I think it's a transformational moment. There are a lot of upset people who believe in traditional marriage. They're disappointed, they're down right now. But, the court has ruled, so here's where I stand. If I'm president of the United States, here's what would happen. If you have a church, a mosque, or a synagogue, and you're following your faith, and you refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, because it's outside the tenets of your faith. In my presidency you will not lose your tax-exempt status. If you're a gay person or a gay couple, if I'm president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also.I thought that was very well put. It suggests one very specific question that ought to be asked of all presidential candidates, from both parties: Will you pledge that religious organizations that refuse to perform same-sex marriages will not lose their tax-exempt status?
And it suggests a second question could be put a few different ways. I'll put it like this: Who do you think should prevail if there is a conflict between the interests of gay people — as they engage in commerce and seek full membership in society — and the interests of religious people — as they try to frame their conduct to accord with the tenets of their religion?
पोस्ट्स
१४० टिप्पण्या:
We know what presumably the current occupant thinks about question 1, if he could get away with it. His Solicitor General implied it in Orals and CJ Roberts wrote it in his dissent:
Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.
I would argue that Congress and the Courts may have a say, perhaps a bigger one than he does, in what President Graham wants to do.
Obama has been successful in changing the makeup of the federal judiciary. Elections have consequences, as the saying goes. Sometimes consequences long after the President has moved on (as Eisenhower saw and Ronald Reagan would have found out).
More weak sauce. Will an organization of devout Catholic laymen who run a meeting hall (say, KOC), be forced to rent out the Hall for gay marriages?
1st Amendment trumps.
So his Justice dept won't go after the churches, presumably. But that doesn't stop private parties from bringing actions challenging their tax exempt status.
1st Amendment trumps.
You and you guys with this out-dated Aztec talk.
If you poll college students, 80% will be for churches losing tax-exempt status for not marrying gay couples.
As I observed once before about white men, when American Christians are able to frame themselves as an "oppressed minority" they will become absolutely ferocious players of the identity politics game. They're relatively passive now but don't expect that to last. Unintended consequences, indeed.
THat is very well put. At this point I'm worried about the tax exempt status moreso than gays marrying. If they allow the bakers to not make the cakes and the religious orgs get hands off, then live and let live. Is that how its going to happen though?
Of course not. The Church WILL lose its tax exempt status or kneel. The left is not going to back off one iota. What is the next fight? End discrimination? Where? All these religious folks wont do these things we ask. Govt needs to be sicced on them.
and laws around 1st amendment will need to be changed lest you even criticize gay marriage let alone courts. That is HATE SPEECH.
That's where its heading. Thanks ALthouse.
Who do you think should prevail if there is a conflict between the interests of gay people — as they engage in commerce and seek full membership in society — and the interests of religious people — as they try to frame their conduct to accord with the tenets of their religion?
I assume this is intended as a trick question? The correct answer is that freedom should prevail. If both parties wish to engage in commerce, and can come to mutually agreeable terms, then they should engage in commerce. If either does not wish to engage in commerce, or does not like the terms the other is demanding, they can decline.
I certainly don't think that a gay baker should be required to decorate a cake with God hates fags just because a christian wants him to.
Free exercise of religion is explicitly listed in the Constitution. Steve and Bruce being married is not.
Shame the ACLU has decided to eliminate their name and refuse to defend that civil right.
Yeah, let's listen to more Presidential Candidates who have no chance of hell of getting near to the Presidency.
That's interesting, that Prof. Althouse's allies are already thinking about revoking tax-exempt status of churches that do not perform gay marriages. (We know what they think of businesses that refuse to cater to gay weddings.)
I thought that was very well put. It suggests one very specific question that ought to be asked of all presidential candidates, from both parties: Will you pledge that religious organizations that refuse to perform same-sex marriages will not lose their tax-exempt status?
Why? As Obama and Hillary have shown us, they'll just "evolve" if they sense a political gain.
This is how it should have gone, and should still. Gay marriage and marriage should not be lumped into one word called marriage. Then, if a baker says he only does traditional marriages, he should not be sued on the technicality that he says he makes wedding cakes gay weddings are now weddings.
This whole mess is because liberals in their zeal to effect change applied a sledgehammer where a scalpel was needed. Simply allow religious people to say they will only do cakes for religious marriages. THe same way we are not shocked when a rabbi only performs a jewish wedding.
Religious folks are different from secular folks. They wont see eye to eye on fundamental things. It doesn't mean they hate you. But they will if you sicc govt on them and close their shop because they don't suddenly want to deny thousands of years of tradition but have a business, and have to choose between the two.
JUst allow for religious exemptions for services resolving around gay weddings. If the person refuses, they need to offer another person that will.
OR, such bakers need to organize their business around the cuhruch in some way where they make no cakes unless you are going to one of the churches that they are aligned with to have your wedding. Guaranteeing that it is a traditional wedding.
Or simply allow people to distinguish gay wedding cakes from traditional wedding cakes from polygamy wedding cakes. And let the baker choose which ones they want done.
"Shame the ACLU has decided to eliminate their name and refuse to defend that civil right."
Not so much a shame as a laughably short-sighted bit of triumphalism. That's something both sides of the American ideological divide have always been prone to and I can't think of too many instances where it didn't end up making a hash of their victories.
"1st Amendment trumps."
"Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination."
The First Amendment will prevent the government from requiring churches to perform ssm services, but the problem that deserves attention is the tax exemption. Graham went straight for that, and I thought that was smart.
Removal of tax status will fail. Not for legal but for political reasons. There will be a point when the Christian churches will not turn the other cheek and that will be the money point,
The activist left will be relentless with the private sector, however, and will succeed in compelling bakers, photographers, wedding planners, the lot, to toe the line. I predict a backlash at some point.
ALso, Christians need to start being more provocative and acting like ideologues. Start going to liberal establishments and ask them to make things for them that violate their conscience. And bring a camera. Lets hash this all out and see who has rights and who doesn't, and which protected class is more protected.
Go to every SF bakery and ask them to do a cake that a gay person might find offenseive (though don't make it so offensive that they call it hate speech), and film EVERY one. Everyone that doesn't acquiesce SUE because religions are a protected class, and they are denying you because of religion.
Althouse wrote:
The First Amendment will prevent the government from requiring churches to perform ssm services, but the problem that deserves attention is the tax exemption. Graham went straight for that, and I thought that was smart.
all the liberal judges ignored that when it was brought up by Alito, which I thought was deliberate.
