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.
The real culprit in all of this is the 14th amendment, a constitutional change to account for the equality of former slaves in post-Civil War America, but given license to secularize America under the “due process and equal protection” scheme of that amendment.
Is it true muslims en masse were exempted from Obamacare? I read it here the other day.
I'm too confused to be angry.
Is not the Supreme Court of the United States the ultimate inerpreter of the Constitution?
And does not the first ammendment read; "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof.
What is unclear about that? Or are they being intentionally obtuse in order to placate a very vocal minority? Confusing.
If they simply read the document, the outcome of this current case can only go one way.
Many churches spend pretty much every dollar they take in. They have salaries for clergy and support staff, maintenance for the building and property, etc. Typically, money that is left over is used for missionary work whether overseas on within the community or both. Many might have a prudent reserve fund, but this will typically only carry them for a few months.
Keep in mind that it is not only taxes on income that the churches would pay, but property taxes. Many churches sit on what is extremely valuable land; it may have been cheap when the church was built decades ago, but it's prime real estate today.
If the churches are forced to pay taxes, something will have to be cut and these cuts will directly impact the members of the congregation.
Finally, there are the donations themselves. Obviously Christians are supposed to tithe graciously, but that doesn't mean that they don't take the tax deduction into account.
Basically, this would create a ripple effect that will really harm many churches. They will be faced with a huge increase in expenditures due to taxes and they will have a drop in revenue due to loss of deductions, it will cripple them.
” Keep in mind that it is not only taxes on income that the churches would pay, but property taxes. Many churches sit on what is extremely valuable land; it may have been cheap when the church was built decades ago, but it’s prime real estate today.
If the churches are forced to pay taxes, something will have to be cut and these cuts will directly impact the members of the congregation.
Finally, there are the donations themselves. Obviously Christians are supposed to tithe graciously, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t take the tax deduction into account.
Basically, this would create a ripple effect that will really harm many churches. They will be faced with a huge increase in expenditures due to taxes and they will have a drop in revenue due to loss of deductions, it will cripple them. “
Read every word of this carefully FReepers.
I posted yesterday that the left is drooling over the possibility of bankrupting most churches, either through new law, or phony sex discrimination litigation.
One more thing. Most small churches are supported by one or two well heeled members. If the tax deduction is eliminated, many of these benefactors will cut their donations by as much as half.
Agreed. 100% agreed.
What I’d like to see sometime is new songs that actually preach the Word instead of lyrics that can be replaced with the titles of soap operas without changing the meaning. But until that happens, if it ever does, the batch of hymns that we have are actually good and many of them have very catchy tunes. When played with joy, I find myself eagerly belting them out at the same intensity that I sing along with ‘secular’ music.
But unfortunately, many churches play them at the same tempo and the same excitement as musak. And no matter how much I try to focus on the fact that these songs are here to both worship God and to teach us, I find myself drifting off to sleep.
Would a religious school that has married housing hire a same-sex couple to begin with?
Great time to end all taxes but sales taxes. I’ve always thought property taxes were abusive. Some don’t own property so don’t pay. Worse, we have to pay over and over and over and over.
Pay when you buy something and that’s the end of it.
No, Caesar intends to substitute worship of Caesar for other forms of worship. In much the same way Caesar intends to substitute his family structure for the one that has traditionall evolved.
What Would Caligula Do?
like with healthcare, they will get an exemption...
Once the supreme court sanctions gay marriage it will therefore be a state sanctioned, state birthed religion.
Gay marriage will be state enforced religion.
GAY MARRIAGE IS STATE SANCTIONED RELIGION.
A person after my own heart...absolutely, it`s gotten to the point were I just can not take a black person seriously when they say they Love Jesus, or Jesus is the answer.
And I know this is horribly unfair of me because there are millions of WONDERFUL Black Christians in America that have left the plantation, and know that they can not under any circumstances vote for gay marriage or abortion or a liberal supreme court.
But this is what the Black liberal Church has done. + we know that roughly 90% of blacks vote liberal.
When I see a Black person on the 700 Club or somewhere giving their testimony, I have to google their name to make sure I can praise the Lord with them..famous people you can find this out about
TJ Jakes or whatever claims to be a Christian, but seems OK with the black liberal Church.
BTW ANYBODY THAT SAYS THEY ARE A “Christian Democrat” from any Christian denomination I feel the same about.
still...a vote for any Democrat/liberal is a vote for everything anti Christian under the sun,I believe you agree.
Bottom line: The Supreme Court appears poised to trash the Constitution and throw millenia of experience out the window just so perverts can feel good about themselves.
Way past time for civil disobedience.
If the feds force this abomination on the people of the United States of America. It will be interesting to see soon the fun begins!
The 501C status acts as a shield also. Lose that, and the State will move against you full force.
And sales tax. Don’t forget sales tax.
In re: “Is not the Supreme Court of the United States the ultimate inerpreter of the Constitution?”
The answer is: NO
We the People are the final arbiters of the Constitution. It is We whom empower the gov’t, whom give it power...to defend and protect the Rights of us all.
In much the same that Congress can tell the Courts to ‘back off’ on any topic; they have not that power nor authority.
Most Catholic churches have their own schools and if they would have to pay property taxes this could force them to close.
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.