"It's over: Gay marriage can't lose in courts" - Slate Magazine

[Backroads]

The KKK is a hategroup, you can't tell me they've done any good, or that they deserve anything but the hatred most people have for them.

It just seems unlikely churches will loose tax exempt status, now perhaps if churches begun to order the assaults or illegal activities towards other groups, then I can see some loss of rights there.

But otherwise...no, I don't see it. The US, for example, is still highly religious, even Canada, which is less religious hasn't done that, and we've legalized same sex marriage 100%

Don't worry, I'm against the KKK. I don't know if they've done any good. But we do run into problems when the government's qualifications for a certain privilege changes all the time.

[Backroads]

how would the church change if it didn't have tax exempt status in the US

That's a very interesting question. Kinda hope somebody knows what that would look like.

[Lakumi]

That's a very interesting question. Kinda hope somebody knows what that would look like.

what do you think would happen?

[Backroads]

Please note I don't know that much about the tax code.

I suppose, on my end, I wouldn't notice much change. I might feel my tithing offering is more of my membership fee than a real offering, but I probably would have no option. Clearly, the Church would have to pay taxes. There would either be less money to toss around or more business ventures.

I also wonder if the Church would become more political.

[Just_A_Guy]

But otherwise...no, I don't see it. The US, for example, is still highly religious, even Canada, which is less religious hasn't done that, and we've legalized same sex marriage 100%

Well, in the US, on race relations, Brown v. Board of Education came out in 1954. It took another twenty-nine years for the Supreme Court to decide that educational nonprofits could lose nonprofit status for religiously-based racial discrimination--Bob Jones University v. United States came out in 1983.

It's a privilege... Either earned (by flying under the radar) . . .

I hope "fly under the radar" isn't Newspeak for "make sure you don't publicly disagree with the government".

In the US, for instance, religious organizations are explicitly listed in the tax code in regard to tax-exempt organizations. There isn't any flying under the radar or bucking the system involved here.

That being said, though, I highly doubt that the Church's tax-exempt status is in any danger unless massive changes (like removing charitable organizations from the list of tax-exempt organizations) are made to the tax code.

The Church's nonprofit status comes under 501©(3). So did Bob Jones University's status, before it was revoked. In Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court added a requirement for 501©(3) status that isn't in the tax code:

History buttresses logic to make clear that, to warrant exemption under 501©(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest. The institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred.

SCOTUS then said that, because it adopted racially discriminatory policies, Bob Jones University failed the second prong of this test, and it lost its tax-exempt status. No tweaks to the tax code required. If OD-2 hadn't come out five years before Bob Jones was decided, we'd probably have lost our tax-exempt status too.

how would the church change if it didn't have tax exempt status in the US

I don't practice tax law; but my guess is that its revenues (not sure whether this would be gross or net) would be subject to federal corporate tax at 40%. Its real estate holdings--which are substantial, including not only thousands of meetinghouses but Church farms and ranches, etc., would most likely be subject to annual state property tax (state tax codes generally follow the federal code in awarding nonprofit status), as would its educational institutions. (For-profit, church-owned entities, and their properties, are already taxed; so there wouldn't be much difference there.) Tithes, fast offerings, and member contributions to LDS Humanitarian Aid, the PEF, and other funds would no longer be tax-deductable, so such contributions will create more of a financial pinch on families who make them and the net amount of such contributions would decrease. This doesn't just apply in the US--the IRS taxes all income, even income earned overseas (they do give credit for taxes paid to the government of the country of origin, but it's not going to be enough in this case because the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world--my understanding is that if the Church is already paying, say, 25% to the Crown on tithing gathered in the UK, it will then have to give Uncle Sam another 15%).

I suspect that the LDS Church has enough income from its for-profit holdings that it could absorb the hit and continue its work--on a much-reduced scale, of course; perhaps divesting itself of one or two of its educational institutions (which are notorious money-pits), raising the costs of missionary service, making wards go back to running an independent building and operating funds through bake sales, bazaars, pizza sales, car washes, etc (the proceeds of which, too, will be subject to tax) . . . that kind of thing. And of course, the Church would be subject to politically-motivated tax audits. (Oh, right--that never happens in America . . .)

But think of your local, nonaffiliated conservative Christian churches who have to pay a pastor, struggle with their building's mortgage, and can't count on regular subsidies from Church headquarters in Salt Lake--they live or die by the contributions of one or two hundred regular members. Even big churches like Catholocism, I believe, don't get much funding from Rome--each diocese is more or less a financially independent entity (the diocese in my hometown is actually in Chapter 11 bankruptcy right now). Making tax-exempt status contingent on embracing gay rights would be catastrophic for a lot of these churches--they will have to choose between toeing the line, or being taxed into nonexistence.

