# Should churches that refuse to perform gay marriages lose tax exempt status? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742 "2014-02-19T23:54:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Unpronounceable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9de0a6/32.png) [@Unpronounceable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unpronounceable)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/302 "2014-03-09T21:40:28Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Well, you might have caught some shit if you’ve argued that the religious side should have the exclusive right to the word “marriage”. Plenty of people who were married by a judge/mayor/registrar would be quite offended if you said they weren’t really “married” because it wasn’t a religious ceremony. IIRC, I suggested the government simply extend the existing civil union/marriage law to homosexual couples, and to let the terminology shake itself out over the next few years as it becomes the new normal. The response was typically something along the lines of “But it’s just a word! You’re supporting everything I want except the one thing I say is meaningless! Why are you such an uncompromising asshole?” ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/303 "2014-03-09T22:15:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Noone has a right to be married by catholic priests. They have a constitutionally protected right to conduct their sacraments in accordance with their religious beliefs even if their religious beliefs say that men can’t marry other men. Nobody has, in general, a right to any religious/spiritual good. Not baptism, not marriage, not a religious funeral, not the Eucharist. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/304 "2014-03-09T22:49:20Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > IIRC, I suggested the government simply extend the existing civil union/marriage law to homosexual couples, and to let the terminology shake itself out over the next few years as it becomes the new normal. The response was typically something along the lines of “But it’s just a word! You’re supporting everything I want except the one thing I say is meaningless! Why are you such an uncompromising asshole?” Well, now I’m a little confused as to what scenario you were dealing with. I mean, extending the existing marriage law to include same-sex couples is exactly what SSM supporters have been campaigning for. But it sounds from the reaction as if you were talking about something else? Was it the idea that the state should call the legal institution “civil union” and the term “marriage” would be reserved for the religious institution? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/305 "2014-03-09T23:10:30Z")
> [@Unpronounceable](#): > > IIRC, I suggested the government simply extend the existing civil union/marriage law to homosexual couples, and to let the terminology shake itself out over the next few years as it becomes the new normal. The response was typically something along the lines of “But it’s just a word! You’re supporting everything I want except the one thing I say is meaningless! Why are you such an uncompromising asshole?” Because, **Unpronounceable** , there already exists such a thing as civil marriage, and: “civil _union_” =/= “civil _marriage_” There’s a reason they had to come up with the neologism, and it is that they are different. Heck, many of the states that voted for _“It Means Only Between One Man And One Woman”_ amendments to outlaw SSM went on to _also_ tack on language saying that neither would they give equal consideration to anything else, whatever the words used to name it, that purported to have the same legal effects as OMOW “marriage”. Those opposed to progress wanted to not just hold on to the mere word “marriage” but to also make sure BY LAW that _nobody_ else could use it and that \*nothing else \*could have the same effect. Given that, then we could do no other than stand for that everyone should be able to use it and _mean_ it. AND, while that was happening \*\*\*MOST \*\*\*of us on the pro-marriage equality side had been arguing all this time that what we intended was simply to extend civil marriage to all gender pairings, without changing the rights, duties, privileges and obligations involved, so nobody else had to fear their already-standing marriage would be in any way diminished or debased. And that no, we were not trying to shove anything down the religious people’s throats, we did not care what anyone did in their own church on their own time and dime. However as it has become obvious, some in our group _do_ care, and further _do_ want the religious to choke on it. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/306 "2014-03-09T23:52:30Z")
Two things seem apparent to me in this thread: [ol][li]Steophan doesn’t have a clue as to what US constitutional issues are in regards to freedom of religion.[/li][li]Steophan is not debating in good faith here[/ol][/li] Where am I wrong in this assessment? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/307 "2014-03-10T00:22:54Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’ve not, at any point, suggested forcing anybody to act against their beliefs, except where doing so would infringe someone else’s rights. To make it clear, to go back to the subject of the thread, no church, or anyone else, should be forced to perform gay marriages. Is that clear? It’s simply that, if they _choose_ to perform marriages, they should offer them without bigotry to everyone. Since you have carefully ignored [my response to this claim](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17175577#post17175577) and you continue to pretend that churches, generally, charge money for marriages, I suspect, as others have noted, that you are only here to see your words on the screen and have no interest in the actual discussion. