Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case

Newsbusters ^ | 06/28/2015 | By Tom Blumer

[SeekAndFind]

Add the following to the "you will be made to care" stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.

Those who think that legalizing same-sex "marriage" won't affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn't get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because doing so would give away the Obama administration's, and the left's, ultimate game plan.

The exception was at the Washington Post, via Sarah Pulliam Bailey at the paper's Acts of Faith blog. Even then, Get Religion's Terry Mattingly reports that Bailey's work didn't make the "ink on paper" edition.

Here's Bailey's coverage of what was arguably the most important question of the day:

Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?

uring oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Here is an exchange between Alito and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration.

Justice Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a 10 university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

General Verrilli: You know, ­­I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is­­ it is going to be an issue.

... Justice Antonin Scalia asked attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who is representing gay couples in the case, whether it is it conceivable that a minister could decline to marry two men if indeed the Supreme Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry.

“No clergy is forced to marry any couple that they don’t want to marry,” Bonauto said. “We have those protections.”

The first point is that the Obama administration's lawyer has admitted that if the "right" to same-sex "marriage" is deemed to be in the Constitution, any institution whose religious belief flouts the Constitution as interpreted will see their tax-exempt status placed in jeopardy, subject to loss at the hands of anyone who chooses to litigate the matter.

The tax-exempt status of dissenting churches won't be an "issue" for long. The tax-exempt status of churches which stick with their traditional beliefs on marriage in the wake of such a ruling won't be an "issue" for the left. Instead, their elimination will become a goal.

[Lazamataz]

This is right along the Soviet Union’s playbook.

Make the churches go underground, then assault them (with military force) when you discover them.

[Secret Agent Man]

Remember how gay marriage wasn’t negatively going to affect normal people? Even when we didn’t believe them? /s

[Oldexpat]

I expect the first gay couple to be turned away by a pastor/church will be filing a complaint by the end of this week. It will then take a few years to make it to the Supreme Court. The left just can’t afford for this issue to remain dormant. They need it to get votes.

[Alberta's Child]

I've thought about this a lot, and I've reached the conclusion that the only "religious organizations" who are likely to be affected by anything of this sort are those that are half-@ssed to begin with. Catholic Charities and Notre Dame University, for example, are no more religious than Habitat for Humanity ... so there's no reason for them to think they should be treated any differently.

Personally, I think what most people are going to find so disturbing about the ramifications of this "gay marriage" court decision is how quickly most religious organizations are going to capitulate in the face of no pressure at all and toe the political/cultural line on this issue.

[Alberta's Child]

There's a good reason why the Federal government would be very reluctant to strip religious organizations of their tax-exempt status: If a church loses its tax-exempt status then it can work freely in elections and openly support political candidates.

The end result would be the exact opposite of "silencing" them, wouldn't it?

[DFG]

A taxpayer cannot put a charitable contribution to an organization that is not tax exempt on Schedule A.

[TigersEye]

And when they go “for profit” expect a gay focused ‘jiza tax’/’sin tax’ to be levied on these independent churches.

The fact that they will pay any taxes at all just to speak their minds freely will be a FedMob version of a jizya tax.

[LouAvul]

migth be a strong push toward some sort of Fair Tax

And who would do that? Christians? How many Christians are there in America? The Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Lutherans, Joel Olsteens community "church." They've gone in support of homos. What kind of strength do you anticipate from the remaining "Christians?"

[ClearCase_guy]

The question is: is there wide enough interest in the USA to replace our current tax code with a Fair Tax?

I have no idea what the answer to that question is. Various people have pushed for it for a long time. Under Obama, I think we have seen a variety of reasons why the IRS-centric tax system may be ripe for replacement.

In no way would I propose that the Fair Tax is an exclusively Christian issue. Many Christians are likely to oppose it. But perhaps some Christians will join the many other segments of society who have come to believe that a Fair Tax is a better way to raise revenue.

I say: the more the merrier.

[a fool in paradise]

Personally I wish the churches would just volunteer to go tax exempt. That exemption has stifled their voice in far too many way’s.

Blame the Klan (anti-Catholic Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, D-KKK).

The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse

By Daniel L. Dreisbach

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SeekAndFind.

[Mouton]

Yes that is correct. I am simply pointing out how any church could easily move around any potential problem.

[Talisker]

If the separation of Church and State is absolute, as the LibProgs claim, then on what basis can the State tax the Church?

It can't, unless the Church incorporates.

That's why dis-incorporation is the answer here. Churches ALL need to dis-incorporate to free themselves from the gay marriage ruling.

Then, when the government attacks, they ALL need to join together - THOUSANDS of churches - in a defense based on the statutory limits of corporate tax liability as defined in the IRC and pointed out, and even encouraged, by... whom? JOHN ROBERTS, that's who, three years ago.

THAT is how you fight back - you WIN. And that is also what Roberts is trying to Americans to do to save the country from tyranny.

[keats5]

Romans 1
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[keats5]

If that happens, we will have officially sanctioned churches which kowtow to the Feds, and the real church will go underground, as it has in China.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

...only in the huge churches.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

If the separation of Church and State is absolute, as the LibProgs claim, then on what basis can the State tax the Church?

---

...and your authority for this is the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court? Better check your gun, those bullets don't work anymore...THAT is what was made clear this week.

[eekitsagreek]

Where is the outrage from the black church over gay marriage?

[V K Lee]

Excuse the rancor of the comment, but it seems that Republicans are the ones who gave us many of the communists on THIS court? Why would they wish to make changes? They enjoy the benefits these ‘esteemed men’ give them.

[V K Lee]

Excuse the rancor of the comment, but it seems that Republicans are the ones who gave us many of the communists on THIS court? Why would they wish to make changes? They enjoy the benefits these ‘esteemed men’ give them.