And if I may indulge in some apocalyptic doom-and-gloom here: there's no telling what fresh Hell the prince of this earth has in store for us above and beyond getting his minions in government to deploy punitive taxation against the Church of Christ. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Barring the start of the Millennium, it will never again, in our lifetimes, be as easy to be a Mormon as it is right now. It's all downhill from here. Edmunds-Tucker was a child's game, run by amateurs--the professionals are taking the field as we speak.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Saldrin]

Sad.

Especially seeing the joyful mood of Church people about it.

Second that.

[LittleWyvern]

SCOTUS then said that, because it adopted racially discriminatory policies, Bob Jones University failed the second prong of this test, and it lost its tax-exempt status. No tweaks to the tax code required. If OD-2 hadn't come out five years before Bob Jones was decided, we'd probably have lost our tax-exempt status too.

I probably already said this in the last thread you mentioned BJU (I can't keep track of all the instances of that), but assuming the theoretical test of a tax-exempt organization is whether or not it supports the public good and/or provides a public service, I think churches pass that test far more easily than schools do. So, BYU might have lost its tax-exempt status, but I have a hard time believing the Church itself would. We'll never know the answer to this question, of course.

[Just_A_Guy]

I probably already said this in the last thread you mentioned BJU (I can't keep track of all the instances of that), but assuming the theoretical test of a tax-exempt organization is whether or not it supports the public good and/or provides a public service, I think churches pass that test far more easily than schools do. So, BYU might have lost its tax-exempt status, but I have a hard time believing the Church itself would. We'll never know the answer to this question, of course.

Remember, the test isn't just whether the institution provides a public good or service (and I think, in this secular society, the argument that the "good" of a church is greater than that of a university gets less credible with every passing moment), but whether that good is undermined by the evils of the "discrimination" advocated by the institution.

And the race advocates didn't have the "you're making our young people KILL themselves!!!" card that gay-rights advocates are gearing up to play.

[Quin]

Oh, I get that it's not a right, but why should the status requirements get to change willy-nilly? Why should groups be forced to fly under the radar?

And, good grief, what does the NFL and non-profits have to do with our discussion? Yes, yes, yes, I know many different groups have tax-empty status. Thanks for playing teacher.

And, yes, there are plenty of people who are working to affect tax-empty qualifications to have a very liberal bias. Maybe not you, but there's plenty of groups. A simple google search reveals it.

The other tax-exempt groups (just starting in the middle) are because most of the fearfulness -at least around here- seems to stem mostly from people who don't know that other groups are under the same pressures, and that those pressures are normal. There's this OMG, our church is being attacked, we're going to lose everything... Kind of vibe. When really, it's just par for course. Whenever ANY group starts getting political, their tax-exempt status thunks onto the table.

In addition... For nearly every group who recieved tax-exempt status there's a group of anti-_____ trying to get their tax exempt status revoked. Be it anti-religion, anti-environmental, anti-gay youth outreach... If you're a special interest group, someone hates you. (It's those underwater basket weavers I'm on a tear for. Jess lemme at 'em ; )

Flying under the radar = simply following the law, doing what they say they are there to do, and staying out of politics.

Jump into politics = political pressure applied.

Very few big religious groups are apolitical. Most have their tax-exempt status constantly being challenged / gone over with a fine tooth comb by attorneys & investigators. On both sides. Our church is far more liberal than many, so we miss a lot of the political byplay, but not on this issue. Even still, our leaders don't tell us who or what to vote for. So even on this issue we're not as entrenched as a lot of big churches. I think it will be interesting to see which way the govt takes it (big and entrenched, big and less entrenched, or small fringe) as the test cases. But that's still probably years down the road. And then a decade or more before it hits (and is accepted by) the Supreme Court, and precedence set.

All of which boils down to why I'm not afraid at all.

The Church's lawyers & lobbiests will be working overtime to maintain & secure the Church's rights and privileges, right along with every other church who is opposing (or whose members in the vast majority) the changing legislation. There will be quite a lot of politicking, to maintain the status quo (aka tax exempt status & right to define holy matrimony as they choose), until the XYZ-Church vs The State of ABC makes it through to the US Supreme Court, and sets precedent.

Assuming it EVER gets that far. Which it very well may not, though I suspect it shall.

The fear just doesn't make sense to me.

It's like the fear on the opposite side of the fence that churches are trying to take over the govt., and will bring back the inquisition, conversion by the sword, and baby eating. (Okay, okay, technically : Statement of Faith/Are you now or have be been a communist era, mandated/state religion, outlawing all forms of birth control & STD protection).

