Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[jbarm]

A couple of comments on this thread that I don't see addressed:

 

1. The LDS Church runs a number of businesses near Temple Square that cater to wedding receptions.  Namely in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and the Lion and Beehive houses.

 

I would assume that these businesses would be targeted by gay rights advocates in future litigation once the gay marriage battle is won. Bookings will be made for receptions that will not be honored once the purpose is discovered.  The battle will continue until opponents of gay marriage are bludgeoned into silence (see: Boy Scouts).

 

2. Another goal of the gay rights movement, at least in Utah, is to take away the right of churches to marry people in a combined civil and religious ceremony.  Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (Democrat) who was/is the head of the Utah Democratic Party and who married his partner in December said this about an amendment protecting religious liberty with regard to homosexual marriage:

 

"Even Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is gay and was married after the ban was struck down, does not oppose the idea. "I don’t think anybody wants to be married by somebody that doesn’t want to marry them," he said, adding it could help end worries and fighting.

However, Dabakis says he would support the amendment only if it were changed to require a civil marriage first for everyone, followed by a possible religious ceremony to help make clear that "civil marriage is a constitutional right." (Salt Lake Tribune, December 30, 2013)

The clear goal stated by Dabakis is to take away the rights of religious people to be married in one ceremony and reduce it to a civil ceremony only.  And yes, I know this is how it is done in Europe, but that does not make it a good thing necessarily.

 

jb

 

[Daniel2]

The Bob Jones University case is just one of a mounting number of cases that raise serious concerns about pop culture-driven government infringement on religious freedoms--the endorsement by the government of homosexual relationships, equating them with heterosexual relationships, and doing violence to the definition of marriage, is just one of many prongs. (See HERE)

 

To be clear, though, concerns about infringement on religious liberty isn't an argument against diametrically altering the legal definition of marriage. There are a number of valid and persuasive arguments against it, legal and otherwise. Rather, it is simply a acknowledgement of where things may very well digress over the course of unfolding the evidently inane general social experiment.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting. It appears that your definition of "freedom of religion" must include "freedom from taxation."

I'd be curious to know of legal sources that specify that.

Daniel

[Daniel2]

You don't have a religious right to a tax exemption.

I appreciate this thought--as a member of another Faith, I actually don't mind the idea of my church paying taxes.

I'm still curious where the idea that "freedom of religion is/must include freedom from taxation" comes from..... Anyone?

D

Edited January 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[Buzzard]

I appreciate this thought--as a member of another Faith, I actually don't mind the idea of my church paying taxes.

I'm still curious where the idea that "freedom of religion is/must include freedom from taxation" comes from..... Anyone?

D

Religious exemption from taxation stems back at least as far as the Persian empire-and the ancient Israelites. In this country, it predates the Constitution. At least in the United States, religious organizations have never been subject to taxation on either their donations or properties. I can dig up a few references if you really need them.  Most religions, including ours, have a lot more properties than cash, since money is spent on operations while property, unless disposed of, is forever. 

If property taxes were imposed annually on religious properties, it would severely hinder the charitable and other work of the parent religion. 

BTW, this should warm the cockles of your heart...because of a clause in UK law, we do pay property tax on the Preston, England temple. 

[wenglund]

Interesting. It appears that your definition of "freedom of religion" must include "freedom from taxation."

 

Not quite. As a religious person, I am still subject to taxation. When I fill out my 1040 tax form, there is no sweeping exemption for religious belief.  When I go through the checkout stand at the local super market, they don't ask me if I am religious so as to determine whether to charge sales tax or not.

 

The same holds true for religious florists. They are not exempt from taxation. Their religious freedom isn't infringed by the government taxing their floral business, though it is infringed if the government takes away their right to choose not to cater EVENTS that conflict with their moral and religious principles.

 

Granted, religious organization logically aren't charged business taxes on their non-business religious activities (as a Priest, I paid sales tax on the bread I purchased for the sacrament). And, they are exempt from certain property taxes--though this is because of a Supreme Court ruling (see the links I posted earlier in the thread), and not because of how I "define religious freedom."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 22, 2014 by wenglund

[california boy]

A couple of comments on this thread that I don't see addressed:

 

1. The LDS Church runs a number of businesses near Temple Square that cater to wedding receptions.  Namely in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and the Lion and Beehive houses.

