Marriage, Church And State
I can appreciate Robert Stacy McCain's argument as to gay marriage being A Hill To Die On for Conservatives. However, in thinking about this topic myself, I wonder if the proper "hill" isn't the one before. This argument seems destined to bring up a battle between Church and State.
Back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the resolution to be debated. After a long exchange of trans-Atlantic telegrams, Buckley in exasperation cabled his final proposal: "Resolved: Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile."
As I doubt the Catholic Church and some others are going to suddenly reverse course and embrace gay marriage in deference to the Iowa court, I'm left wondering how this issue might proceed.
One logical argument would be to make marriage the province of the Church, leaving the State to deal with the social contracting aspects of so called civil unions. Whatever the case, it's fair to say the Culture War is on again. Based upon his Twitter feed, at least one politician has taken note of it. I imagine there will be others.
My problem with the decision has less to do with its substance, than how it was achieved. Unless one happens to be wearing a black robe, it seems the people have less and less say in government every day.
I find it breathtakingly ironic how “Conservatives” will deeply embrace the Progressive idea of social engineering through government policy when it involves promoting marriage through tax breaks. I find it breathtakingly funny when it comes back to bite them on the ass due to that inconvenient “equal protection” clause. I’m surprised they dislike Obama so much – when it comes to the philosophy of how to govern, they have more in common with him than they do with the framers of the Constitution.
Gay marriage is but one of many proxy wars in the battle against the church. It is a hill to die on because if it is forced through, then it will be used as a weapon to destroy the church, especially the Catholic church. There will be no exceptions because the whole point is to get a legal decision in which the ACLU can use to damage the church. (They would like to destroy the church but they will take what they can get.) The ACLU has been trying to destroy the Boy Scouts for years and the 1st Amendment is the only thing that stopped them. The ACLU has learned from their initial proxy war– people tend to side with kids versus gay rights. Then, they hit upon the brilliant decision to link gay marriage to the civil rights movement (even though this pisses off Black people). It also allowed the lefties to openly call Christians bigots. Claims that they do not intend to force churches to marry gay people are all lies. All they need is one court decision on gay marriage to launch thousands of lawsuits against churches across country. Churches will be forced to decide whether to close, capitulate, or fight long exhausting legal battles. The damage will be extensive.
Please note that people laughed when I argued that the tobacco cases would provide the basis for fat people to sue McDonald’s and Ms. Fields. Once you broke that barrier, there would be a flood of lawsuits against the food industry and others. The only industry that has held the line is the gun industry. Why? Because the NRA fought tooth and nail against the anti-gun idiots. The NRA recognized that they were at war with the gun grabbers, organized, and FOUGHT. The NRA fought and they won. Big Tobacco has become a giant moneypit for state governments and lefty causes.
As the saying goes, “the devil’s greatest achievement was to convince the world that he does not exist.” Likewise, the ACLU greatest achievement was to convince the public that it’s goals are not anti-religious. However, gay marriage has exploded that lie. It’s undeniable that their policies will destroy church doctrine. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The ACLU and the left have been engaged in an all out war against the church for years but Christians, as a group, have not been engaged in the battle. It is a multi-front war– the attack on the boy scouts, gay marriage, gay adoption (closing down the adoption agency run by the Catholic church because they did not allow gay couples to adopt), forcing eHarmony to open a gay division, suing photographer for not working a gay wedding, the Freedom of Choice Act, etc. Of course, the ACLU uses legal blackmail to do the bulk of its work i.e. threaten groups with years of legal costs, bad publicity, and attacks unless they give in to the ACLU’s demands. So, I say with adopt the NRA model, and fight. It is a hill worth dying on.
“– One logical argument would be to make marriage the province of the Church, leaving the State to deal with the social contracting aspects of so called civil unions. –”
This was the moderate solution ten years ago. Unfortunately, radicals on the left saw this as another edition of “separate but equal” and radicals on the right satisfied that fear by banning it at the federal level via DOMA and at various state levels with anti-gay laws and Constitutional amendments.
