Posted on 04/30/2015 7:22:48 AM PDT by wagglebee
April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.
Back in 2005, long before the movement to legalize same-sex marriage had gained cultural momentum, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty held a forum on the question of gay marriage and religious freedom. The forum included major legal theorists on both sides of the marriage issue. What united most of the legal experts was the consensus that same-sex marriage would present a clear and present danger to the rights of those who would oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.
Marc D. Stern, then representing the American Jewish Congress, put the matter directly:
“The legalization of same-sex marriage would represent the triumph of an egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one, and not just legally. The remaining question is whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of a different ethical vision. I think the answer will be no.”
That was a prophetic statement, as we can now see. Stern continued:
“Within certain defined areas, opponents of gay rights will be unaffected by an embrace of same-sex marriage. But in others, the impact will be substantial. I am not optimistic that, under current law, much can be done to ameliorate the impact on religious dissenters.”
Keep that in mind as you consider the oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case that sets the stage for the legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states — and sets the stage for what may well be, in the United States, the greatest threat to religious liberty of our lifetime.
The first exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Antonin Scalia asked Mary L. Bonauto, lead counsel arguing for same-sex marriage, if clergy would be required to perform same-sex ceremonies. Bonauto insisted that declaring a constitutional right for gay marriage would not require clergy of any faith to perform same-sex ceremonies.
The second exchange was between Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Solicitor General Verrilli, also arguing for same-sex marriage. The Chief Justice asked: “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?”
The Solicitor General did not say no. Instead, he said that the federal government, at present, does not have a law banning discrimination in such matters on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As for the states, “that is going to depend on how the States work out the balance between their civil rights laws, whether they decide there’s going to be civil rights enforcement of discrimination based on sexual orientation or not, and how they decide what kinds of accommodations they are going to allow under State law.” He went on to say that “different states could strike different balances.”
Make no mistake. The Solicitor General of the United States just announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation, with whatever “accommodation” might be included in that law. Note also that the President he represented in court has called for the very legislation Verrilli said does not exist … for now.
Verrilli’s answer puts the nation’s religious institutions, including Christian colleges, schools, and seminaries, on notice. The Chief Justice asked the unavoidable question when he asked specifically about campus housing. If a school cannot define its housing policies on the basis of its religious beliefs, then it is denied the ability to operate on the basis of those beliefs. The “big three” issues for religious schools are the freedoms to maintain admission, hiring, and student services on the basis of religious conviction. By asking about student housing, the Chief Justice asked one of the most practical questions involved in student services. The same principles would apply to the admission of students and the hiring of faculty. All three are now directly threatened. The Solicitor General admitted that these liberties will be “accommodated” or not depending on how states define their laws. And the laws of the states would lose relevance the moment the federal government adopts its own law.
The third exchange on religious liberty came as Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage. That policy of Bob Jones University remains a moral blight to this day, even though the university has since rescinded the policy. Bob Jones University stood virtually alone in this unconscionable policy, but the Court’s decision in that lamentable case also set the stage for Justice Alito’s question — “would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”
Pay close attention to Solicitor General Verrilli’s response:
“You know, I — I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I — I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”
Verrilli’s pauses no doubt indicate that he understood the importance of what he was saying — “It’s going to be an issue.”
It will indeed be an issue, and now we have been told so by none other than the Solicitor General of the United States. The loss of tax-exempt status would put countless churches and religious institutions out of business, simply because the burden of property taxes and loss of charitable support would cripple their ability to sustain their mission.
The crippling effects of a loss of tax-exempt status was acknowledged at the Becket Fund event by Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School. “The debate over same-sex marriage,” he explained, “has become for the twenty-first century what the abortion debate was for the twentieth century: a single, defining issue that divides the country in a zero-sum political battle.”
Consider his words:
“Many organizations attract members with their commitment to certain fundamental matters of faith or morals, including a rejection of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. It is rather artificial to tell such groups that they can condemn homosexuality as long as they are willing to hire homosexuals as a part of that mission. It is equally disingenuous to suggest that denial of such things as tax exemption does not constitute a content-based punishment for religious views.”
Those words were spoken back in 2005. The words of Solicitor General Verrilli were spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the United States. You can draw a direct line across those years from Professor Turley’s acknowledgment and Mr. Verrilli’s confirmation of the threat — “It’s going to be an issue.”