 

I would assume that these businesses would be targeted by gay rights advocates in future litigation once the gay marriage battle is won. Bookings will be made for receptions that will not be honored once the purpose is discovered.  The battle will continue until opponents of gay marriage are bludgeoned into silence (see: Boy Scouts).

 

2. Another goal of the gay rights movement, at least in Utah, is to take away the right of churches to marry people in a combined civil and religious ceremony.  Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (Democrat) who was/is the head of the Utah Democratic Party and who married his partner in December said this about an amendment protecting religious liberty with regard to homosexual marriage:

 

"Even Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is gay and was married after the ban was struck down, does not oppose the idea. "I don’t think anybody wants to be married by somebody that doesn’t want to marry them," he said, adding it could help end worries and fighting.

However, Dabakis says he would support the amendment only if it were changed to require a civil marriage first for everyone, followed by a possible religious ceremony to help make clear that "civil marriage is a constitutional right." (Salt Lake Tribune, December 30, 2013)

The clear goal stated by Dabakis is to take away the rights of religious people to be married in one ceremony and reduce it to a civil ceremony only.  And yes, I know this is how it is done in Europe, but that does not make it a good thing necessarily.

 

jb

 

Just two points.  The church  has already decided that it is not important for their business establishments to encompass all church doctrine when it decided on it's own to serve coffee in the Hotel Utah.  

 

And the second and certainly the most important point.  What example did Christ set?  Do you really see Christ refusing service to ANYONE?  Did Christ live his life with an attitude of "I don't serve your kind here?"  Christ spent 3 years preaching to us on how we should live our lives.  He gave us the poignant story of the Good Samaritan to clearly teach us how to treat others who were reviled because of who they married.  He taught us to be inclusive with everyone.  So I ask, should the church follow the actions of Christ concerning buildings that have no religious significants?  You tell me.

[thesometimesaint]

I appreciate this thought--as a member of another Faith, I actually don't mind the idea of my church paying taxes.

I'm still curious where the idea that "freedom of religion is/must include freedom from taxation" comes from..... Anyone?

D

 

Most churches don't have enough assets to worry about taxes. Most of those assets are tied up as Capital Assets. IE; What is a church building worth? They're not good for much of anything other than worship, and are usually located in residential areas. Even further restricting their monetary value.

 

Church owned businesses OTOH are another story. As such should be required to pay taxes, and follow the laws governing that business.

 

I don't know where that idea came from. It has never made much sense to me.

Edited January 22, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

What example did Christ set?  Do you really see Christ refusing service to ANYONE?  Did Christ live his life with an attitude of "I don't serve your kind here?" 

 

I don't know if Christ would be changing water to wine at a gay wedding, but I believe the parable of the wedding banquet may be instructive. If Christ thought is appropriate to eject a man from the wedding for wearing the wrong clothes, I can't imagine he would object to his followers not catering a wedding EVENT that they view as profaning the sacred?

 

The point being, Christ can't so easily be pressed into the service of countenancing sexual perversion and the degradation of fundamental institution of heaven and earth. Indeed, it is deeply offensive to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 22, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

Yes.

 

 

 

 

It is not a matter of the government giving recognition based on which religions perform this or that. The legislatures tend not to pole the various churches to determine what they believe and practice, nor do or don't enact laws according. Rather, particularly in regards to promotional government recognition, they assess and legislate based on state interest.

 

In the U.S., we don't necessarily license, as medical doctors, people who are faith healers, medicine men, acupuncturists, etc., even though there are religions which believe in such things, and even though there are medical doctors in some faiths, but not others. Instead, we set licensing requirement according to what will best serve the health of our people.

 

The point being, laws in general, and promotional laws in particular, ought not be established based on whether something is a religious practice or not, or whether the law may unequally fit the practice of some religions and not others, but whether the law is in the interest of the people.

 

Why we forget all this when it comes to deciding about diametrically mangling the definition of marriage or not, is quite puzzling to me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Got it.  Your response makes sense to me given your belief that heterosexual marriage serves the interest of the state (and homosexual marriage does not).

[rockpond]

A couple of comments on this thread that I don't see addressed:

 

1. The LDS Church runs a number of businesses near Temple Square that cater to wedding receptions.  Namely in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building and the Lion and Beehive houses.

 

I would assume that these businesses would be targeted by gay rights advocates in future litigation once the gay marriage battle is won. Bookings will be made for receptions that will not be honored once the purpose is discovered.  The battle will continue until opponents of gay marriage are bludgeoned into silence (see: Boy Scouts).