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
The end result makes civil unions incredibly unappealing. When you’re going to get crucified by the homophobes either way, why demand only half your civil rights?
there are technically, two classes of taxpayers.
those who are married and given access to tax breaks, and gay/unmarried.
a sensible argument would call for equal taxation of married and unmarried. The push to admit homosexuals into the elevated status of equal treatment with the indivudals who are married, still creates a different class of citizens, who do not benefit from the tax rates of the married class. The ‘nobility’ of the aclu must be called into question when they are championing a select group be given an advantage over another group, versus advocating fairness for all. Yes they want homosexuals to be treated as fairly as heterosexuals, but only married heterosexuals.
If the aclu was truly committed to fairness for all, they would be arguing against any tax benefits provided by marriage, making all citizens equal. This does not mean that tax breaks for those who are caring for children, regardless of sexual preferences, should also be abolished. If anything, individuals caring for minors should be given an increased tax break.
the argument against ANY govt benefits for those who are married-in a religious ceremony-is far easier to make, than advocating additional special treatment for another class of individuals, while not providing equal treatment for all.
wouldn’t an atheist have the right to argue that since marriage is religious ceremony, it unfairly aids those who believe in marriage?
Nominal Christians represent some 65-70% of the population, with truly obedient, Bible-believing, following-Jesus-as-Lord Christians probably around 10% of the total population, vs. the 2-3% of the US population that is LGBT.
Between those two margins, is the great swath of the “undecided” masses (or perhaps more accurately, the *unconcerned* masses) who must be courted… and ultimately energized in the fight for the family.
And Christians must present their case to this public, which has been sold “hook, line and stinker” on the notion that gay marriages and gay family constructs are healthy and viable alternatives to the traditional family.
That being said, as proponent of small-gov’t federalism and state’s rights… I really think that the federal government should keep silence on the matter and let the states decide what is in their best interests for their populations in re marriage rights.
Ideally, the churches should certainly fight to preserve their rights to honor and sanctify marriages according to their own doctrines and not be forced at the point of judicial writ and penalty to alter their practices in accordance with Man’s thinking.
At the same time, if a state wishes to guarantee to both LGBTs and Christians the right to such civil partnerships with the same certain accepted legal protections and advantages, or limit them to partnerships of men only with women, that is something that should be permitted Constitutionally.
Bear in mind that there is no “right to marriage” in the Constitution: at the time of its framing, the state held no interest in defining marriage, or the licensing (granting permissions) for the same.
If anything, the “Compromise of Gamaliel” I see coming will be to remove marriage from its tax-shelters altogether, since the government tends to lose revenue when people marry, if I am not mistaken.
cursory glance at wiki-”marriage penalty”
“The marriage penalty originated in 1969, when Congress tried to equalize what was then an advantage for couples, as compared to single taxpayers.
In 1996, forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single, according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average penalty was $1,380. Several pieces of legislation have been passed since the late nineties to do away with these penalties. For example, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 introduced section 1(f)(8) to the Internal Revenue Code, which mitigates the marriage penalty effect in the lower tax brackets. Section 1(f)(8) adjusts the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for joint return filers relative to the ceiling of the 15-percent tax bracket for unmarried spouses. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the benefit to joint return filers by eliminating the marriage penalty for 2003 and 2004 and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the benefit to 2005-2007. Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010. Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011. However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers.”
“– there are technically, two classes of taxpayers.
those who are married and given access to tax breaks, and gay/unmarried. –”
By that logic, there’s a lot more than two. There’s the class of taxpayer that is given access to the Child Tax Credit, the taxpayer who earns income primarily through Social Security, the taxpayer who earns income primarily through capital gains, the taxpayer who rents property, the taxpayer who runs his own business, the taxpayer who has mortgage interest, the taxpayer with stake in a partnership…
If you’re going to divide people up by who does and who does not get various tax breaks, you’re going to end up with a very diverse list of people.
“– Bear in mind that there is no “right to marriage” in the Constitution: at the time of its framing, the state held no interest in defining marriage, or the licensing (granting permissions) for the same. –”
The equal protections clause affords equal citizenship rights to all citizens. Marriage would be encompassed in this provision. If the federal government makes laws regarding a “married couple” but treats one type of married couple differently than another based on race, sex, age, whatever else, they’re violating equal protections.