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/308 "2014-03-10T01:29:05Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I strongly doubt that most Christian churches will be performing gay marriages 50 years from now, or for that matter 500 years from now. I disagree. I think as generations pass and SSM is more cmmonly accpeted and SS couples become part of more people’s day to day experience churches that don’t welcome SS couples or allow SS couples to marry there will be seen in the same light as other discriminatory traditions that have all but disappeared. For example, more churches ordain women now than did 100 years ago. The LDS church had to start ordaining black people. To survive congregations have to attract and keep new generations of believers and it becomes more difficult to do that when you cling to outdated unpopular beliefs that are generally seen as unfair. > [@](#): > > It must be said that churches which have enthusiastically embraced the ‘reappraising’ position on homosexuality are, uh, not the most demographically healthy in the world. To say the least . Could you explain what you mean by this? > [@](#): > > And I’d also say I would agree with them. Gender complementarity and procreation are essential to Christian marriage, and a gay couple can neither represent gender complementarity, nor can they procreate. Man I am so tired of people saying gay couples can’t procreate. They can and they do. They can’t accidently procreate as hetero couples can but they can make the same efforts that a hetero couple makes if one partner cannot. and what the hell is gender complementarity? A new made up term? Couples are made up of two people and whether they compliment each other or not as human beings has nothing to do wiith their genitals or how they have sex. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/309 "2014-03-10T01:39:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They shouldn’t be compelled to do _anything_. They don’t have to perform weddings, and I’d be completely against compelling them to do so. > > If they _choose_ to perform them, they should do so without discrimination. Fine, but the thread isn’t about what you think they\* should\* do. I’ll also point out that they preform marriages as religious ceremonies and those marriages have legal standing ONLY if the couple takes specific steps to inform and secure a license from the state. A religious ceremony ONLY has no real legal standing. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/310 "2014-03-10T01:50:28Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Several posters, including me, have outlined a number of those reasons in this thread. What do you disagree with in those specific reasons? I looked at your posts in this thread and didn’t find one that outlined any reasons why churches should be tax exempt. Where is it? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/311 "2014-03-10T02:02:18Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I looked at your posts in this thread and didn’t find one that outlined any reasons why churches should be tax exempt. Where is it? Post 102. FYI: If you click on the number of replies for the thread from the forum page, you’ll get a list of all posters in the thread. If you then click on their number of posts, you’ll get a list of all of those posts. It’s handy for long threads. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/312 "2014-03-10T04:52:06Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Two things seem apparent to me in this thread: > [ol][li]Steophan doesn’t have a clue as to what US constitutional issues are in regards to freedom of religion.[/li][li]Steophan is not debating in good faith here[/ol][/li] > Where am I wrong in this assessment? As for point 1, it’s not that I don’t know what the law says, it’s that I believe the law is wrong, and that religion should not be an excuse for bigotry. As for 2, you can make your own mind up on that. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/313 "2014-03-10T04:59:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Since you have carefully ignored [my response to this claim](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17175577#post17175577) and you continue to pretend that churches, generally, charge money for marriages, I suspect, as others have noted, that you are only here to see your words on the screen and have no interest in the actual discussion. I have repeatedly addressed that. If the church offers a service, it should offer it without discriminating according to gender, race, sexuality, religion, disability, or whatever. It should get no pass, morally or legally, for bigotry because it’s a religious organisation. A law that prevents that being enforced in public or when money changes hands is a bad law. Your freedom of religion should end when it affects other people. You _may_ be able to interpret that as saying two muslims couldn’t get a catholic wedding, but you certainly couldn’t deny gays or blacks one. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/314 "2014-03-10T05:03:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You don’t seem to have a lot of respect for the first amendment. You are a good example of why there is so much opposition to gay marriage in the first place. You don’t just want equality under the law, you want everyone else to treat you the way you want to be treated. Pretty much, yes, although it’s more that I expect to be treated the way they treat other people, regardless of sexuality, religion, race, or whatever, based on what I actually do. > [@](#): > > No, discrimination is not almost always morally wrong. It is frequently morally neutral, and sometimes morally good (see Affirmative Action). False. > [@](#): > > Because it is their constitutional right. Then your constitution is wrong. > [@](#): > > Noone has a right to be married by catholic priests. They have a constitutionally protected right to conduct their sacraments in accordance with their religious beliefs even if their religious beliefs say that men can’t marry other men. Of course. I’ve repeatedly defended their right to marry no-one. What is wrong is for them to marry some people, but not others, based on sexuality, religion race, or whatever. I see that you only care about the freedom of religion of the priest and not the couple getting married. Odd, that. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/315 "2014-03-10T05:10:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > And if you choose to hold a birthday party for your kid, you have to offer one to everyone. Me and my drinking buddies are gonna show up, and you can’t make us leave. No, you don’t. You can invite who you like. If you refuse to invite someone who you otherwise would have done because they’re gay, or black, or jewish, then you’re a reprehensible human being. If it wasn’t a private party, but an event you charged for, sold tickets, or whatever, then refusing to sell them to gays, blacks, or jews _because_ they are gay, black or jewish should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/316 "2014-03-10T05:38:23Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Two things seem apparent to me in this thread: > [ol][li]Steophan doesn’t have a clue as to what US constitutional issues are in regards to freedom of religion.[/li][li]Steophan is not debating in good faith here[/ol][/li] > Where am I wrong in this assessment? Tell him he’s not allowed to observe certain Mormon ceremonies if he’s not a Mormon and see how he reacts. Apologies if I’m wrong but my understanding is that like the Druze and countless others Mormons believe certain ceremonies are only to observed by members of the religious/tribal group in question. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/317 "2014-03-10T05:40:41Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, you don’t. You can invite who you like. If you refuse to invite someone who you otherwise would have done because they’re gay, or black, or jewish, then you’re a reprehensible human being. > > If it wasn’t a private party, but an event you charged for, sold tickets, or whatever, then refusing to sell them to gays, blacks, or jews _because_ they are gay, black or jewish should be illegal. Why are you not capitalizing “Jew”? Not a challenge or meant to imply anything, but it strikes me as odd. Was it by accident or was it deliberate? If the latter then why? ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/318 "2014-03-10T06:24:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > If it wasn’t a private party, but an event you charged for, sold tickets, or whatever, then refusing to sell them to gays, blacks, or jews _because_ they are gay, black or jewish should be illegal. So when are you finally going to get it through your head that churches generally do _ **not** _ charge for, sell tickets, or whatever, to weddings, and thus your objection doesn’t apply? Or are you merely so anti-religion that you’re grasping any excuse to inconvenience them and ultimately destroy them? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/319 "2014-03-10T07:51:30Z")
**Steophan** , I have a question. The Eucharist is a key sacrament / observance in most Christian churches. Some churches say any Christian is welcome to take communion; others restrict it to members of their particular denomination. The Eucharist is normally celebrated in public, but without a fee. By your analysis, is it bigotry for a church to restrict access to the Eucharist to either members of their own denomination, or at least to Christians generally, and not allow non-Christians to partake? I ask this in good faith; I’m trying to understand your general position on religious issues. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/320 "2014-03-10T08:05:59Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > But they’re not performing legal marriages. It’s a wedding ceremony symbolizing a religious union. That’s why we really need two different words for marriage. Religious marriage and a marriage according to the govt usually go hand-in-hand, but there’s no reason why they need to. > > People who get married in a church still need to go to city hall, fill out forms, get the signatures from a witness and an officiant, etc. That’s where people cannot be discriminated against. The religious ceremony has nothing to do with the legal process. I think that’s what you are missing here. I don’t think you can generalise in that way; it depends on the local state/provincial law. For instance, my understanding is that in all Canadian provinces, a couple needs a licence from the province, but if they have a religious ceremony, that is the marriage ceremony. They’re not married until they have the ceremony; just getting the licence doesn’t do it. Once they’ve had the religious ceremony, they are married, and the religious official who performed it files the paperwork. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/321 "2014-03-10T09:02:08Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I see that you only care about the freedom of religion of the priest and not the couple getting married. Odd, that. How does a priest refusing to conduct a marriage he doesn’t agree with violate anyone’s freedom of religion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=17)