 

2. Another goal of the gay rights movement, at least in Utah, is to take away the right of churches to marry people in a combined civil and religious ceremony.  Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis (Democrat) who was/is the head of the Utah Democratic Party and who married his partner in December said this about an amendment protecting religious liberty with regard to homosexual marriage:

 

"Even Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, who is gay and was married after the ban was struck down, does not oppose the idea. "I don’t think anybody wants to be married by somebody that doesn’t want to marry them," he said, adding it could help end worries and fighting.

However, Dabakis says he would support the amendment only if it were changed to require a civil marriage first for everyone, followed by a possible religious ceremony to help make clear that "civil marriage is a constitutional right." (Salt Lake Tribune, December 30, 2013)

The clear goal stated by Dabakis is to take away the rights of religious people to be married in one ceremony and reduce it to a civil ceremony only.  And yes, I know this is how it is done in Europe, but that does not make it a good thing necessarily.

 

jb

 

1.  Didn't the church support the SLC non-discrimination ordinance?  Did they really mean it or did they just believe that *others* shouldn't discriminate?

 

Also, I'm curious why you think anyone is being "bludgeoned into silence".  The Boy Scouts had the highest court in the land tell them that they could keep gay people out of their organization.  How is that being bludgeoned into silence?

 

2.  If we aren't going to grant the privilege of legal recognition to the marriages performed by all religions, than we can't claim that privilege.  See D&C 134 and the 14th Amendment.

[wenglund]

Got it.  Your response makes sense to me given your belief that heterosexual marriage serves the interest of the state (and homosexual marriage does not).

 

Great.

 

However, it should make sense regardless since my response simply describes the rational means by which laws ought to be and are typically decided. This is the case even if states determine that it is in the people's interest to diametrically mangle the definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Just two points. The church has already decided that it is not important for their business establishments to encompass all church doctrine when it decided on it's own to serve coffee in the Hotel Utah.

Last time I checked doctrinally speaking drinking coffee was not defined as a sin unless one had made a covenant not to partake of it.

"Do you really see Christ refusing service to ANYONE"

Please show a scripture where Christ in serving another supported them in a sinful behaviour.

Your reasoning only makes sense IMO if one assumes there is no sin involved or people have no right to judge someone else's behaviour as sinful.

Edited January 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Great.

 

However, it should make sense regardless since my response simply describes the rational means by which laws ought to be and are typically decided. This is the case even if states determine that it is in the people's interest to diametrically mangle the definition of marriage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Typically, yes.  But the Constitution must not be violated in the process.

[wenglund]

One of the biggest logical error made in arguing this issue, and one that has long been replete even among lawyers on both sides and judges in state and federal courts, is to conflate the laws defining "marriage" with laws that utilize the term "marriage."

 

For example, Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution simply defines marriage as consisting "only of the legal union between a man and a woman."

 

This amendment says nothing about what types of familial partnerships should or shouldn't receive various state privileges and benefits.

 

Rather, such things are codified under various other marital laws.

 

As such, Due Process and Equal Protection arguments raised about such things as inequality of privileges and benefits, are not rationally an argument against the law defining "marriage" (i.e. Amendment 3)--since it says nothing about such things, but against specific marital laws that codify the inequality of privileges and benefits.

 

Hence, striking down laws defining "marriage" using such irrelevant Due Process and Equal Protection arguments, is terribly confused, misdirected, and inane.

 

I am surprised that this egregious conflation hasn't been challenged--at least I am not aware of any such challenges.

 

To me, this is a worse logical mistake than the question-begging argument oft made by plaintiff lawyers that "marriage is a fundamental right"--not realizing that this right is unavoidably a function of how the term "marriage" is defined. If the term "marriage" is defied in the traditional sense (as well it logically should), then the fundamental right of marriage is irrelevant to gay couples, and thus it can't be used to argue as if it is relevant--though it has been mistakenly so employed multiple times in the last several years.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 22, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Typically, yes.  But the Constitution must not be violated in the process.

 

Right. And, determining if there is a constitutional violation ought not result from taking leave of our senses, let alone by way of violating the constitutional separation of powers.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

One of the biggest logical error made in arguing this issue, and one that has long been replete even among lawyers on both sides and judges in state and federal courts, is to conflate the laws defining "marriage" with laws that utilize the term "marriage."