So giving white guy A the right to drink from a water fountain black guy B isn’t allowed access to, or giving man C the right to join a sports team when woman D can’t, or giving straight couple E access to a tax break that gay couple F is denied can be construed as violation of those same equal protections.
I mean, you’re right. Get rid of legalized marriage and there’s nothing that requires Catholics to recognize Methodist nuptials. But that’s not what the majority of marriage rights advocates are arguing over.
“By that logic, there’s a lot more than two. There’s the class of taxpayer that is given access to the Child Tax Credit, the taxpayer who earns income primarily through Social Security, the taxpayer who earns income primarily through capital gains, the taxpayer who rents property, the taxpayer who runs his own business, the taxpayer who has mortgage interest, the taxpayer with stake in a partnership…”
“there are technically, two classes of taxpayers” in the sense of being married v. unmarried. Just finished my taxes…the columns to choose from provided for:
three categories based on marital status, with a ‘head of household’ added on.
missed the columns for social security, capital gains, renters, sbos…etc.
did see a disparity in the actual tax rates…
towards higher brackets, it seems that two people living in sin have to pay 4000 dollars more in taxes, than the same two people if they were married.
Why aren’t Christians taking a page from the ACLU and Lefties and going after them in a more forceful manner?
Also should the right set up front organizations to now sue muslims over this and provoke a muslim backlash against the ACLU? That would be fun to watch.
“– missed the columns for social security, capital gains, renters, sbos…etc. –”
When you start receiving SS, capital gains, renter’s income, mortgage interest, and business income, you’ll probably need to do some research. Start with Schedules A, B, C, and D. Then check your Pub 17 guide.
If you’re going to join the tea party, you might want to brush up on the laws you’re actually protesting against.
This is none of your business. Unless you, yourself, will be marrying a person of the same sex, what do you care? Why do you care? If you put as much energy in your own life as you do trying to direct others, you would be far better off. I have found that when those who bother too much with another’s choices, it usually tells me that they feel a need to command and pass jusgement upon others. Their lives are probably in shambles (divorce, alcohol, poverty, no education). So to feel superior, they become authoritarians – towards others. That is the basis of the modern GOP. Their own worlds are in ruin, but they always have time to tell others how to live.
This is none of your business – unless you happen to be curious about same sex issues.
If government gets out of the marriage business and starts handing out civil unions, leaving marriage to religion — there will be gay marriage (not just civil unions) in all 50 states immediately thereafter. Social conservatives forget that there are plenty of churches willing to marry gays, even if their church isn’t one of them.
“So to feel superior, they become authoritarians – towards others. That is the basis of the modern GOP. Their own worlds are in ruin, but they always have time to tell others how to live.”
So what our friend jumbo seems to be saying here is that unless you’re a demonrat, you have no right to “jusge” how anyone else lives…..man I love hypocracy.
“Schedules A, B, C, and D”
So LLama….No Schedule E for rental income/expense???????????
“If you’re going to join the tea party, you might want to brush up on the laws you’re actually protesting against.”
Actually, what is being protested is the fact that Obama and his appointees like Geithner, Solis, Daschle, and Sebelius, as well as the leaders of the Obama Party like Rangel, Stark, Dodd, Pelosi, and Reid, don’t pay their taxes or follow the laws that they and their brainless shills like IslamoLlama wave at others.
Isn’t it funny how the hypocrite IslamoLlama whines about “equal protection”, but supports the Obama Party’s habit of cheating on taxes?
YOU’VE ALREADY LOST
This is another argument the right is losing. In fact they are losing all the arguments these days. Once again Riehl trots out the tired old judicial activism argument although without judicial activism as he calls it (some would say it’s the judiciary dispensing justice but then justice is always a highly flexible term in some quarters) women wouldn’t have the vote, black kids in the south would still be in desegregated schools and MLK would still be marching.
Wow, the day just isn’t complete without a troll playing the “racist” card at some point in the discussion.
