The argument I keep hearing from Prop 8 supporters: If gay marriage is socially and legally accepted, churches will be forced to marry gay couples or risk losing their tax-exempt status.
Such an outcome seems contrary to current U.S. constitutional law, but the Yes people I know keep expressing their fear about a recent court case in which a Methodist church lost its tax exempt status because they refused to marry a gay couple.
It took a bit of searching to find this because someone told me the church was in Massachusetts, but here is the New Jersey court case in question, and Misty of the More Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality and the Bible blog does an excellent job of distilling the actual facts and findings of the case. Read it!
Turns out, the decision was about whether the property in question (a pavillion on a boardwalk) was a public facility, subject to anti-discrimination laws, or a religious organization.
"The investigation will need to determine whether Respondent is a religious organization, whether the OGCMA's overall use of the boardwalk pavilion constitutes religious activity and whether its pavilion rental is a religious activity."The court decided that based on the use of the facility, the large amount of public funding the pavillion has received over the years, and other factors, that it was not a religious organization. So the facility (not a church) lost its tax-exempt status because it was determined that it was not functioning as a religious entity, NOT because they refused to marry a gay couple.
Sheesh.
I knew my gut was right, but it feels even better to know the facts!
The Morman and Catholic churches can marry whomever they want, but they shouldn't be deciding who other churches want to marry, or who the state marries. And this civil union business isn't the solution. Doesn't anyone remember the lessons of "separate but equal?"
And now this word from one of my favorite commentators of our time:
