Bill Protecting Defenders Of Traditional Marriage Reintroduced In Congress

[california boy]

The government knew, when they entered into a contractual arrangement with Catholic Services, that it was a Catholic organisation.

And that, as such, it is going to be governed by Catholic principles.

Including, but not limited to, their moral standards.

They've been "discriminating against" unmarried couples for as long as they've been in operation. Why would any reasonable person expect them to jettison those moral standards in favour of the current "gay marriage" fad?

Well that's not true. Catholic charities was servicing non Catholics and people who have been divorced

CFR that they discriminated against single parents and unwed couples in the facilites that were closed

The Catholics seem to only have a belief crisis with the gays. What a surprise. Typical hypocracy. And churches wonder why people are leaving religion

Edited June 19, 2015 by california boy

[Zakuska]

I disagree.  Giving religion tax breaks causes government favoritism of religion vs. non-religion, and favoritism of more-capital-intensive religion vs. less-capital-intensive religion.  It isn't the government's role to favor some religions over others, nor is it its role to favor religion over non-religion.

How is religion being favored.  Non-religious entities can become 501c's and engage in adoption services just as easily as churches can.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

Well that's not true. Catholic charities was servicing non Catholics and people who have been divorced

CFR that they discriminated against single parents and unwed couples in the facilites that were closed

Okay, I don't have a reference for that particular agency. But every Catholic adoption agency I've ever heard of has only adopted to married couples.

Indeed, they would arguably be failing in their duty to the children if they did otherwise.

Thus, I suggest that this is the default position. CFR that this particular agency did not "discriminate" in favour of the best interests of the children.

Who happen to be the only people who have "rights" when it comes to adoption.

The Catholics seem to only have a belief crisis with the gays. What a surprise. Typical hypocracy. And churches wonder why people are leaving religion

If you want to accuse people of "hypocracy," you need to accept the burden of proof.

So where is it?

[Bob Crockett]

 

Here's another interesting and somewhat related news item:

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio (BP) -- The current and 16 former Southern Baptist Convention presidents released a statement on biblical marriage and the national implications of same-sex marriage in a June 17 news conference prior to the concluding sessions of the SBC annual meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

 

SBC President Ronnie Floyd moderated the news conference, attended by eight of the former presidents.

 

The full statement follows:

 

As Southern Baptist Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of Believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God's Truth as central to our lives.

 

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures' teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

 

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex "marriages", our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

 

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attraction, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any behavior that deviates from God's design for marriage. We also believe religious freedom is at stake within this critical issue – that our first duty is to love and obey God, not man.

 

Therefore, we strongly encourage all Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject any mandated legal definition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God's design for life and relationships. As the nation's largest non-Catholic denomination with over 16 million members, we stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God's Word.

 

We also join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers and influence, and resources.

 

That third paragraph is interesting.  Here it is again: "Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex 'marriages', our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies."

 

One of the most common refrains we've heard from the pro-SSM folks is that re-defining marriage won't hurt anyone.  If that is so, then why is legislation being presented to "protect" religious liberty from potentially debilitating government actions against those religious groups/individuals who do not agree with SSM?  Why is the SBC declaring that it "will not recongize" SSMs, that its buildings will not host SSM ceremonies, and that SBC ministers will not perform such ceremonies?  Is it because they are concerned that failure to "toe the line" by refusing to solemnize/recognize SSMs may lead to types of disenfranchisement (such as those sought to be protected against in the Lee/Labrador bill)?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

It is as valuable and wise as hate crime legislation.  Depends upon your perspective.  

[Calm]

I am not marrying my sister in law if my brother dies. Just saying.

They already have kids, I take it.

[carbon dioxide]

There is already law that protects churches and individuals in regards to traditional marriage.  It is called the First Amendment. If the First Amendment can't protect us, no other legislation can and we have far more serious problems in this country than gay marriage.  We can really say the the Constitution itself will be hanging by a thread.

[tonie]

One of the most common refrains we've heard from the pro-SSM folks is that re-defining marriage won't hurt anyone. If that is so, then why is legislation being presented to "protect" religious liberty from potentially debilitating government actions against those religious groups/individuals who do not agree with SSM? Why is the SBC declaring that it "will not recongize" SSMs, that its buildings will not host SSM ceremonies, and that SBC ministers will not perform such ceremonies? Is it because they are concerned that failure to "toe the line" by refusing to solemnize/recognize SSMs may lead to types of disenfranchisement (such as those sought to be protected against in the Lee/Labrador bill)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nice one liner and false argument.

