days we are seeing even more govt involvement in Religion as put forth by the Bush admin.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly an organization has the right to deny membership to anyone

My understanding is that a PRIVATE organization can deny membership to anyone. If it gets any federal or govt money then it cannot discriminate. Most universities feed on the federal trough so they cannot discriminate by law.

Churches are pseudo private in that they get support from the govt in the form of tax breaks (including property taxes and corp income taxes and tax breaks given to the congregation in the form of deductions for charitable contributions). I would like to see all these tax breaks removed as they serve no economic purpose and are a form of govt intervention in religion (which should be between a person and his god). But these days we are seeing even more govt involvement in Religion as put forth by the Bush admin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tax breaks for churches are a recognition of the social utility of those institutions in society. Also are you in favor of removing tax breaks for charitable contributions, not just those that are given through churches?

[ACPlayer]

Tax breaks, if at all, should have an economic function and not a social function. The only objective most tax break actually meet is helping with fund raising for the govt officials' elections.

IMO.

[vulturesrow]

Many taxes and tax breaks have a social utility to them. And I can safely say that any tax breaks I have received havent helped with the fundraising of elected officials.

[ACPlayer]

It is the guys who get the tax breaks inserted into the already voluminous code that provide the funding -- not you directly. But perhaps this should be a separate thread.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax breaks, if at all, should have an economic function and not a social function.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tax breaks to non-profits have an economic function.

Good citizenship (not commiting crimes, helping the less fortunate, etc.) is generally promoted by churches. It is a lot cheaper to have churches promote these values than for the government to do so.

Look at the school programs the government forces on students - terrible failures and a waste of money.

Church charities to the poor are more effective than government programs as well. People volunteer their time (which you couldn't tax anyway) and there is so much less waste from bureaucracy.

Social functions have an economic function. How much money we spend on our criminal justice system should tell you that any help we can get from churches to encourage people not to commit crimes will save us a ton of government spending in the alternative.

The charitable deduction is one of the best economic functions contained in the tax code.

[Daithi]

The Catholic Church wouldn't have to perform the marriage.

I wanted to marry an ex-prostitute and when I consulted with my priest he was 100% against it, and flat-out said he wouldn't perform the ceremony. So I asked him about Jesus forgiving Mary Magdelaine. It was at this point the priest said "Oh, you said prostitute. I thought you protestant. Of course I'll marry you."

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Churches are pseudo private in that they get support from the govt in the form of tax breaks (including property taxes and corp income taxes and tax breaks given to the congregation in the form of deductions for charitable contributions).

[/ QUOTE ]

Tax breaks and direct government support are not the same thing. Me deciding not to steal from you (a tax break) is not the same as me stealing from someone else and sending you the spoils (govt. assistance).

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see all these tax breaks removed as they serve no economic purpose...

[/ QUOTE ]

Allowing money donated for charitable work to actually be used for charitable work does indeed serve an economic purpose. Helping the poor and downtrodden get back on their feet is a very important function of charities within our economy. Beyond that, ALL tax cuts serve an economic purpose because they keep more money actually in the economy.

[ QUOTE ]
...and are a form of govt intervention in religion (which should be between a person and his god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the taxing of church contributions even more of an intervention in religion? If I were to donate my (already taxed) money to be used for religious purposes, and that money was instead seized by government, that would not only be intervention, it would be interference. I'd even venture to call it a case of the government restricting the free exercise of my religion and thus a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

[ QUOTE ]
But these days we are seeing even more govt involvement in Religion as put forth by the Bush admin.

[/ QUOTE ]

And just where specifically would that involvement be?

[zaxx19]

Tax breaks, if at all, should have an economic function and not a social function. The only objective most tax break actually meet is helping with fund raising for the govt officials' elections.


WHAT THE HELL IS THIS NONSENSE?? HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE PAY FOR EDUCATION??

[lastchance]

Education allows people to get into more skilled, and therefore higher-paying jobs. Higher paying jobs increase the wealth (economic situation) of the country of the people who get higher-paying jobs.

But I agree, tax breaks shouldn't be all about economics. (though there's something wrong with the system we have right now)

[ACPlayer]

Using the tax code or federal dollars for social engineering is most generally a bad idea. Social engineering is best left to local communities to tailor programs that fit local needs.