 

For example, Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution simply defines marriage as consisting "only of the legal union between a man and a woman."

 

This amendment says nothing about what types of familial partnerships should or shouldn't receive various state privileges and benefits.

 

Rather, such things are codified under various other marital laws.

 

As such, Due Process and Equal Protection arguments raised about such things as inequality of privileges and benefits, are not rationally an argument against the law defining "marriage" (i.e. Amendment 3)--since it says nothing about such things, but against specific marital laws that codify the inequality of privileges and benefits.

 

Hence, striking down laws defining "marriage" using such irrelevant Due Process and Equal Protection arguments, is terribly confused, misdirected, and inane.

 

I am surprised that this egregious conflation hasn't been challenged--at least I am not aware of any such challenges.

 

To me, this is a worse logical mistake than the question-begging argument oft made by plaintiff lawyers that "marriage is a fundamental right"--not realizing that this right is unavoidably a function of how the term "marriage" is defined. If the term "marriage" is defied in the traditional sense (as well it logically should), then the fundamental right of marriage is irrelevant to gay couples, and thus it can't be used to argue as if it is relevant--though it has been mistakenly so employed multiple times in the last several years.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It's a good argument (possibly the best for your side of this issue) and you articulate it well.  But, ultimately, it still sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

[Stone holm]

One of the biggest logical error made in arguing this issue, and one that has long been replete even among lawyers on both sides and judges in state and federal courts, is to conflate the laws defining "marriage" with laws that utilize the term "marriage."

 

For example, Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution simply defines marriage as consisting "only of the legal union between a man and a woman."

 

This amendment says nothing about what types of familial partnerships should or shouldn't receive various state privileges and benefits.

 

Rather, such things are codified under various other marital laws.

 

As such, Due Process and Equal Protection arguments raised about such things as inequality of privileges and benefits, are not rationally an argument against the law defining "marriage" (i.e. Amendment 3)--since it says nothing about such things, but against specific marital laws that codify the inequality of privileges and benefits.

 

Hence, striking down laws defining "marriage" using such irrelevant Due Process and Equal Protection arguments, is terribly confused, misdirected, and inane.

 

I am surprised that this egregious conflation hasn't been challenged--at least I am not aware of any such challenges.

 

To me, this is a worse logical mistake than the question-begging argument oft made by plaintiff lawyers that "marriage is a fundamental right"--not realizing that this right is unavoidably a function of how the term "marriage" is defined. If the term "marriage" is defied in the traditional sense (as well it logically should), then the fundamental right of marriage is irrelevant to gay couples, and thus it can't be used to argue as if it is relevant--though it has been mistakenly so employed multiple times in the last several years.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is a good reason that semantical arguments like this are not being used. That is because they lack legal substance and would be dead on arrival.

[thesometimesaint]

It's a good argument (possibly the best for your side of this issue) and you articulate it well.  But, ultimately, it still sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

 

It might be separate, but hardly equal.

 

The deep South held the same religion based definitions of race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_kqSG6aHI#t=3182

[SeekingUnderstanding]

One of the biggest logical error made in arguing this issue, and one that has long been replete even among lawyers on both sides and judges in state and federal courts, is to conflate the laws defining "marriage" with laws that utilize the term "marriage."

 

For example, Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution simply defines marriage as consisting "only of the legal union between a man and a woman."

 

This amendment says nothing about what types of familial partnerships should or shouldn't receive various state privileges and benefits.

Actually it does. It says no other types of unions can be given similar benefits of marriage.

 

Rather, such things are codified under various other marital laws.

 

As such, Due Process and Equal Protection arguments raised about such things as inequality of privileges and benefits, are not rationally an argument against the law defining "marriage" (i.e. Amendment 3)--since it says nothing about such things, but against specific marital laws that codify the inequality of privileges and benefits.

I think most supporters of gay marriage would disagree with this point. It's not just about the tax benefits. It's the relegation by the state to a second class citizenship / relationship. In Hollingsworth_v._Perry the court found that: "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States."

[wenglund]

There is a good reason that semantical arguments like this are not being used. That is because they lack legal substance and would be dead on arrival.

 

If I didn't know you better, I would be greatly surprised that you, as a lawyer, would be so oblivious to the critical importance of nailing down legal definitions so as to rightly interpret and apply the law, let alone in a cases where the laws in question are all about defining legal terms. Semantics is very much the substance of what is in dispute. Sheesh!