And if someone wants a black baker to decorate a cake with a Confederate flag?
"The activist left will be relentless with the private sector, however, and will succeed in compelling bakers, photographers, wedding planners, the lot, to toe the line. I predict a backlash at some point."
Again, make the business part of the church. Each baker is part of a network of churches that all perform only traditional weddings. If you want a cake from him/her you first have to register at that church. If you are not marrying traditionally you can't. So therefore they don't have to bake a cake or do your wedding.
It shouldn't be that hard to restructure busineses.
THe other way they can get around this is to start lying. Instead of saying they can't do it because they are opposed to it, just say they are busy.
My guess is that this will be worked out piecemeal, over time. Kennedy's opinion doesn't give the courts much direction, does it?
But that statement by the ACLU that they no longer support RFRA when it comes to "discrimination" is interesting. I can see them trying to test the tax exempt status.
Everything's up in the air.
There can be no legit basis to allow a discriminatory church which does not perform same sex marriage to be given a tex benefit now that scotus says that same sex marriage is a constitutional right. And how would it make sense to provide tax exemption to an orginazation which denies a fundamental liberty to a protected class?
It is not just a question of the federal tax exemption. Every state exempts churches from paying property tax. I imagine that will likely change in some states for religions that don't perform SSM. It will certainly be an ongoing battle ...
"And if someone wants a black baker to decorate a cake with a Confederate flag?"
I had this argument on twitter. THey will move the goal posts. Either you will have to, or they will say PA don't include groups or speech. (Though why making a cake or taking a photograph isnt' speech I don't know).
I also brought up the baking a cake for your son, adolf hitler,and its ok to deny that because people names aren't protected groups. Well what if he was also a protected group? Move the goal post.
I asked if it was ok for a baker to deny the daughters of the confederacy a confederate flag cake, and they countered that its a political group, nad groups aren't covered.
Then I pointed out the case where the company was told to bake cookies for a gay rights group (political) and refused and was charged with discrimination.
I forget the excuse they came up with, but it doesn't matter. It's going to be move the goal post, move the goal post, move the goal post.
One problem with taxing churches is that the influence goes both way. "No taxation without representation" is about as bedrock and American principle as you can get, it predates the revolutionary war. If churches pay taxes, they have a right to influence the operation of government. You can't say, on the one hand, "give us your tax dollars to spend on your behalf" and on the other hand say "there is a wall of separation between church and state."
The reason why there will be no backlash is that people are turning away from religion in historic numbers. People just don't believe in "god" anymore. God is dead.
Long live atheism.
When the last church is shuttered that will be a glorious day in America.
Blogger SMGalbraith said...
My guess is that this will be worked out piecemeal, over time. Kennedy's opinion doesn't give the courts much direction, does it?
But that statement by the ACLU that they no longer support RFRA when it comes to "discrimination" is interesting. I can see them trying to test the tax exempt status.
Everything's up in the air.
Nothing is up in the air.
If you can't see the direction this is headed, you're sticking your head in the ground.
Churches will be made to comply.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"1st Amendment trumps."
"Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination."
The First Amendment will prevent the government from requiring churches to perform ssm services, but the problem that deserves attention is the tax exemption. Graham went straight for that, and I thought that was smart.
I'll go one further. No, the 1st amendment doesn't trump.
You'll see the legal reasoning once they think of it. But we know now that the SCOTUS isn't a legal body, it's a political body.
But wouldn't it better if Congress codified it in law?
A statute, say, of the IRS, Department of Health, etc, which stated that if a State sells a license, they can't discriminate on who can receive a license, as long as they are human, not related if younger than age 65, and pose no health risks. Include a federal fee to pay for any added costs, and a federal fine for violating any statute.
I don't think the ruling can stand the test of time. Remember, the country thought prohibition was a good idea.
Militant gays will now go after Christians by way of the courts and the tax code. They will shoot the captured and wounded. The courts will not defend freedom of religion. SCOTUS will offer no protection to "religious bigots" like Christians. This is not live and let live, this is the forced acceptance of homosexuality throughout all of society.
From Justice Thomas' decent "Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so ful- filling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.7
Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty. "
"Long live atheism.
When the last church is shuttered that will be a glorious day in America."
Including that black church that got shot up by the white guy. Just keep it boarded up.
The Left is anti religion. This ruling will be used as yet another weapon in their fight to destroy religion. Sad and true. The Left will take no prisoners, all must believe as they.
To answer Althouse's second question, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Fourteenth Amendment says, "No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Thus, it would appear that on the face of the amendments to the Constitution, a citizen should be protected in the free exercise of his or her religion.
Obviously, there are limits nonetheless. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of either the case law or the statutes that have attempted to draw the line on these issues (I know Althouse has taught these issues for many years), but in general, religious accommodations have been strongest where the actual practice of religion is concerned and weakest where the practice or service at issue approaches matters of public accommodation and more recently, normal commercial enterprise. On the other side, freedom of association and freedom of contract are concepts which have been in steady retreat.
As a classical liberal and a believer in negative liberty (everything that is not prohibited is permitted), my answer would be that people should have the freedom to enter into commercial arrangements that satisfy their own preferences, recognizing that the loser in bigoted commercial decisions is often the bigot. Thus are opportunities created for others.
A lot of churches have pretty strict policies in place already, limiting who gets married there, some require you having to be a member. So, I don't think it's going to be a huge issue, especially after the hoopla dies down and people realize that now that they've gotten marriage, marriage isn't necessarily what a lot of people want.
I also, though, don't have a problem with church's losing their tax exempt status. And I say that as someone who has a lot of hope in and for the church. The sort of civil churches we've had in this country led to the kind of social and religious climate that we now have in this country. Places where churches don't have tax exempt status are often the most vibrant, because it changes the priorities and opens the participation more broadly.
Let me go on record with a prediction: this ruling will be the death of the Democratic Party.
There are two main components of the Democratic Party now: the secular whites, who provide all the money & a chunk of votes, and the minorities, especially black voters, who provide the lion share of votes, but little money.
For the seculars, Gay Rights is the civil rights struggle of our time, and they are heavily morally invested in gay rights. For the minorities, it's at best "Meh", but more often than not "Oh, that's just a strange honky/gringo thing".
The seculars, as their name suggests, are not religious. The blacks & hispanics are the two most religious ethnic groups in the US. The transfer of money from the seculars to the minorities has papered over the cavernous cultural differences between them.