Both sides have attorneys and lobbyists that are simply too good to allow any kind of radical change to happen. And both sides have to deal with the judiciary (ponderous), and house/senate (politicking). Which means that very little change happens, and what does happens very slowly. Generational slowly, in most cases, right? Even then, it tends to be a piece of an issue every generation. The other side might TRY and lash back, or add onto their own success (by changing even more laws) but that rarely happens. Usually, just being successful in advancing their own rights is just barely doable. Much less challenging other status quos.

So I can't imagine, that during every single other civil rights battle churches have maintained their autonomy, but for some reason during THIS one, churches are going to lose it?

Q

[Just_A_Guy]

The Church's lawyers & lobbiests will be working overtime to maintain & secure the Church's rights and privileges, right along with every other church who is opposing (or whose members in the vast majority) the changing legislation. There will be quite a lot of politicking, to maintain the status quo (aka tax exempt status & right to define holy matrimony as they choose), until the XYZ-Church vs The State of ABC makes it through to the US Supreme Court, and sets precedent.

You mean, like the Church's lobbyists and lawyers kept Prop 8/ Amendment 3 on the books? Or, like, how they ultimately prevailed in Reynolds and the Church continues to practice polygamy to this day?

So I can't imagine, that during every single other civil rights battle churches have maintained their autonomy, but for some reason during THIS one, churches are going to lose it?

On polygamy, we didn't retain our autonomy. We were subjugated. And I've already pointed out that if OD-2 hadn't come five years earlier, the Bob Jones decision would have meant the Church's subjugation on that issue as well. We got "outs" on those issues because the Lord instructed us to compromise. He's unlikely to authorize the Church to tolerate sodomy--Elder Callister's article in next month's Ensign reinforces that conclusion.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

And if I may indulge in some apocalyptic doom-and-gloom here: there's no telling what fresh Hell the prince of this earth has in store for us above and beyond getting his minions in government to deploy punitive taxation against the Church of Christ. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Barring the start of the Millennium, it will never again, in our lifetimes, be as easy to be a Mormon as it is right now. It's all downhill from here. Edmunds-Tucker was a child's game, run by amateurs--the professionals are taking the field as we speak.

And then when we add this warning by those who hold the keys in this generation, "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." How long will the Lord stay his hand?

[applepansy]

The separation of church & state has never (to my knowledge) been at peace.

At BEST it's a balanced stalemate between equal adversaries.

Q

yes, with God on one side and Satan on the other. Seriously, Separation of church and state only works in a righteous society. Aw... some will say back to religion again. I want to pose the thought that righteous and religion aren't necessarily connected.

[applepansy]

And then when we add this warning by those who hold the keys in this generation, "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." How long will the Lord stay his hand?

I am hoping it isn't much longer.

[Suzie]

Why both sides get so upset if the other believes differently? So what if a Church member support gay marriage? So what if a Church member opposes gay marriage? So what if some people believe the law should allow it and at the same time let religious bodies choose who they want to marry? I think we need to stop trying to force the other side to believe as we think they should. We have to accept once and for all that people are different, members and all.

[Guest]

Because rain falls on the just and unjust. The calamities foretold that are referenced in the Proclamation won't exist in bubbles.

[Suzie]

Because rain falls on the just and unjust. The calamities foretold that are referenced in the Proclamation won't exist in bubbles.

Eowyn, the point is when does the warning becomes judgment? I respect fully those who oppose gay marriage in the strongest terms and at the same time I respect fully those who do not. Personally, I don't think it is my place to hint or imply in any shape or form that those who believe differently as I do are not good members of the Church, I am speaking in general and not specific about this thread. I find those sort of tactics to be unhelpful.

[Guest]

when does the warning becomes judgment

Do they have to be separate? Is judgment always bad?

And personally, I would never use the word "bad". "Wrong", yes, or "misguided", but not bad. I'm sure there are plenty of times where people who are different from me exceed my faith and abilities in other areas.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Eowyn

[Quin]

You mean, like the Church's lobbyists and lawyers kept Prop 8/ Amendment 3 on the books? /QUOTE]

Not at all. I'm not saying the church is going to be successful in every political gambit it launches. I'm saying I have faith that the Church is strong enough to defend itself. Pushing agendas is entirely different than maintaining structural integrity.

Or, like, how they ultimately prevailed in Reynolds and the Church continues to practice polygamy to this day?

On polygamy, we didn't retain our autonomy. We were subjugated. And I've already pointed out that if OD-2 hadn't come five years earlier, the Bob Jones decision would have meant the Church's subjugation on that issue as well. We got "outs" on those issues because the Lord instructed us to compromise. He's unlikely to authorize the Church to tolerate sodomy--Elder Callister's article in next month's Ensign reinforces that conclusion.