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Actually it does. It says no other types of unions can be given similar benefits of marriage.

 

 

Not exactly. It says, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

 

In other words, no other kinds of relationships can be called or treated as "marriages." (Utah is a common law state, and this provision simply prevents non-heterosexual relationships from being treated as common law marriages. The importance here is that if Amendment 3 is ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court, and gay marriages are made legal, then gay relationships that aren't formally married, may still be treated as marriages under common law.)

 

This doesn't prevent the legalization of domestic partnership or civil unions, nor does it restrict various familial privileges and benefits from being extended to other kinds of relationships.

 

 

 

I think most supporters of gay marriage would disagree with this point. It's not just about the tax benefits. It's the relegation by the state to a second class citizenship / relationship. In Hollingsworth_v._Perry the court found that: "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States."

 

I am familiar with the district court and subsequent rulings on Hollingsworth v. Perry, and I am aware of this extra-constitutional and inane argument that was borrowed from the Cal. Supreme Court ruling on Prop 22.

 

However, the constitutions (California or U.S.) do not contain a single clause or amendment that speaks explicitly or implicitly to the nebulous and unmeasurable notion a "social meaning," let alone in relation to defining legal terms. This argument was manufactured out of whole cloth. It is not a valid constitutional test.

 

Can you think of single legal definition, besides the term "marriage," that has be challenged on the basis of disparate social meaning? I can't, and for good reason. "Social meaning" is the purview of society, not the courts. Society, itself, gets to decide what is meaningful to itself, and the courts have no constitutional power to enforce social meaningfulness. The job of the court is to adjudicate the law, not legislate meaningfulness.

 

For that matter, does the term "gay marriage" have equal social meaning to "traditional marriage?" It doesn't to me. All the term "gay marriage" has done, in my estimation, is mangle the definition and diminish the social meaningfulness of the term "marriage," without equalizing it across the new board. If not, does this mean that the term "traditional marriage" should now be defined to include "gay marriage?"

 

Where does the insanity end?

 

Consider the implication of how this could play out in relation to other legal definitions. For example, if it were suggested that the legal term "heterosexual" has greater social meaning than "homosexual," would this be grounds to strike down laws defining heterosexuals as opposite-sex relationships? Would it be ground to change the meaning of "heterosexual" to include homosexual relations?

 

It wouldn't make sense, would it?

 

Well, principally, the same holds true for the legal definition of the term "marriage."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 22, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It's a good argument (possibly the best for your side of this issue) and you articulate it well.  But, ultimately, it still sounds like "separate but equal" to me.

 

You evidently don't have the least grasp of what I said. But, that is okay. I have contented myself with the realization that I now live in a world where everything, including even the seemingly most obvious contraventions, are mindlessly viewed as supporting certain dubious positions, and there isn't much I can do about the profound confirmation bias except to roll my eyes and not let it ruin my day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

You evidently don't have the least grasp of what I said. But, that is okay. I have contented myself with the realization that I now live in a world where everything, including even the seemingly most obvious contraventions, are mindlessly viewed as supporting certain dubious positions, and there isn't much I can do about the profound confirmation bias except to roll my eyes and not let it ruin my day.

 

Yep, I totally understand the feeling.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yep, I totally understand the feeling.

I don't think Wade is just sayint this for the heck of it. Consider this.

Hence, striking down laws defining "marriage" using such irrelevant Due Process and Equal Protection arguments, is terribly confused, misdirected, and inane.

What about them is confused, misdirected, and inane? Can you answer those questions? It appeared that you just deflected his arguments on the basis that "It still sounded like separation to me". You really didn't even engage in what he said.

[rockpond]

I don't think Wade is just sayint this for the heck of it. Consider this.

 

 

What about them is confused, misdirected, and inane? Can you answer those questions? It appeared that you just deflected his arguments on the basis that "It still sounded like separation to me". You really didn't even engage in what he said.

 

I've engaged, at length, with Wade in previous threads.

 

But, I don't really see a need to answer those questions since I don't see striking down Amendment 3 as "confused, misdirected, and inane".  Restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples is a violation of the 14th amendment.  Judge after judge after judge has confirmed that and there are numerous court rulings as evidence.

 

Wade disagrees for reasons that I have explored with him and understand.