The blacks in this country certainly don’t owe their freedoms to the judges or the Democrats, try reading up on your civil rights history Johnny boy!
See you at the Tea Party Wednesday!
“– Isn’t it funny how the hypocrite IslamoLlama whines about “equal protection”, but supports the Obama Party’s habit of cheating on taxes? –”
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/06/top_iraq_contractor_skirts_us_taxes_offshore/
Yeah, funny how you get hung up on undeclared limo rides and back taxes owed on Social Security, then cheer on the mega-corps with cash stuffed in Cayman Island Accounts. You’ll notice that when Geitner and Daschle were notified of tax delinquency, they paid up in full right away. Meanwhile, Obama’s got to break arms to get a list of top American UBS clients evading taxes by stashing their incomes in foreign banks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/business/03irs.html?_r=2
As for Solis and Sebelius, as well as Rangel, Stark, Dodd, Pelosi, and Reid… you mind linking to all their tax evading crimes? Or are you just listing names and hoping no one bothers to fact check any of this?
“One logical argument would be to make marriage the province of the Church, leaving the State to deal with the social contracting aspects of so called civil unions.”
Nice idea, but you’re a little late – The Rev. Donald Sensing proposed exactly this, with details, about 5 years ago:
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_02_01_archive.html#107697265143483679
“Yeah, funny how you get hung up on undeclared limo rides and back taxes owed on Social Security, then cheer on the mega-corps with cash stuffed in Cayman Island Accounts.”
Since you don’t care about the former, which are crimes, why do you care about the latter, which aren’t?
Answer: Because you’re an Obama Party shill who makes excuses for the fact that you support tax cheats and that your party supports tax cheats.
Case in point: you insist and whine and scream that Solis, Sebelius, Stark, and Rangel, just to name four, never cheated on their taxes or ever did anything wrong.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sebelius_wedapr01,0,5257116.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-solis6-2009feb06,0,2524871.story
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/pete-stark-hous.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/09/zelinsky-rangel.html
I repeat: Isn’t it funny how the hypocrite IslamoLlama whines about “equal protection”, but supports the Obama Party’s habit of cheating on taxes?
“— So giving white guy A the right to drink from a water fountain black guy B isn’t allowed access to, or giving man C the right to join a sports team when woman D can’t, or giving straight couple E access to a tax break that gay couple F is denied can be construed as violation of those same equal protections. —”
Comparing apples, oranges, bananas, and a couple of other fruits.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist that last one… lol)
Alright:
A and B is wrong, because one cannot choose his own skin colour.
C and D need not apply either, in the case where that sports team is private, or has established rules that preclude co-ed play (i.e. full-contact football, where both the mean and average male has significantly more upper body and core strength than the mean and average female)
E vs. F is a different matter; forcing the will of a mere 2% of the population on the rest of us just to make a statement that they are “normal” when they can already form civil unions and secure the same contractual agreements and rights the rest of us have thru powers-of-attorney, wills, codicils, and other instruments is nothing more than the tyranny of the (very small) minority.
The societal damage and cultural damage being done by this is grave enough as it is: the slippery slope here is no fallacy. Given the inch of universal gay marriage, it is no small leap at all to legalized pederastic “marriages”, polyamoury, and bestiality.
Given the tenor and general willingness of Americans to forsake and to forget God, gay marriage will be a fact in most states inside of 10 years. And woe to us, for the generation raised up after that: for it shall come to pass that that generation shall be worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, and it shall be as the days of Noah before the Flood.
The one good thing to be had of all this is that it means the return of the Lord Jesus draws nearer and nearer with certainty: wherefore we should repent and embrace Him as Saviour and Lord.
I have trouble reading through these posts. The issue for me is govermnent intrusion into religion. As stated in one of the earlier posts, the GLBT lifesyle is being enshrined as a civil right.
Anyone opposed to the civil right can be sued civilly and by the government.
I read somewhere, only I cannot find the reference, of a priest and his church being prosecuted for not conducting a gay marriage. The guilty verdict, can there be any other, results in damages and sanctions including revocation of tax exempt status.
How is this happening?