Until now. Gay activists loath the churches. So far, in spite of their anger at the blacks for, e.g. supporting Prop 8 in California, they have targeted "the right kind" of Christian, i.e. white, Southern. Now, the gay activists will go after the churches with the law on their side, and the law, unlike activism, can't be targeted. It'll hit the black, Hispanic, Muslim, Orthodox Jews, etc. churches just like the "white" ones.
Then all Hell will break loose. The minorities will ask the seculars "When did the Democrats become the cocksucker party?" & the seculars will say "Hey, we struggled against discrimination for you. Now it's your turn to back the gays." "Not against our own churches it isn't!" The Republicans will say "You don't have to vote for us, just stay home. All will be status quo ante, and your churches, like ours, will be safe".
No black vote, no Hispanic vote, no Democratic Party, in office, anywhere. You heard it hear first.
That's interesting, that Prof. Althouse's allies are already thinking about revoking tax-exempt status of churches that do not perform gay marriages.
I'm glad their marriage won't impact my life at all. Really.
Go to every SF bakery and ask them to do a cake that a gay person might find offenseive (though don't make it so offensive that they call it hate speech), and film EVERY one. Everyone that doesn't acquiesce SUE because religions are a protected class, and they are denying you because of religion.
Say you and your opposite sex are getting married and you want a cake for a real wedding and demand they make it.
And I bet people will be upset if churches decide to shut down ALL of their hospitals. I bet it'll cause problems for people, but hell, churches don't have to deal with the headaches involved. They don't have to SELL them either --- just shut them the hell down entirely. All of them.
Long live atheism.
When the last church is shuttered that will be a glorious day in America.
Atheists killed 100M last century alone.
YoungHegelian wrote:
"For the seculars, Gay Rights is the civil rights struggle of our time, and they are heavily morally invested in gay rights."
Science has not proven that homosexuality is congenital, but nearly every SSM advocate believes that science has proven that "gays are born that way."
Perhaps one day they will notice that the phrase "all men are created equal" is statement about metaphysics, not science.
"Churches will be made to comply."
Presumably those who think churches will just lay doggo while dirt is shoveled over them have not been paying attention to what just happened. Every Sunday churches fill up with votes and wallets. When those two things are combined, focused, and dangled in front of politicians of any stripe, said politicians leap up and bark like trained seals. Gay rights brought some and they got some. The same process can be utilized by any group willing to organize and fund. And, when it comes to organizing and funding, churches have proven to be formidable when motivated. It is much easier in modern American politics to gain something for yourself than deny something to others. I'm guessing that when the dust settles, both gays and Christians will pretty much have what they want.
How about us non-religious who still are not on board with this nonsense?
Terry said: "One problem with taxing churches is that the influence goes both way. "No taxation without representation" is about as bedrock and American principle as you can get, it predates the revolutionary war. If churches pay taxes, they have a right to influence the operation of government. You can't say, on the one hand, "give us your tax dollars to spend on your behalf" and on the other hand say "there is a wall of separation between church and state."
This will be the crux of the matter. Currently, in exchange for receiving tax exempt status, the organization/Church is prohibited from lobbying or promoting political candidates. Churches can take stances on political issues, but they currently have to be very careful
When the tax exempt status is removed they can be just as active politically as any other group. The political power behind the various religious denominations is about to be unleashed.
Be careful what you wish for because it might come to be.
This will end when the last "public interest" lawyer is strangled with the guts of the last Grievance Studies professor.
"Who do you think should prevail...?"
How about whoever is less of a dick about it.
Isn't the "free exercise of religion" clause subject to a rational basis test these days?
BTW, if you want to see what happened when a political state declared war on religious dissent, look at England in the 16th and 17th centuries. It wasn't just a matter of not being able to build a church, or being taxed to pay for someone else's church. Catholic priests were tortured, drawn and quartered for performing mass. People were burned alive. In the Bloody Assizes of 1685 four hundred protestants were executed for revolting against the Catholic James II.
"Catholic laymen who run a meeting hall (say, KOC), be forced to rent out the Hall for gay marriages?"
That is not providing personal services and I am OK with that. The personal services is where I am unhappy.
The gays will go after Christian Churches but will leave Mosques alone for obvious reasons.
I think Young Hegelian is right about the Democrats. There are a number of people writing about the Democrats' "top and bottom coalition."
Fred Siegel explained it very well in his book which I have sent to my two younger daughters.
Hagar said...How about us non-religious who still are not on board with this nonsense?
People keep voting for the same people every election, and expecting a different outcome.
Re-election rates are over 83% in the Senate, and 90% in Congress.
In the last election I was a minority white man, and everyone else was Hispanic. Each of them had a carton of cigarettes. I asked them about the cigarettes and they pointed to a lady near the door. I went and asked her if I could have a carton too.
She said yes, and gave me a sample ballot, and told me which names to choose.
Yes, good response from Graham.
As to your second question about who should prevail:
I wrote this on your post linking to your son's post: "..., how do we stop a gay couple from ruining a bakery business for not baking their wedding cake? It should be common sense. It should be that "you get married and you get your economic arrangement but you may not get a cake and don't be a jerk trying to force a ruin of someone for not baking your fucking cake."
So, I hope common sense prevails and the gay couple do not try to sue everyone in their wake. But this SSM decision is a can of worms.
@Bob Boyd, I tried to say the same thing in so many words.. haha.
If I were running the Republicans at this point, I would arrange a bakery/photography event in every state in the union, maybe even two, even if we had to arrange for someone else to pay the bills. I'd also arrange for gay couples to sue black evangelical churches who won't knuckle under.
Make it well known that deep down, the democratic base hates Christians.
The evangelicals didn't come out for Romney, but they'll come out this time, with the Supreme Court at stake.
The presidential candidates have nothing to do with it. Only the supreme court does.
jr565 said...
"And if someone wants a black baker to decorate a cake with a Confederate flag?"
I had this argument on twitter. THey will move the goal posts. Either you will have to, or they will say PA don't include groups or speech. (Though why making a cake or taking a photograph isnt' speech I don't know).
I also brought up the baking a cake for your son, adolf hitler,and its ok to deny that because people names aren't protected groups. Well what if he was also a protected group? Move the goal post.
I asked if it was ok for a baker to deny the daughters of the confederacy a confederate flag cake, and they countered that its a political group, nad groups aren't covered.
Then I pointed out the case where the company was told to bake cookies for a gay rights group (political) and refused and was charged with discrimination.