The exact same social engineering arguments are used for midnoght basket ball programs, medicare/medicaid and even social security programs and other liberal ideals.

Government support of religious institutions is a bad idea as it starts us down the path of religion and politics mixing together.
Look at the school programs the government forces on students - terrible failures and a waste of money.

I certainly would agree that the schools system needs help and should not be funded out of local tax revenues. If the parents pay tution out of pocket they are far more likely to be involved in the childs education than when they think that this is a societal entitlement.

How much money we spend on our criminal justice system should tell you that any help we can get from churches to encourage people not to commit crimes will save us a ton of government spending in the alternative.

What are you smoking? The people who are going to church regularly are not the ones committing the crimes.

[ACPlayer]

Tax breaks and direct government support are not the same thing

They are very similar. They are both a transfer of money from the government to a citizen for a decision the citizen makes. You decide to give $100 to the Tsunami relief and in return the rest of the citizens give you $30 in tax relief. It would be far more economically efficient if you just gave $70.

Allowing money donated for charitable work to actually be used for charitable work does indeed serve an economic purpose. Helping the poor and downtrodden get back on their feet is a very important function of charities within our economy

I am not arguing against donations. I am arguing against the US tax code providing a tax break for the same. See the earlier example.

Isn't the taxing of church contributions even more of an intervention in religion? If I were to donate my (already taxed) money to be used for religious purposes, and that money was instead seized by government, that would not only be intervention, it would be interference. I'd even venture to call it a case of the government restricting the free exercise of my religion and thus a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

I am strongly in favor of limited taxation and true tax cuts not tax breaks for social engineering. Perhaps I dont see the point of your paragraph here.

And just where specifically would that involvement be?

I am specifically referring to the faith based initiatives.

[ACPlayer]

wtf are you shouting about this time?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The exact same social engineering arguments are used for midnoght basket ball programs...and other liberal ideals

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistics that I've seen suggest that midnight basketball works. We woudln't want the government spending money on programs that both decrease crime and increase community relations...that would be a horrible liberal idea.

[zaxx19]

Education allows people to get into more skilled, and therefore higher-paying jobs. Higher paying jobs increase the wealth (economic situation) of the country of the people who get higher-paying jobs.


Thanks for proving social conditions affect the economy and vice versa...Im glad you agree with me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
Beyond that, ALL tax cuts serve an economic purpose because they keep more money actually in the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey doofus, when money is taken in the form of taxes it remains in the economy. In fact, it is simple to construct a thought experiment showing how higher taxes would improve the economy. Suppose the consumer rate of saving were much higher than it is now (it is now negative I believe)--say people literally socked away 20% of their after tax income. Money in a sock or under a mattress truly IS money out of the economy, and terrible damage would ensue. The government in this situation could raise taxes to increase the money circulation in the economy, somewhat ameliorating the effects of a ridiculously high rate of saving.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey doofus, when money is taken in the form of taxes it remains in the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

First the name calling really bolsters your argument. Second, just because money taken in taxes eventually makes its way back into the economy doesn't mean it wasn't ever taken out. Taxes reduce an individual's spending power, thus making the work he does worth less. This means it costs that individual more in time and effort to afford the things he would have been able to afford if not taxed. When individuals receive less spending power for their labor, it has the same effect as inflation -- IT HURTS THE ECONOMY.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it is simple to construct a thought experiment showing how higher taxes would improve the economy. Suppose the consumer rate of saving were much higher than it is now (it is now negative I believe)--say people literally socked away 20% of their after tax income. Money in a sock or under a mattress truly IS money out of the economy, and terrible damage would ensue. The government in this situation could raise taxes to increase the money circulation in the economy, somewhat ameliorating the effects of a ridiculously high rate of saving.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the exception of crooks and drug dealers, nobody in their right mind socks away thier money under a mattress. You're living in the 30s. We have these nifty, federally insured institutions now called banks. Maybe you've heard of them. When people save their money with a bank, the bank puts that money back into circulation with loans that people use to buy homes, start businesses, and GROW THE ECONOMY. The idea of using a tax increase to discourage saving and somehow magically increase circulation (which it won't) is absurd.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
They are very similar. They are both a transfer of money from the government to a citizen for a decision the citizen makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in the case of a tax break, that money belonged to the citizen to start with. He's not being given anything. That citizen could have decided not to earn that money the money in the first place, and the government would then have nothing to confiscate.