Why is the bill being proposed? Because people want to blame Jesus for their own discriminatory practices.

Tax exempt status is not a religious freedom.

Discrination in public accomadations is not a religious freedom.

You have articulated before, why discrimination against particular ethic/religious group(s) is/could be rational, you even used the law to support the discrimination.

Why not use the law to articulate why discrimination based on sexual orientation is rational.

Edited June 20, 2015 by tonie

[carbon dioxide]

Tax exempt status is not a religious freedom.

Discrination in public accomadations is not a religious freedom.

 

True but the government does have to treat all religions equally.  They can't choose favorites or religious positions they like and grant benefits to those and penalize those that they do not like.  They can't take away the tax exempt status of one faith because they are against say gay marriage and will not perform them while another group gets to have tax exempt status if they accept gay marriage and perform them.  

[Storm Rider]

Just to make sure I understand your point, you are claiming that the Catholic Church cannot provide these services without being paid to do so by the government, and that the government cannot get these services done without subcontracting to the Catholic Church.  These services are entitlements that people have a right to receive, and it is "persecution" if they don't get them.  Therefore, if the government requires its contractors not to discriminate and this particular contractor pulls out because it can't in good conscious abide by these nondiscrimination standards, the result is "persecution" against everybody who would have been receiving these government entitlements through the Catholic Church but now no longer can.

 

Is that a fair representation of your position?

 

You really think I am going to engage with that bit of twisting and turning?  Puhleaz.  

[mikegriffith1]

 

Here:

 

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers on Wednesday that would prohibit the federal government from denying tax exemptions or other government benefits to individuals and institutions that promote traditional marriage.

 

"Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order," the bill states.

 

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Obergefell v. Hodges that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right, the First Amendment Defense Act (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from denying tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings or from disallowing tax deductions for charitable donations to them.

 

The bill would also “prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” according to a press release from Lee’s office.

...

“The vast majority of Americans today still hold a robust view of religious liberty, yet across the country the right of conscience is threatened by state and local governments that coerce, intimidate, and penalize individuals, associations, and businesses who believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The First Amendment Defense Act is necessary to ensure that this kind of government excess never occurs at the federal level,” Lee said.

 

“Religious freedom is at the heart of what it means to be an American,” Labrador added. “America set the standard for upholding freedom of belief and worship in a diverse society. No American should ever doubt these protections enshrined in the First Amendment.

 

“Our bill ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage. Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it’s time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right,” Labrador said.

 

A PDF file of the bill is available here.  It may be noteworthy that the two senators who introduced this bill, Mike Lee (UT) and Raul Labrador (ID) are LDS.

 

A few questions to get the discussion going:

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the general objective of this bill?

 

2. Do you find any particular provision of the bill problematic?

 

3. Do you think this bill is unnecessary, or that it is "tiling at windmills?"

 

4. Do you find any of the "Findings" in section 2 of the bill concerning (see, e.g., No. 3 - "Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that '‘t’s certainly going to be an issue’.")?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that an increasing number of liberals reject even the most basic constitutional rights and are becoming increasingly overtly hostile to religion. If our founding fathers were alive today, they would be shocked that anyone would be arguing that the government could and should strip private religious institutions of their tax exempt status if they won't hire gays. They would find such an idea mind boggling and thoroughly un-American.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually they wouldn't.

SEE When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
- Benjamin Franklin,

[Sleeper Cell]

Actually they wouldn't.

SEE When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

- Benjamin Franklin,

 

So not taking money from a church is supporting it?  

 

If so, doesn’t exempting some religious institutions from taxes and not others -- depending on their faith-based internal employment practices -- support some religious institutions and not others?  Precisely what the First Amendment forbids?   

 

BTW, what ever happened to the phrase “separation of church and state?”  Why do those who cite “separation of church and state” whenever churches (at least conservative churches)  get involved with “state” matters, never seem to mention it when the “state” gets involved with the internal maters of religious institutions?   

Edited June 21, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[bcuzbcuz]

The problem is that an increasing number of liberals reject even the most basic constitutional rights and are becoming increasingly overtly hostile to religion. If our founding fathers were alive today, they would be shocked that anyone would be arguing that the government could and should strip private religious institutions of their tax exempt status if they won't hire gays. They would find such an idea mind boggling and thoroughly un-American.