I forget the excuse they came up with, but it doesn't matter. It's going to be move the goal post, move the goal post, move the goal post."
Does this mean another conservative is coming around to the realization that using the government monopoly on power to enforce things, including traditional marriage, may have a minor drawback?(like you wont always be the majority?)
The first issue is that there is tax exempt status. We need to remove the power to subjectively tax whomever the government wants at different levels based on who is the favored group of the day or in the current popular majority.
They're disappointed, they're down right now.
And the clueless remain so. Disappointed? No. And not angry, not outraged, not shocked. We were beyond all that ages ago. And not down either.
Resolute. Defiant.
Not because churches will stand firm in not being forced to perform same-sex weddings. They won't. That was never anyone's concern and for any idiot to keep raising that shows what an idiot they are. No. They are standing firm in truth.
You got your petty little artificial legal construct. And that's all it is. Truth remains. And it will remain throughout the coming storm. Not a storm where they will be forced to perform same-sex weddings, but the storm where beyond demands are made that ancillary businesses participate in them, demands are made that churches hire and retain workers who oppose what the church stands for and are dedicated to its destruction, demands are made that the whole world come on in to the gay bedroom and celebrate their fantasy.
Sure, many will out of fear back down. No doubt many students will capitulate rather spew all sorts of nonsensical lies in the face of some teachers or law professors thuggish threat to give them a failing grade if they do not give in to the new regime.
But some will stand for truth. And truth always wins in the end. You can try to twist it, you can ignore it, you can fire it, you can fail it, you can fine it, you can put it in jail. But you cannot extinguish it. Truth will be the last one standing.
What is the next fight? End discrimination? Where? All these religious folks wont do these things we ask. Govt needs to be sicced on them.
Like I said earlier today, "Next is to impose SSM on every person and mind in the world. No peaceful co-existence with those who persist in the reality that has been the civilized world for the last ten thousand years. Nope, everyone must get on bended knee and comply. That is next."
What everyone in the history of humanity has called voluntary association, compromise, you live your life and I'll life mine, the right of privacy to be left alone -- all that is now that loaded word "discrimination." If they can bastardized "marriage" of course they will twist into an unrecognizable shape the concept of discrimination.
You fool. Freedom of choice means you have no freedom and you have no choice.
No peace. That's what's next. No justice. That's what's next. Churches and people of faith who run businesses and adults who really deep down don't care what other people do will be made to care. Students from pre-school to law school will be made to pledge allegiance to the rainbow flag. There will be another new-found right -- the right of same-sex attracted people to work for churches and businesses that they hate and are opposed to, the right to destroy from within churches and businesses. That's not simply what's next -- that's what is happening already.
Dude1394 said...
The presidential candidates have nothing to do with it. Only the supreme court does.
People who were once presidential candidates pick the Supreme Court. It won't stay the same forever, although Ginsburg might make it to the next administration.
Pube president candidates are fucked over this issue. They must appease their 80% religious base in order to win the primary, and then ultimately lose the election, offending the general electorate.
Fortunately, the republican base is dieing every day.
There is just not enough old white people in this country.
Demographics are a bitch for the pubes.
Ginsburg will resign in time for Obama to replace her.
Let's admit what's really going on here. The Catholic Church is the target; every other church or synagogue pales by comparison. Don't think the government has the balls to demand this of any mosque.
But there's a problem with the Catholic Church - it has Sacraments, 7 to be exact. Holy Matrimony is but one Sacrament and how it is administered is controlled by the Code of Canon Law which is as old as the Church itself.
Canon Law states under what circumstances a Catholic may receive a Sacrament. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has always been limited to one man and one woman who also possess certain other characteristics and qualifications.
There's no way one can get through required pre-marriage counseling with the parish priest when it's clear there are two men seeking to get married to each other or two women seeking the same. Although I'm not an expert in Canon Law, I believe that such couples would also fail to meet other substantive requirements necessary to receive the Sacrament.
Probably what will evolve (to use a word much in fashion) is that the Church will relinquish the power to act as an agent of the state and decline to marry anyone. If left to civil authorities, who gets married is no longer a concern of the Church. Then if a married couple wishes to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from the Church they can request that from their parish priest.
As such, I don't see where a civil authority would have standing to object to the manner in which the Catholic Church chooses to administer its Sacraments.
"Ginsburg will resign in time for Obama to replace her."
I hope the Republicans have learned from the Estrada case to filibuster her nomination. The Democrats were able to block Joyce Rogers Brown and Estrada so Republicans would not have a black woman and a Latino justice to appoint.
This is why conservatives are losing the SC to liberals. When the Left loses a big case (e.g., Citizens United) they scream and holler for years afterward and keep everyone fired up. When conservatives lose one, they let out drivel like that and roll over until the net loss comes around.
@Titus,
Demographics are a bitch for the pubes.
Yoo-hoo, Titus:
State Governors: 31 Republicans, 18 Democrats
State Legislatures: 30 Republicans, 11 Democrats **
Senate: Republicans: 54 Democrats: 46 (counting Bernie Sanders)
House: Republicans: 246 Democrats: 188
This is the problem when you live in the Cambridge bubble, Titus. You lose track of the simple demographic fact that there are just an awful fucking lot of white people in the US.
**Link
Blogger Anthony said...
This is why conservatives are losing the SC to liberals. When the Left loses a big case (e.g., Citizens United) they scream and holler for years afterward and keep everyone fired up. When conservatives lose one, they let out drivel like that and roll over until the net loss comes around.
He isn't a conservative. He's a Republican.
Employment Division v. Smith was a disgraceful case the day it was decided. I wonder, if and when the government starts making it illegal for churches to discriminate against gay people, Mr. Scalia will ever admit to an error?
Unlikely, I think.
Corporations are people, babies are not
So, when will Democrats deny others the right to "marry"?
Will the pro-choice doctrine save them, again?
After successfully resurrecting the Aztec rite of human sacrifice, perhaps it will. Pass the secular opiates, and a dictatorial consensus or two.
Then again, after more than doubling the debt, "planning" more than one million American citizens before they take their first breath, they still do not offer universal health care. Perhaps selective exclusion will be the last breath of pro-choice doctrine.
The country is $20 trillion in debt with another $75 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
No tax emotions for anyone. 5% of corporate revenues, profit or not for profit, should go the government. No tax exemptions for anyone. It's time for sacrifice from everyone. Quit picking the winners and losers.
And heavy fines for illegal aliens. Take their property.
