The Weekly Standard has just published an interesting piece on how governmental approval of same-sex marriage would probably be accompanied by a crackdown on organizations that oppose it if it became law. Religious liberty advocates are worried about this. Marc Stern, general counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress, was on Albert Mohler’s show this week and said this:
I’m not necessarily opposed to same-sex marriage, I am opposed to using the change in the law to eliminate any religious opposition to that concept.
The article also discussed the expulsion of two girls from a Catholic school who came out as lesbian. Should these schools be allowed to do this? Not if some same-sex marriage advocates have their way. In fact, Catholic Charities of Boston has withdrawn from adoption services because the state does not allow them to refuse adoption services to gays.
To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination–including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.
And what about tax exemption? Can a church or ministry that discriminates against gays maintain their exempt tax status? If racial and gender-based cases are any indication, (in religious schools and country clubs, resp.), these organizations will certainly have their tax status challenged.
That would be a huge change in the practice of religous liberties. But I have a question. Would ex-gays, who have their own particular gender orientation, by law need to included in the work of pro-gay tax-exempt organizations, or force them to lose THEIR tax exempt status? Just thinking out loud.
I am not sure how ex-gays would fit into the scheme of things. I am not even sure what the term means. Some claim a total shift in orientation, others some shift but a remaining struggle, and another section remains quite homosexually orientation but are celibate. Certainly something entertaining to untangle.
Seeker,
It's quite clear that the churches in question have a very obvious choice here: treat gays equally, or lose protections. That doesn't seem to be an unfair thing to ask of anybody. Treat these citizens just as you would treat any other citizen, or give up something like your tax exemption. If the churches are so interested in discriminating against gays, then they can CHOOSE to pay the price as well.
Aren't you the one who is all about responsibility? These churches need to be held responsible for their contemptible behavior; losing tax exempt status seems beyond fair. Unless you're advocating special treatment for Christians? But you would never advocate such nonsense, would you Seeker?
Sorry, nothing to do with the post. Seeker I just wanted to ask if you received the Email I sent you.
You're confusing tax exempt status with compulsion of organization within certain industries to include people they'd otherwise exclude.
Churches, schools, etal would certainly maintain taxs exempt status, just as racist churches can (see World Church of the Creator, whose state exemption was challenged and upheld by a federal court).
Areas where there may be difficulties: schools and adoption agencies, since both operate under the imprimatur of the state. Even if there's a decent case to be made for the orientation-desegregation of christianist schools, the Boy Scout case (Dale) suggests that schools could continue to discriminate in the face of a statute forbidding discrimination.
Other than that area (schools), I can't think of how religious objections will be suppressed. Mohler and this post sound like fear-mongering.
It also woth noting that gay marriage laws and non-discrimination laws are logically and legally distinct. In other words, the court's striking of MA's discriminatory marriage statute and the law forbidding discrimination in adoption agencies had nothing to do with one another.