Skip to comments.Exempt from Contempt?
Posted on 06/29/2015 8:12:52 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
There arent many instances when the New York Times agrees with Christian conservatives but the fallout over same-sex marriage is one. In yesterdays edition, the paper gives legs to the growing fear that the church and faith-based groups are in for a rocky ride if the Supreme Court redefines marriage in America. Like us, they take the threat of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli very seriously that the tax exemptions of religious schools, charities, colleges, and other nonprofits are almost certainly on the line with the Courts ruling.
If I were a conservative Christian, said law professor Eugene Volokh, (which I most certainly am not), I would be very reasonably fearful, not just as to tax exemptions but as to a wide range of other programs fearful that within a generation or so, my religious beliefs would be treated the same way as racist religious beliefs are. With surprising concern, the Times tackled a laundry list of threats to colleges, like married housing, dating, and spousal benefits policies highlighting the letter FRC sent to Congress from more than 70 religious schools, asking for a legislative shield from a post-marriage government.
Last week, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) offered such a shield in the form of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). Under his measure, the government would be barred from retaliating against individuals, organizations, and small business owners who believe in natural marriage. No person or nonprofit should lose tax exempt status, face disqualification, lose a professional license or be punished by the federal government simply for believing what President Obama believed just three years ago, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Whether its religious institutions competing for federal research grants or partnerships with development service providers like the Salvation Army, the federal government shouldnt push these organizations out of the public square simply because they believe in marriage between a man and a woman.
Tony Perkins heads the Family Research Council. This article is excerpted from the Washington Update that he compiles for the FRC.
Indiana’s religious law, which they changed, it looking better by the day....
I notice they only mention CHRISTIAN schools and churches and not any places involved with a certain ‘religion of peace’ that is actually killing gays.
No religious protection laws can withstand the Supreme Court of the United States.
When a minister signs the marriage license at the end of the ceremony, he has just acted as the agent of the State. Now we see the end goal of the State, to insinuate itself into how the Church defines marriage.
Indeed, when government was friendly to Christianity, it was easy for Christians to make the gross error of using the State to impose Christian teachings on the public in regards to marriage. But the affairs of Caesar never must be confused or commingled with the affairs of God. Now we see the end game, where Caesar wants to take over how God defines marriage.
But in truth, marriage is a covenant that is a private matter between the husband and the wife and God. No government can define it. Indeed, the First Amendment denies the US federal government any power to express an opinion about a matter of the free exercise of religion. People wanting to enter in to that covenant may call upon their church to inform them as to the conditions and details of that covenant, but government is not any part of that consultation.
It is time for churches and clergy to completely sever their relationship with the State and to refuse to be agents of the state.
Starting yesterday, I advised my own church to IMMEDIATELY cease signing marriage licenses. Further they must move as quickly as possible to redefine their marriage ceremony as an “ecclesiastical matter”, and even rename it to a more scriptural name, like Covenant Ceremony. When a young couple approaches a pastor to marry them he would instruct them that they should first get married in the eyes of the state, in a civil ceremony that is a matter solely between them and the State to complete. Only then would he perform the Covenant Ceremony in church.
The matter of whether or not the church can agree to perform a Covenant Ceremony for the couple is dependent upon them fully satisfying the ecclesiastical conditions.
We must realize that government has just declared itself hostile to the very culture and its religious values upon which the government was founded. This declaration has been a long time coming. It is not as if we couldn’t see the skyglow of it over the horizon for quite a few years. Look at how giddy the secular forces of society are that they have finally thrown of what they considered to be the most important influence of Christianity in society, the meaning of marriage itself. If we think that fixing the law or fixing the Court or fixing Congress will repair this, we are missing the broad cultural shift. We must fix the hearts and minds of many Americans. Only God can do that on the scale required.
SCOTUS and other hotbeds of Leftism have begun a war to eliminate Christian ethics from American law in particular and public life in general. This gay marriage decision is a bigger deal than most people realize. These are evil times when a cabal of leftist lawyers can redefine something as basic as marriage in order to force their own personal beliefs on an entire country. It’s a case of you may not be interested in culture war but culture war is interested in you.
Senator Lee introduces his First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) in time for its debate and the political dynamic it will manifest will be ripe for the voters to see how many of the (D) party speak against it. I don’t give it hope of being signed by this president. It will, however, be part of the backdrop for Congressional and Presidential campaigning.
Just as when the (D) party booed the mention of God during a vote during their last national convention, let the public outbursts begin! This is Jimmy Carter all over again, especially if we get (R) candidates with any spine.
“Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under sexual orientation. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.
The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.”
"But in truth, marriage is a covenant that is a private matter between the husband and the wife and God."....How very true.
The process is the punishment, the very definition of “lawfare.”
The New York Times hates conservatives. They hate Christians. They hate traditional Americans. I have no clue why I would care what they think...
The New York Times is managed by homosexual.
Holy Matrimony is a rite of the church. The only preconditions are between the celebrants and their priest. There must be no requirement to satisfy government conditions before entering into Holy Matrimony.
You and who else?
This, I believe, would be a significant step in taking back the narrative on religious unions. Let the state define the legal framework for marriage and let the churches establish a covenant between a man and a woman according to their beliefs.
Well said by you. I only hope that all churches take this to heart.
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.