Saint Croix:
Corporations are people, babies are not
Unfortunately, that is a libertarian position. They reconcile individual dignity and intrinsic value to favor the former. Not unlike progressive liberals, but at least they create a perception of goodwill incidental to realizing a stable environment.
It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.
There's that word again: incidental.
I don't suppose that "Meet the Press" or any other Sunday morning talking heads show will ask the same question of Hillary or Bernie, will they?
The fact is that until there is the next round of marriage equality, SSM will still be relegated to second class status. Even after the Supreme Court decision, there is long-standing, systemic and pernicious discrimination against same-sex couples. Even now they are not treated the same as opposite sex couples. This must end.
Right now, a man and woman can go into the bedroom and make a baby themselves. Under the current homophobic system, a man and a man cannot, nor can a woman and a woman. This ban on same-sex procreation is repugnant. New lawsuits must be filed, new laws introduced in legislatures to end this discrimination. Otherwise, same-sex couples will never be equal.
"In the wake of the same sex marriage case, 2 questions for the Althouse Community.
1. Will the mind of anyone at this specific point change?
2. Will there ever again be a post worth reading that isn't tangled in this subject?
It's been close to a week now at Althouse where it has been watching a WWI video game where no one can get past their trench, but there is a lot of explosions and smoke and rotted feet. Maybe French whores: I don't know about that.
Movement is NOT happening now. Check again later.
Myself, I have no problem with SSM, S&M, MSG or GMOs.
Anyone gets near my family and I believe no laws apply other than the sense God gave me; that is the only approach to Government that I can see still mattering.
I would like again an occasional Althouse post that taps into the Weird, but maybe that is in a past where Betamax3000 frolicked and Laslo was but an acorn inside the belly of the whale.
Here's to Whales with Oak Trees in their Stomachs,
I am Laslo.
Here's where it goes. This was never about marriage, or love. It was never about equal rights under the law. Or being left alone. It was about not being made to feel different, no matter how right you felt. That's not going to happen anytime soon and for some making everyone pay a price is what is going to be.
Laslo wrote:
"It's been close to a week now at Althouse where it has been watching a WWI video game where no one can get past their trench . . ."
Towards the end of the war the Germans figured out how to break the allied trench line.
-First a long artillery barrage
-Followed by gas
-Followed by shock troops with flamethrowers and short barreled 10 gauge shotguns called "trench brooms."
But the technique was resource-heavy and could be emulated by the allies, who were not quite as starved for war material. Alons.
Removing tax-exempt status from churches?
As a Bible toting Christian, we have been preparing for this several years. We have a home church - a nice building with all the amenities. However, it's just a building.
We also meet weekly in private homes on a rotating basis. This is what "churches" have been doing in third world countries for decades. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see what's coming down the pike in the US.
When the disciples were scattered, all it did was spread the Gospel. Suppression of the Word usually backfires in a large way.
I'd be interested in what the Presidential candidates have to say a year from now--
If ever, but certainly not now.
For others, I guess it's a good thing Althouse, lurking as an outsider in the pre-political process, has takien such a liking.
Thinking Meade killed all of her plants, and there's not much else to do.
Terry said...
Laslo wrote:
"It's been close to a week now at Althouse where it has been watching a WWI video game where no one can get past their trench . . ."
Towards the end of the war the Germans figured out how to break the allied trench line...
My WWI metaphor was meant more as an allusion that we won't know what WWI meant until WWII comes.
John Cale "Paris 1919':
It's the customary thing to say or do
To a disappointed proud man in his grief...
Efficiency efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Elysee...
I am Laslo.
Saint Croix wrote:
"Corporations are people"
Here is the Citizens United decision:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
Please point out to me the "corporations are people" statement. I can't find it.
The case was about a small non-profit ($12/million year), funded mostly by individual contributions, that wanted to pay to televise an anti-Hillary documentary within 30 days of an election. Is it your opinion that the case was decided incorrectly?
The amount of speech the government claimed that they wanted to control was outrageous. The government claimed it could remove books from store shelves, and even reach into ebooks and erase books that had already been purchased and downloaded.
Paris 1919. The Future was Here.
I am Laslo.
Of course, the tax exemption will be the next target. Gay marriage was always a means to an end - bringing down the churches.
It will be interesting if the exemption goes. The churches will no longer have to kowtow to the government and pastors in general will be free to engage in political speech just like black pastors and Muslims do now. It will also be interesting to see lefty Scrooges try to support charities without Christians. I tithe and then some. Half my tithe goes to charity. If my church loses tax exempt status, it will all go to the church.
I am working with my church and others to prepare them to survive honorably in the dishonorable country created by corrupt politicians and secular progressives.
There will be no problem for a Kennedy-esque justice, after pondering the deep meaning of the aphorisms from a couple dozen more fortune cookies, will come up with the insight that some fundamental rights are more fundamental than others. And this new category of fundamental rights will be given a new name; maybe something like "supra-superseding existential rights." Needless to say, the right to practice one's religion will not fall into this category
Also, I assume Kennedy is a fallen Catholic. There is little hope with a left-wing Peronist Pope, but it would be just great to see him excommunicated.
Afterwards: Jump on your love train now, Mr Justice Kennedy, but mind the destination. It's not going where you think it is.
If you want to stop the bankruptcy and destruction of SSM opponents like bakeries and pizza shops, don't send straights into gay bakeries and gay restaurants. Get James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas group to either pose as, or get a genuine conservative gay (yes, there are quite a few of them) to go into Muslim bakeries and restaurants and film them with hidden cameras asking for marriage services. Then a few days after the contracts are signed, go back with their same sex partner, introduce them as such, and ask about the progress of their wedding cake. If they live through it, watch the gay rights fanatics choke on their brie and cheese trying to figure out how to deal with the predictable Muslim reaction.
I don't think the scenario YH posits at 5:16 will ever come to pass, free stuff and all y'know, but I do have to wonder what African-Americans think of this civil rights victory.
Let's get back to first principles. Why does the local, state and federal government exempt any corporation from taxation?
Tax or don't. But quit playing favorites. It's ridiculous.
African Americans? The country is getting less white but not more black. Everyday the country cares less what African Americans think. They are a reliable voting bloc for Dems. That is the purpose of their existence. No one gives a shit about African Americans, least of all African Americans.