[ QUOTE ]
You decide to give $100 to the Tsunami relief and in return the rest of the citizens give you $30 in tax relief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, they're not giving anything.

[ QUOTE ]

It would be far more economically efficient if you just gave $70.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the tsunami victims it wouldn't be.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the taxing of church contributions even more of an intervention in religion? If I were to donate my (already taxed) money to be used for religious purposes, and that money was instead seized by government, that would not only be intervention, it would be interference. I'd even venture to call it a case of the government restricting the free exercise of my religion and thus a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am strongly in favor of limited taxation and true tax cuts not tax breaks for social engineering. Perhaps I dont see the point of your paragraph here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You argued that tax breaks are a government intervention in religion. I argued that imposing a tax on churches was an even greater intervention and a violation of the 1st Amenendment.

[ QUOTE ]
I am specifically referring to the faith based initiatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh you mean those moronic campaign promises Bush made to rally the religious right into voting for him? I (thankfully) don't recall any of those being passed.

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly an organization has the right to deny membership to anyone

Tax breaks for churches are a recognition of the social utility of those institutions in society. Also are you in favor of removing tax breaks for charitable contributions, not just those that are given through churches?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most charities do not try to influence law making like the churches do. If they want a say in government they should pay taxes like the rest of us....Abortion and gay marriage are two top examples. My question is this....If marriage is so sacred why is the divorce rate so high? What about all the reality shows that exploit marriage for ratings? Why we are even discussing these issues is far too silly and pointless....

[zaxx19]

Most charities do not try to influence law making like the churches do.

Ya like the NAACP, Amnesty International, National Breasat Cancer Council(or whatever its called).......

[Cpt Spaulding]

I said MOST CHARITIES......There are many out there that attempt to influence law making and they should also pay taxes as well....

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
Tax breaks for churches are a recognition of the social utility of those institutions in society. Also are you in favor of removing tax breaks for charitable contributions, not just those that are given through churches?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is more than tax breaks. A lot of religious organizations get federal funding.

[ACPlayer]

You are not thinking this through.

If I donate money to a cause then the rest of you are paying me to make that donation in the form of taxes collected from everyone. I donate $100 and get $30 back from you and your friends. That is called redistribution of wealth.

The money that is being paid to you to make the donation should never have been collected and should not be redistributed to the ones who are making the donation. This process is inefficent. You then make decisions on how much to donate based on economic criteria.


To the tsunami victims it wouldn't be.
In the long run it would not make a difference as you will have the $100 to give to the victims as you will not be paying for my donations.

I argued that imposing a tax on churches was an even greater intervention and a violation of the 1st Amenendment.

Why? No one is stopping them from saying what the want. In fact they are not dependent on govt largesse (in the form of tax breaks) and so are actually more not less independent.

Oh you mean those moronic campaign promises Bush made

.. on faith based initiatives. Isuggest you read the interview here with Bush (you will need to scroll down to see the stuff on faith):
Interview of Bush with Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050111-114349-9789r.htm)

Your money is being spent on faith based inititiaves through the office of the director of the Office of Faith Based and Community initiatives directed by Towey. Just one quote here (read the rest please)

[ QUOTE ]
But the key thing is, is that we do have the capacity to allow faith programs to access enormous sums of social service money, which I think is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

These have not been subjected to congressional scrutiny as this was done by exec order.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
If I donate money to a cause then the rest of you are paying me to make that donation in the form of taxes collected from everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is paying you? Who signs that check? That $30 is $30 less that YOU pay. Nobody is giving you anything.

[ QUOTE ]
I donate $100 and get $30 back from you and your friends. That is called redistribution of wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The government taking $30 FROM you and giving it TO me is redistribution of wealth. If YOU earned the wealth, then letting YOU keep it is not a redistribution.

[ QUOTE ]
In the long run it would not make a difference as you will have the $100 to give to the victims as you will not be paying for my donations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not paying for your donations, but that's beside the point. You said that it would be far more economically efficient if I just gave $70 to tsunami victims and I'm assuming paid the other $30 in taxes. If I have $100, how does it benefit the victims if I can't donate ALL of that money? How are they better off with the US government (or some welfare queen) being $30 richer?