As the Supreme Court considers the issue of same-sex marriage, and with cultural momentum building for same-sex marriage at warp speed, Marc Stern’s comments also demand our attention. He is undoubtedly right that the victory of same-sex marriage means the victory of an “egalitarian-based ethic over a faith-based one.”
The remaining question, he said then, “whether champions of tolerance are prepared to tolerate proponents of a different ethical vision.” Even then, he warned: “I think the answer will be no.”
We will soon find out just how tolerant those who preached tolerance for same-sex marriage will turn out to be, now that they are ascendant in the culture. Meanwhile, even as we were repeatedly told that warnings about threats to religious liberty were overblown, the truth came out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Take the Solicitor General at his word. “It’s going to be an issue.”
Reprinted with permission from Albert Mohler.
Obama intends to make religious liberty unaffordable.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
And that’s the point of this exercise.
And it’s not generic “religious” liberty the left intends to squelch, it’s Christianity. Muslims and PC “Christian” churches will be given a pass.
If the state can dictate religious doctrine,
how is that NOT a state religion?
RESIST!
[Obama intends to make religious liberty unaffordable.]
If Christians had looked to GOD instead of tax-exemptions, America would not be in this shape.
MALACHI 3:10
Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith Jehovah of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough [to receive it].
What gay muslim is going to walk into a mosque and say “marry me”? won’t happen because the guy likes his head attached to his shoulders.
This gay marriage stuff makes me so angry, what the anti Christian courts are doing, am so fed up.
Any Christian that claims they are not angry??? Yes angry and sad and weeping for the lost, but yes angry.
anger is allowed.
Black churches have a choice, follow God or follow Obama.
I had a libinlaw attempt to deny that it was hypocrisy to ignore the Muslim baker that refused to make a wedding cake while there was all the focus in Indiana on the Christian pizza place.
Something about the Muslims being a minority so they didn’t need to be addressed.
Most have already made that choice.
There will be even “Christian” churches that will be given a pass so long as they serve the greater purpose of advancement of the State.
It’s ALREADY an issue for bakers and wedding photographers.
Guess which one they pick, every single time...
Let the black churches lose their tax exempt status then. Perhaps it may change some minds.
Much like Henry VIII did to the Catholic Church in England over a hissy fit of not granting a divorce so he could trade her in on a younger model who he had subsequently beheaded on bogus charges so he could move on to wife #3.
Are we the generation that lost a Christian culture for our children and grand-children?
Yes, what everyone must remember is that a loss of tax exempt status means not only the organization pays taxes but the donors do not get a tax deduction. That is HUGE.
Hey “O”...Coercing citizens out of their Constitutional RIGHTS is always an ‘ISSUE’.
If you knew ANYTHING about history or about the US in particular... you’d KNOW that!
All Bible based churches will have that choice to make. Every true preacher of the Word is effected. They can stop marrying and burying people. That will be their only option left.
The 501C3 will be the down fall of even mega churches. It ties a preachers hands to PC bilge.
Most PC churches only preach Love, Peace, GIVE till it hurts. Been in quite a few of those.
We no longer see the preaching of Revelations and the End Times. We do see every thing is geared to the 30 and under. Nothing for Seniors. Those praise hymns are a hypnotic chant, not a true song of praise like the Old Rugged Cross, or Amazing Grace. Only thing wrong with the old songs is they need to be played at a faster tempo, add some C & W or Blue Grass sound and you made them new again. Those songs had real meaning.
Praise hymns don’t cut the mustard. Why should my old hurting back and joints try to stand a hr trying to sing what was meant to be spoken, not set to music. And if you aren’t preaching the FULL WORD, I don’t want to go to your church anyway.
Yep...Bible-believing Christian churches who don’t toe the party line will be targeted, subjugated, and destroyed, along with the good people who attend them. All the while, the Filthy Disease-Ridden Queers will stand over it all and laugh that they have “triumphed” over their mortal enemies, the Christian Church and their God.
Two things they don’t understand that they need to be aware of; Almighty God, who (unless they repent) will honor their decision to spend Eternity in unimaginable torment away from Him, and the man who has ‘nothing left to lose’.
With the exception of the mulims of course...
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.