One would hope common sense would lead to this not being much of a problem. The only place where there is any real moral question as regards service is over the marriage itself. I imagine most gay couples will want to work with people who want to work with them, which means this shouldn't be an issue most of the time. Pressing the issue on unwilling people, as has been in the news with florists, bakers, photographers, and jewelers, may make for nice media headlines, and court cases which may eventually be lost, but there is a danger there. Gay marriage has succeeded very quickly because most people haven't seen there being any cost to doing so. Going after and ruining the lives of a few hundred or few thousand small proprietors is likely to crystalize the opposition as with abortion, where there remains sizable opposition even decades later, and could make gays seem like bullies, especially to those who actually know these people in person.
Generally, the more central the person's service is, the more the religious rights should trump. The officiant is the person who has the most right to object, followed by the facility, then the professionals (e.g. wedding planner, musicians, photographers).
As far as the First Amendment protecting churches, following the King v Burwell decision, I'm not so confident that the First Amendment will be a shield here. Regardless of what the First Amendment says, I'm sure enterprising progressive jurists can come up with reasons important enough in their mind to dispense with the text. That would be completely wrong-headed, but they do have the example of the Chief Justice basically saying "something bad might happen if we follow this statute as written." I know Hosanna-Tabor was a 9-0 decision just a few years ago, but remember there's a reason it got to the Supremes in the first place, and they can't fix all the judicial mischief in the lower courts.
It will be interesting if the exemption goes. The churches will no longer have to kowtow to the government and pastors in general will be free to engage in political speech just like black pastors and Muslims do now.
Really it would be best if Christian churches gave up their tax exempt status and refused to act as agents of the state. Their existence doesn't rely on the secular power; Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world and God said He would be with them to the end of days. "Kowtow" is what they do by muzzling themselves for their miserable exemption.
I'm not sure if removing tax exempt status of churches is actually a great idea. If they have to start paying the taxes they say shut down services. And then you don't get the taxes , but you lose the services. Is the stat going to pick up the slack thst the church does now? With what money?
Generally, the more central the person's service is, the more the religious rights should trump. The officiant is the person who has the most right to object, followed by the facility, then the professionals (e.g. wedding planner, musicians, photographers).
So an atheist has no right to object at all?
You know, people speak of "tax exemptions" as if government taking your money is a natural right, that it is the government's money and we get to keep it only at the sufferance of government, as if it is some special government handout.
It's not.
Really it would be best if Christian churches gave up their tax exempt status and refused to act as agents of the state
So by paying money to the state, they stop being agents of the state, they separate themselves from the state? Huh?
So by paying money to the state, they stop being agents of the state, they separate themselves from the state?
Just rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
So your money is the government's money is what you are saying.
Face it, you are a slave.
Unfortunately, that is a libertarian position.
I disagree! It's nothing to do with liberty, and everything to do with money. Money, money, money, money, money! So when we ask the question, what does it take for the Supreme Court to recognize your humanity? The answer is, money. Corporations make us money, so we will call them people.
The baby's humanity in Roe was denied because of money. Blackmun, Marshall and Brennan were all motivated by economic theory. Let's abort the children of the poor. Surprisingly, sometimes Ginsburg veers away from feminism to also talk about money, money, money.
It's interesting that Althouse frames the gay marriage issue as a fight over money. I don't see money as the motivating factor at all! But I have no doubt worldly people will attempt to use money to coerce their will upon other people.
I think the issue of gay marriage will divide Christians (as did slavery, as does abortion). The danger for Christians is not how you come down on this issue. All you can do is follow Christ as best you can. The danger for Christians is to feel one way about the issue, and then act another way, because of money. Attempting to coerce religious believers--or bribe them--is an ancient evil.
Laslo Spatula said...Paris 1919. The Future was Here.
The Beaujolais is raining alright. Only mine is fortified by Mogan David.
Maybe the Pope should go first and give up tax exempt status for all the Cat-lick dealings.... He certainly seems to want to be on the cutting edge of progressive issues. And it would fall under Tax the Rich to Feed the Poor.
"This ban on same-sex procreation is repugnant. New lawsuits must be filed, new laws introduced in legislatures to end this discrimination. Otherwise, same-sex couples will never be equal."
Yes, they will never be equal until they accept that everyone needs tolerance. Forcing your choices on others is a good way to piss everyone else off.
So, when you give your already taxed money to a charity, the government let's you use that donation to reduce your taxes-
When you give your already taxed money to a church, it should be taxed again-
Good luck with that, Caesar.
"All the gang of those who rule us
Hope our quarrels never stop
Helping them to split and fool us
So they can remain on top." – Bertold Brecht
Oh hell; we know exactly how Hillary Clinton will answer these questions. We know, without any doubt and with complete confidence from the ways she answered the question of gay marriage, first one way in 2002 and then the other in 2012.
Hillary will answer whichever way her pollsters tell her to answer.
Towards the end of the war the Germans figured out how to break the allied trench line.
Also lots of troops. The Germans didn't seem to have any particular objective in mind for the Spring Offensive and frittered away their advantage on waste land. Strategy was a major German weakness in the last century.
For some reason, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic>Hungarian Soviet Republic</a> was one of the first things that came to my mind.
Of course David Koresh never figured out how to properly tax exempt his church, and the Attorney General brought in her tanks and did a holocaust on the whole bunch of them.
So, there are consequences to political forces, masked as love.
Saint Croix:
Wealth, pleasure, and leisure... and environmental stability. Money. Money. Money. Money. I wonder what they think of the massive debt and increased taxes. Perhaps they have benefited.
I think homosexual marriage has multipartite interests, including normalization. However, the selective exclusion built into the "equal" campaign should be a problem for them. They have not explained how they will deny equal rights to others.
I also think that transgender equivalence will cause more immediate dislocations.
- - -
The quote was overly inclusive. It should have been "babies are not".
Both libertarians and progressive liberals on principle reconcile individual dignity and intrinsic value to favor the former. Libertarians favor individual dignity. Progressive liberals favor the ruling minority, and incidentally the individual dignity and intrinsic value of others, maybe, selectively.
All you can do is follow Christ as best you can.
I agree. Christians need to be wary of applying the pro-choice doctrine. Not only does it create legal hazards, but also moral hazards.
That said, I like the Judaeo-Christian religion. It is a welcome reconciliation of individual dignity, intrinsic value, and the natural order. It's unfortunate that some people have rejected it based on a prejudicial conflation of faith, religion, theology, history, and tradition.
Here is the Citizens United decision:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html
Please point out to me the "corporations are people" statement. I can't find it.
The Supreme Court has been calling corporations people since the 19th century.