[ QUOTE ]
Why? No one is stopping them from saying what the want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter. The suppreme court ruled several years ago that money donations are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Taxing that money infringes on that right.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact they are not dependent on govt largesse (in the form of tax breaks) and so are actually more not less independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I'm a burglar. About once a year I break into every house on your block and steal $30. I do this for years. One year I decide to only steal $20 from you and your neighbors. By taking less did I GIVE you anything?

Tax breaks are not a handout because the money did not belong to the government to start with. For most of our country's existence (1776-1913) there was no tax on income. For all those years, nobody in their right mind woud look at their wages and say, gee, I'm glad the government GIVES me all this money. Why not? Because it wasn't given by anyone. It was earned.

[ QUOTE ]
Your money is being spent on faith based inititiaves through the office of the director of the Office of Faith Based and Community initiatives directed by Towey.

These have not been subjected to congressional scrutiny as this was done by exec order.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected. I agree that faith based iniatives are absolutely wrong. They are a government endorsement of religion, and the last thing we need are churches who look to the government for their funding (nor do we need a government who looks to churches for funding). I'd love to see the courts slap Bush's hand for that crap.

Federal funding of churches is not, however, the same thing as letting churches keep the money donated to them by private individuals.

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Churches are pseudo private in that they get support from the govt in the form of tax breaks (including property taxes and corp income taxes and tax breaks given to the congregation in the form of deductions for charitable contributions).

[/ QUOTE ]

Tax breaks and direct government support are not the same thing. Me deciding not to steal from you (a tax break) is not the same as me stealing from someone else and sending you the spoils (govt. assistance).

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see all these tax breaks removed as they serve no economic purpose...

[/ QUOTE ]

Allowing money donated for charitable work to actually be used for charitable work does indeed serve an economic purpose. Helping the poor and downtrodden get back on their feet is a very important function of charities within our economy. Beyond that, ALL tax cuts serve an economic purpose because they keep more money actually in the economy.

[ QUOTE ]
...and are a form of govt intervention in religion (which should be between a person and his god).

[/ QUOTE ]

Churches shouldn't be portrayed as a charitable organisation. It is a business with a product to sell. That product is piece of mind for those who choose to but into it. Occasionally you hear about a church helping out of few of it's members, or sending food and propaganda to non christian countries in order to convert them. The Red Cross, The Humane Society, Goodwill....Now those are charities.

Isn't the taxing of church contributions even more of an intervention in religion? If I were to donate my (already taxed) money to be used for religious purposes, and that money was instead seized by government, that would not only be intervention, it would be interference. I'd even venture to call it a case of the government restricting the free exercise of my religion and thus a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

[ QUOTE ]
But these days we are seeing even more govt involvement in Religion as put forth by the Bush admin.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are spinning what the separation of church and state means.It means there will be no state sanctioned religion. Has nothing to do with taxing or supporting it.





[/ QUOTE ] And just where specifically would that involvement be?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about Gay Marriage? Stem cell research??? Abortion???? All of these issues are defended with the bible. They hold up the bible when it suits them, but when it isn't inline with their views they change it delete it or just ignore it. This hypocracy is not something we should have in government.

[ACPlayer]

Who signs that check?

The treasury. Just because you dont receive an actual check (which of course they could also do -- here is the check for your 2004 charitable donations) does not mean that your treasury is not paying $30 to you.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
How about Gay Marriage? Stem cell research??? Abortion???? All of these issues are defended with the bible. They hold up the bible when it suits them, but when it isn't inline with their views they change it delete it or just ignore it. This hypocracy is not something we should have in government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I support gay marriage. I support stem cell research (although I don't support government funding of it or any other kind of research). Abortion is constitutionally a states' rights issue, and the Bible is not the source from which our laws are based.

That being said, taxing religious donations is still an infringement on the free excercise of religion.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you dont receive an actual check (which of course they could also do -- here is the check for your 2004 charitable donations) does not mean that your treasury is not paying $30 to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your view is obviously that when I earn $100, $30 of it actually belongs to the government and allowing me to keep it would ammount their giving it to me. Does that also mean that if I choose not to earn that $100 I am depriving the treasury of their $30? Should it be my civic duty to earn $100 so some entitlement program won't be deprived of its $30 tax? Who exactly owns the income I produce?