Americans and their claims of religious persecution provide a never ending amount of amusement to other peoples around the world. The arguments that SSM somehow diminishes the union between a man and a woman is simply hilarious.

[carbon dioxide]

Americans and their claims of religious persecution provide a never ending amount of amusement to other peoples around the world. The arguments that SSM somehow diminishes the union between a man and a woman is simply hilarious.

I don't think SSM diminishes regular marriage but it does not make them the same or equal.

[sunstoned]

I don't think SSM diminishes regular marriage but it does not make them the same or equal.

I think the SCOTUS is going to rule on this, and my bet is that all citizens are going to be able to marry who they want and it will be equal in the law, the way it should be.

[thesometimesaint]

 

So not taking money from a church is supporting it?  

 

If so, doesn’t exempting some religious institutions from taxes and not others -- depending on their faith-based internal employment practices -- support some religious institutions and not others?  Precisely what the First Amendment forbids?   

 

BTW, what ever happened to the phrase “separation of church and state?”  Why do those who cite “separation of church and state” whenever churches (at least conservative churches)  get involved with “state” matters, never seem to mention it when the “state” gets involved with the internal maters of religious institutions?   

 

 

Churches, Temples, Mosques, Kingdom Halls, what have you, aren't taxed in this country. Individuals with those religious institution may or may not incur a tax liability. IE; An LDS Bishop isn't taxed for his work done in service to the Church. But he may be taxed on wages received in his outside employment. No one is requiring religious institutions to employ members of other faiths.

 

The First Amendment is not a license to do anything you want. I can't speed down the road and claim it is my First Amendment right to put others at jeopardy.

 

I don't know what you specifically mean by religious institutions. Can I claim my house is a religious institution, and avoid taxes, or would there be some other factors?

 

Religious people/groups have every right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Religious people/groups have every right to set rules of conduct, preach, teach, expound, exhort their members in nearly any way they want to without governmental interference. What they can't do is use the government to enforce them on others not of that faith. As long as I pay my taxes, and conduct myself in a civil manner the government has no claim on my beliefs.

Edited June 22, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

A few questions to get the discussion going:

 

1. Do you agree or disagree with the general objective of this bill?

Hard to say. There's really no need for it, unless, of course, religious schools or institutions that get tax benefits want to discriminate against those who are abiding by the law and are married as same sex couples. I'd say religious schools and institutions should be able to preach against it, as sin, but should not discriminate in their practice against people who are gay, or who are married and gay.

 

2. Do you find any particular provision of the bill problematic?

The problem isn't the provision, the problem resides in the purpose in my mind. There is no need, and without a need, it makes you wonder what is really going on. It seems like the purpose is really to allow religious institutions to discriminate against those who are gay.

 

3. Do you think this bill is unnecessary, or that it is "tiling at windmills?"

Yes and both.

 

4. Do you find any of the "Findings" in section 2 of the bill concerning (see, e.g., No. 3 - "Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that '‘t’s certainly going to be an issue’.")?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Calling it an issue highlights the position of the authors of this bill. It'll be in and out of courts--revised and recreated in nearly every corner of the country for many years. Thus, an issue.

[Russell C McGregor]

Hard to say. There's really no need for it, unless, of course, religious schools or institutions that get tax benefits want to discriminate against those who are abiding by the law and are married as same sex couples. I'd say religious schools and institutions should be able to preach against it, as sin, but should not discriminate in their practice against people who are gay, or who are married and gay.

 

The problem isn't the provision, the problem resides in the purpose in my mind. There is no need, and without a need, it makes you wonder what is really going on. It seems like the purpose is really to allow religious institutions to discriminate against those who are gay.

 

Yes and both.

 

Calling it an issue highlights the position of the authors of this bill. It'll be in and out of courts--revised and recreated in nearly every corner of the country for many years. Thus, an issue.

So you think it is wrong for religious practices to mirror religious doctrines.

You think the law should mandate hypocrisy.

I see.

[stemelbow]

So you think it is wrong for religious practices to mirror religious doctrines.

You think the law should mandate hypocrisy.

I see.

Not really. Preach and practice to your hearts content as long as it's not directly harming others, I say to religions. I don't really see that as suggesting religions should be able to discriminate against anyone willy-nilly.