The case was about a small non-profit ($12/million year), funded mostly by individual contributions, that wanted to pay to televise an anti-Hillary documentary within 30 days of an election. Is it your opinion that the case was decided incorrectly?
No. The First Amendment forbids any censorship. Congress is stripped of any authority in this area. Corporations like The New York Times are obviously protected under the First. My point is not that corporations do not have legal rights. Of course they do, including (some) constitutional rights. My point, a simple point about honesty in reading and following our Constitution, is that corporations are not people.
So when we are told that it is impossible to recognize the humanity of unborn children, that we cannot say they are people, we merely have to look at the Supreme Court's words when money is at stake. They care a great deal about money. About the baby's life, not so much.
Now the Daily Beast is saying that to oppose the Supreme Court dictate is "treason."
Now the Daily Beast is saying that to oppose the Supreme Court dictate is "treason."
But, feel free, just like every right-thinking person, to castigate Citizens United, 'cause, well, that's what you're supposed to do, right?
Oh, & Heller? Heller can go suck it, too (Wait, can we still say "go suck it"?) Which is exactly what the District of Columbia has been telling its residents who wish to own a gun since the ruling.
A political leader who's not brave enough to come out of the closet doesn't have the courage or character to be president of the United States.
Science has not proven that homosexuality is congenital, but nearly every SSM advocate believes that science has proven that "gays are born that way."
So, Terry - who, exactly, taught you how to "be" a heterosexual?
Was it the sort of process used to train dogs?
Did some adults litter your surroundings with pictures of naked ladies, and give you a biscuit for every erection you achieved?
Seriously, I'm interested to know how your socialization and training into the world of heterosexual urges progressed.
Were you taught to mount female mannequins? Were actual human female assistants made to disrobe in front you, present themselves, and invite you to penetrate them? Were the candies denied every time you were a "bad boy" and "accidentally" mounted a male, instead?
Do let me know. We're currently leading a squad of scientists to test these methods out on real-life homosexuals for our latest round of conversion therapy.
We hope to be very successful.
Saint Croix:
Ginsburg veers away from feminism to also talk about money, money, money.
She likes environmental stability. Too bad her concern for human rights and civil rights are not based on principle. But neither are the other pro-choice Justices. Apparently, the scientific fact, and the self-evident knowledge, that human life evolves from conception is not well received by people with a "money, money, money" orientation, which includes all Democrats on as a matter of principle, and not a few of everyone else.
Then there is [class] diversity and now selective exclusion. Oh, and Obamacare. They could have at least feigned a credible motive other than money, money, money. It's difficult to ignore their principles and take them at their word.
Ho, hum. Graham isn't president. Obama is. And the Hildabeast will be. And the first Christian pastor who refuses a gay couple in other than a quiet, find-an-excuse, overbooked-schedule, way is going to see himself jailed and his congregation losing their tax exemption. Imams? No problem. But what gay couple would dare be married in a mosque anyhow?
So, Terry - who, exactly, taught you how to "be" a heterosexual?
R&B, I hope you understand that proving heterosexuality is genetic does not mean that homosexuality is genetic. Heterosexuals breed and pass their genes to offspring. It's why heterosexuality is considered the norm in sexual behavior, because it's the sexuality that creates offspring and keeps the human race alive.
Having said that, it's also highly likely that sexual behaviors are learned at a very early age, as small children identify with their mother or father and learn their sexual roles. I suspect it's a combination of biology and family environment that causes people to feel they are oriented towards a certain sexuality. And of course we all have free will and are responsible for our sexual choices.
So an atheist has no right to object at all?
What would the atheist's grounds be for objecting? With this ruling, the Court has pretty much closed the door to any secular or natural objection. The best I can think of right now for an atheist is to cite a deeply held belief in not promoting tendencies that don't promote survival of the species.
"I thought that was very well put. It suggests one very specific question that ought to be asked of all presidential candidates, from both parties: Will you pledge that religious organizations that refuse to perform same-sex marriages will not lose their tax-exempt status?"
So nice of you to think it well put. But it shows the Prog position is now the default. Things taken for granted until the day before yesterday now have to be defended. You and Hillary! will evolve soon enough to "find" some balancing test that requires the liberty inherent in substantive due process to trump free exercise. The Prog Church must be established as orthodox, and you will cheer.
I certainly don't think that a gay baker should be required to decorate a cake with God hates fags just because a christian wants him to.
Righto. There is no right to compel sellers to supply expressive works/services they don't want to supply.
http://volokh.com/2012/11/02/amicus-brief-in-elane-photography-v-willock-the-new-mexico-wedding-photography-case/
"So, Terry - who, exactly, taught you how to "be" a heterosexual?"
Maybe the same people who taught me to be right handed instead of left handed?
Science does not claim that sexual orientation is inborn, maybe because science can't claim that sexual orientation has a basis in biology. You are confusing psychology with science, R&B.
I suggest that any person who believes that "sexual orientation" has a biological basis actually look at the science.
The only biological basis for "sexual orientation" that has been found is a slightly more than expected association between second born sons and self-identified homosexuals, and sons that are in other places in birth order.
That's it.
All identification of homosexuals today is self-identification. There is no test for "sexual orientation" other than "how do you identify yourself?" If you believe that homosexuality is "inborn", you believe that specific behavior is set at birth. It's no different than saying "his kind are born thieves" or "his kind are born money-grubbers." It's disgusting, and it leads to no place that is good.
The Church is supported by the free voluntary labor and already taxed monetary donations by it's members to keep the lights on and the poor, and the ill, ministered... along with a variety of community programs and outreach. (I remember many a Catholic priest and layperson as being on the front lines to comfort and care for sick and dying AIDs patients during the height of the so very preventable epidemic.)
Where will they get the money to pay taxes from what? If they can't pay the taxes, will the government come in, put armed guards around the perimeter of Church property, and auction off the paid property of it's members? Are we to become China? The left loves them so.
Will you pledge that religious organizations that refuse to perform same-sex marriages will not lose their tax-exempt status?
That question is easy. I have seen numerous facebook posts shared by friends telling me that if you are not a gay person intent on marriage, "This will not affect you in any way."
(see here for example
Surely all that facebook agitprop in support of same-sex marriage wasn't wrong?
no one teaches heterosexuality. my 3 yr old grandson said to me, "boys grow up to be daddys and girls grow up to be mommys". from the mouths of babes.