EXACTLY!!!

Because we were a small fringe group back then.

We did NOT have the political clout to take on the govt... So we left.

Several times.

And later, didn't have the chops to hold our own.

We DO now.

We DO have the money, power, and influence today that we didn't have back then.

The church has come a loooooooong way in the past 100 some odd years.

Millions of members (active, not the total roll), hundreds of millions (I would suspect billions) of dollars, representatives in congress & the judiciary.

We're a respected, highly funded, highly placed organization.

Not a fringe group eking out survival on the frontier.

And we're not alone.

The Catholic Church is even better funded and further entrenched in society, and probably our best shield politically, while the en masse host of religious organizations which want to maintain their own autonomy are also "with" us.

It does NOT mean every agenda we have/attack we make we can push through.

But it DOES mean that attacks ON us are exceptionally difficult.

And I have faith that we can repel those attacks with relative ease.

As perhaps a more apt parallel than from back when we were a fringe group...

Look at women.

We're equal under the law with men.

But we don't hold the priesthood.

Why?

Because the Catholic & Protestant churches were strong enough back during Sufferage & Women's Lib to keep Church Autonomy in that area.

Churches that CHOOSE to allow women to hold the office, do.

Churches that do NOT choose to, are not forced to.

Churches are allowed to define the office of priest as they choose.

As church business.

Q

[Quin]

yes, with God on one side and Satan on the other. Seriously, Separation of church and state only works in a righteous society. Aw... some will say back to religion again. I want to pose the thought that righteous and religion aren't necessarily connected.

You believe our government is Satan???

I feel like I'm back in Iran, listening to people describe America.

I must be misunderstanding something, here. Right?

I'm talking about the separation of church & state being a balanced stalemate between equal adversaries. The government strong enough that no religion can take over the government, and religions strong enough that the government cannot take over religion. Which is what we have. People can choose to send their kids to government schools, or to religious schools. People can choose their religion. People can choose their government. And all the other stuff that goes all with that balance (we have some pretty awful chapters in our history... When that balance gets out of whack, or tipped too far to one side) but, while not perfect, we do generally maintain that balance.

I do really like your posit, though, that the righteous and religion aren't necessarily connected.

Q

[yjacket]

And then when we add this warning by those who hold the keys in this generation, "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." How long will the Lord stay his hand?

The disintegration of the family has been going on for a long time; ~50% of marriages end in divorce, both parents working with kids being raised by government schools, cohabitation, children out of wedlock is common, single parent homes, etc.

As I've said before, IMO the right, moral solution is for government to get out of the marriage business. Let religions determine what is or isn't marriage not government.

I for one am looking forward to the 2nd Coming to shine a light on all the corruption and tyranny in the world.

[Finrock]

Hi Suzie. I hope you are well! :)

Why both sides get so upset if the other believes differently? So what if a Church member support gay marriage? So what if a Church member opposes gay marriage? So what if some people believe the law should allow it and at the same time let religious bodies choose who they want to marry? I think we need to stop trying to force the other side to believe as we think they should. We have to accept once and for all that people are different, members and all.

The issue isn't accepting or being ignorant to the fact that people differ in their ideas. Not one person that I can see is upset because people believe different. That is a bogus argument to make in the context of the discussions that have been going on. The issue is that not all ideas are created equal and not everything that is spouted by pop culture and the new age morality is to be accepted apathetically and without standing up to truth and light.

There is truth. It is not relative. There is a right and there is a wrong. They are not relative. Truth matters. Upholding truth matters.

We can't stand by in lukewarm and in delusional comfort when Satan and his cohorts are in full force destroying the family and, apparently, while those who proclaim to be disciples of Christ are celebrating because society is accepting homosexual fornication as some virtuous and special group who differ from everyone else in this world who struggle with perversions, sins, weaknesses, and the like. It also just baffles me to see those who have covenanted to build up the kingdom of God celebrating in unabashed joy about the destruction of marriage as created and dictated by God.

It is astounding to me to see how many good people are being blinded by the clever yet destructive philosophies of men mingled with scripture that flows from the devil. When will we recognize that we can't have one foot in the world and another foot in Zion? The gap will become wider as time advances and those straddling the line won't be able to do the splits any more before they either fall on the left side or on to the right side.

-Finrock

Edited February 16, 2014 by Finrock
Grammar

[Bini]

I don't believe I'm blinded because I support equal rights for the GLBT community. I may not agree with the act of homosexuality but I do believe homosexuals, as people, should be treated equally and have the same rights as everyone else. This box of crayons isn't a black or white issue to me. You can be a worthy LDS who supports equal rights for all, yet, does not support homosexual acts. There's an in between. I personally don't like being lumped in the same category as those that feel God embraces the act of homosexuality - I don't believe that. I do believe that God embraces the homosexual and has given him/her the agency to choose how they live.

[Anddenex]

It is astounding to me to see how many good people are being blinded by the clever yet destructive philosophies of men mingled with scripture that flows from the devil. When will we recognize that we can't have one foot in the world and another foot in Zion? The gap will become wider as time advances and those straddling the line won't be able to do the splits any more before they either fall on the left side or on to the right side.

-Finrock

“We are engaged in the Lord's work; this is His Church; He is the author of the plan of salvation; it is His gospel which we have received by the opening of the heavens in this day; and our desire and whole purpose in life should be to believe the truths He has revealed and to conform our lives to them. No person in or out of the Church should believe any doctrine, advocate any practice, or support any cause that is not in harmony with the Divine Will. Our sole objective where the truths of salvation are concerned should be to find out what the Lord has revealed and then to believe and act accordingly.”

( “Out of the Darkness,” Ensign, June 1971, 2.)

[Anddenex]

Why both sides get so upset if the other believes differently? So what if a Church member support gay marriage? So what if a Church member opposes gay marriage? So what if some people believe the law should allow it and at the same time let religious bodies choose who they want to marry? I think we need to stop trying to force the other side to believe as we think they should. We have to accept once and for all that people are different, members and all.

My frustration, is due to my knowledge and belief in exaltation. The support of Church members toward gay marriage allows brothers and sisters of ours who would have easily overcome this temptation...who now withdraw themselves from truth because the world accepts and tells them to embrace a lifestyle that is contrary to Divine Will.

The more something is embraced, contrary to Divine will, the more likely the weak will choose a contrary lifestyle, whereas, if it wasn't embraced they may have chosen to be faithful. When Zion is established, it is a place that will accept all our differences, but it will not be a place that accepts lifestyles and choices contrary to God's will, at this level.

I, also, agree with Eowyn, my children will grow up in a time where the prophets warnings have a greater chance of coming to pass...where the Lord fully withdraws and the calamities foretold are already coming to pass. The rain falls on the just and the unjust...and members will not be withheld from these calamities...because of the disobedience of God's children on earth, and then again, I hear the words of Nephi upon the tower, "Why has he forsaken you? It is because you have hardened your hearts; yea, ye will not hearken unto the voice of the good shepherd; yea, ye have provoked him to anger against you." And as a world, and definitely as a nation, we are provoking him. Yes, this concerns me. Yes, this upsets me. Yes, when I watch a young member of the Church...when I watch a father (member of the Church) who forsakes his God, his faith, his family because the world and our nation embraces this lifestyle...yes, this upsets me, especially if the lifestyle wasn't so embraced and they would have remained faithful; they wouldn't have left their family.

[Finrock]

Hi Bini. I hope you're doing well! :)

I personally don't like being lumped in the same category as those that feel God embraces the act of homosexuality - I don't believe that. I do believe that God embraces the homosexual and has given him/her the agency to choose how they live.

God loves and embraces all of his children whether they have homosexual tendencies or not. It is precisely the fact that you and others identify people who have homosexual desires as "homosexuals" rather than just children of God who are struggling, like everyone else, with their particular weaknesses and trials.

I am a child of God and so are you and so are all of the other people on this earth, even those who have homosexual tendencies. That is our core identity. Before anything else, we were God's. When you realize AND accept the true purpose of this life it is utterly foolish and indeed delusional to advocate and support a cause that will further prevent our brothers and our sisters from receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ and those blessings that come from obedience to true principles.

Only with rhetoric can we separate God from the affairs of the state. The reality is that this world is God's and it is only His will that we should be supporting and advocating. Why do we fall for the false notion that allowing or supporting same-gender marriage (as if it were some equal rights thing) is some virtue? That is the twisted logic of people who do not understand God, His ways, and their true purpose in life. And here we have good people who otherwise desire to be good but they are blinded by the neat package of false equality for the sons and daughters of God who struggle with the trial of same-sex attraction. The irony is that in the end we are supporting their bondage to philosophies that can never help them attain eternal life. You want to know where true freedom lies; Where true equality is? It is with God and His ways! Wickedness never was and never will be happiness. If we desire the best for our brothers and sisters then we will do everything in our power to help them to learn about and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the way and it is strait and narrow.

-Finrock

Edited February 16, 2014 by Finrock