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's." Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has claimed ownership of the definition of marriage, objecting States who wish to retain the traditional definition of marriage should simply get out of the marriage licensing business, let the federal government "own it," and make marriage licensing a federal matter. After all, isn't that what the Supreme Court just did, make marriage licensing a matter of federal constitutional law?
And, for the States that get out of the marriage license business, perhaps the Supreme Court can set up its own federal "marriage license exchanges" for the non-consenting opt-out states, just like the Supreme Court did for ObamaCare.
I find it amusing that the SCOTUS was concerned about the problems if they outlaw subsidies --- but the problems HERE don't seem to be a concern.
#NoMoreLawyersonSCOTUS
I suggest that any person who believes that "sexual orientation" has a biological basis actually look at the science.
Human sexuality is very mysterious! I don't think science knows.
But I do think the attraction between our sexual opposites, men and women, is innate and natural. I can't prove it. That's the way I perceive it. And it makes sense to me, since nature needs reproduction to happen.
There's a discussion of homosexuality in animals here.
On the face of it, homosexual behaviour by animals looks like a really bad idea. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection implies that genes have to get themselves passed on to the next generation, or they will die out. Any genes that make an animal more likely to engage in same-sex matings would be less likely to get passed on than genes pushing for heterosexual pairings, so homosexuality ought to quickly die out.
It's fun to smack leftists with Darwin. Here they are, driving around with Darwin bumper stickers. Side by side with their "Coexist" bumper sticker and their rainbow bumper sticker. Have you not noticed how mean Darwin's theory is? Reproduce or die out!
"between the interests of gay people — as they engage in commerce and seek full membership in society — "
Those awesome parades sure help...
"Who do you think should prevail if there is a conflict between the interests of gay people — as they engage in commerce and seek full membership in society — and the interests of religious people — as they try to frame their conduct to accord with the tenets of their religion?" It depends on the interaction.
If you're a gay person or a gay couple, if I'm president of the United States, you will be able to participate in commerce and be a full member of society, consistent with the religious beliefs of others who have rights also.
Believing that others have rights to disagree with the liberal agenda in general and the gay agenda in particular - how quaint.
The tax exemption for churches was essentially a payoff from LBJ to keep conservative and black (which are the most conservative) churches out of the political arena. Democrats and gay rights activists should think long and hard about priorities and long term goals before they put the religious organization tax exemption at risk.
Congress should get rid of the entire concept of tax-exempt status. If there is an issue with churches, charity organizations or whatever (most all corporations) paying taxes, then the issue of corporate taxation should be addressed.
Consider the case of Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner.
Born in '46, married Jane Shindlheim in '68, has three kids by her.
In 1995, Wenner announces that he his really gay, dumps wife, shacks up with 28 year old male model Matt Nye.
Gay orthodoxy demands that you believe that a man who has had multiple children and comes "out" at age 50 must have been gay since birth. However, a man who, at age 50, decides to dump his boyfriend and take up a heterosexual lifestyle cannot ever be anything other than gay and hiding it. Mental disorder, I suppose.
Speaking of qustions to ask people, why did Kagan say in 2009 that there was no constitutional right to gay marriage?
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/elena-kagan-2009-there-is-no-federal-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/
I can see a person having a change of heart on whether they agree it should be legal. BUt with her the questions was, is there a right. Did she come up with some magical new reading of the constitution?
The only biological basis for "sexual orientation" that has been found is a slightly more than expected association between second born sons and self-identified homosexuals, and sons that are in other places in birth order.
That's it.
That's all that's necessary, you twat. That's exactly the methodology for determining biological contribution. Since you've never studied that, and are incapable of proposing any other design for testing biological contribution, it would make sense for you to stop pretending it's not the "norm" for discovering new knowledge. But you won't. Armchair analysis is much more fun. How fun it is to pretend that no knowledge exists and that we can look at the world through the prism of infinite ignorant bliss.
Now go make sure to stick a paper clip in that electrical socket for me, Terry. We don't know for sure what will happen if you do. Try it out and give us that absolute certainty that you anti-empiricists require.
I don't think science knows.
Yes yes. Why ask and discover what it really "knows" when you can just give a personal guess.
"So, Terry - who, exactly, taught you how to "be" a heterosexual?"
Maybe the same people who taught me to be right handed instead of left handed?
I ecstatically await your explanation of how they taught you to find the things that heterosexuals find arousing.
Or maybe you're just that boring and have sex and achieve erections on demand, when you're told to.
If Terry were to ever become involved with a woman, I know who'd be wearing the pants in that relationship.
can see a person having a change of heart on whether they agree it should be legal. BUt with her the questions was, is there a right. Did she come up with some magical new reading of the constitution?
No. She lied.
No black vote, no Hispanic vote, no Democratic Party, in office, anywhere. You heard it hear first.
Sure, if blacks or Hispanics were dumb enough to be single-issue voters, as Republicans are. But they're not.
Here's an interesting question when it comes to whether homosexuality is determined by birth or not:
- If it's by birth, and therefore should eventually be found to be connected with certain genes, it is likely that someone will eventually come up with a way to identify and test for it. Would you support pregnant women getting that test?
- If it's not by birth, but is instead determined to be caused either by certain hormonal/endocrinal conditions or other biological factors that can be changed, would you support people who wished to go down the path of making those changes? I mean, if Bruce Jenner can change his gender, why can't someone change their sexuality if the technology exists?
Ritmo, nobody needs to be taught to be straight, that's why it's normal, and homosexuality is deviant. Perverted may be a value judgment which you are free to resent for whatever reason, but deviant is a statement of fact.
Of course the occasional deviant adds spice, if you equate deviance with exciting historical figures like Joan of Arc, but mostly they lead sad lives harming all they touch. If they don't die right off as is the case with, e.g., most mutations.
Homosexuality is a negative, like deafness. Some of the deaf seem to glorify their debility, e.g. resenting cochlear implants, but overall we wish to cure or prevent deafness, and we try. If any medical action could be taken to curtail homosexuality, would you be for or against it?
I mean Monty, seriously, you personally would break a knife off in my throat to keep me or anybody else from buggering you, no? You're not homosexual and would never want to be, even though you stick up for them, true? Should you be criticized for not wanting a little if that action, to be broad-minded as it were? You're not neutral personally, you're agin it, for yourself, but chacun a son gout for everyone else? Just seeing if I get you.
cyrus83, you forgot to add a third option:
- If it's not by birth, but is instead a subconscious adaptation to negative social and psychological factors, would you support people who wished to seek counseling to identify and address those factors?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा