# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/402 "2014-03-11T12:48:03Z")
After lo these many pages of arguments, I can’t begin to see any point in forcing any spiritual or religious organization to offer a religious marriage ceremony to non-members, or to violate the tenets of their faith to try to apply their particular rite to people who basically don’t believe in that sort of rigmarole. One might reasonably say, though, that if a ‘minister’ benefits by the state decreeing that the minister’s marriage ceremony is adequate to say that it takes the place of a civil one…then that minister, if asked to by two otherwise qualified adults (not married already, old enough by law, not being compelled) should be required to perform as a sort of JP, confirming the license, checking the qualifications, and allowing them to sign the register that they agree to be married. They should never be required to afford anyone with whom they disagree, a religious service or rite – marriage, communion, baptism, burial in consecrated ground, etc. etc… How about the opposite of marriage? Divorce? As best I know, no religion offers a divorce ritual…and divorce is completely a civil matter. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/403 "2014-03-11T13:01:46Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > How about the opposite of marriage? Divorce? As best I know, no religion offers a divorce ritual…and divorce is completely a civil matter. My understanding is that Islam does have something on this. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/404 "2014-03-11T13:22:53Z")
> [@crucible](#): > > How about the opposite of marriage? Divorce? As best I know, no religion offers a divorce ritual…and divorce is completely a civil matter. Not true - [http://www.chabad.org/library/article\_cdo/aid/557906/jewish/Divorce-Basics.htm](http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/557906/jewish/Divorce-Basics.htm) ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/405 "2014-03-11T13:27:08Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > My understanding is that Islam does have something on this. Yes, it’s even in the Koran. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/406 "2014-03-11T13:48:00Z")
> [@Frank\_Merton](#): > > What is the rationale for “non-profits” not paying taxes? They use government services too. Maybe if they truly have no income then they would not pay income taxes, that makes sense, since if I have no income I don’t either, but they should not escape other taxes the way they do. It is based on a misunderstanding that they do “good.” Hogs-waller. They benefit the managers and generally do less good for society than the typical for-profit enterprise. It’s based on the understanding churches have no **profit**. Indeed, I believe the 501(c)3 status makes it illegal to even have a distributable profit. That was my point earlier about punishing churches by allowing them to be profitable. ---
**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 11, 2014, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/407 "2014-03-11T14:01:54Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > My understanding is that Islam does have something on this. Eastern Orthodox remarriage services (they permit up to two remarriages, in special circumstances) apparently include a penitential portion where they acknowledge the failure of the previous marriage, so they do sort of ritualize the ‘divorce’. ---
**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 11, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/408 "2014-03-11T14:16:32Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > There are people I know of who do not give anything to their church, It is up to a person to donate or not. It isn’t a charge and I also know of couples who give what they want to the person who performs the marriage. They are not asked to give anything, although many people do. At least one denomination prohibits their clergy from accepting any gratuity or gift for performing a marriage or any other ordinance. ---
**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 11, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/409 "2014-03-11T14:37:24Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > It’s based on the understanding churches have no **profit**. Indeed, I believe the 501(c)3 status makes it illegal to even have a distributable profit. That was my point earlier about punishing churches by allowing them to be profitable. Incorrect. It’s based on the understand that non-profits provide the community with a common good, and that society chooses to incentivize such organizations with certain benefits in the form of tax-exemptions. You are correct that distributable profits are prohibited - all excess funds generated must go back into the organization. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/410 "2014-03-11T15:18:14Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > They do? > > I don’t think that’s correct even if one decides to use the word “church” to only include places of Christian worship even though we’re supposed to be talking about all religions. > > Among the Mormons yes, but is that really true for Catholics, Baptists, Shia Muslims, Conservative Jews and about a thousand other groups? The catholic church doesn’t “require” anything but they suggest you either donate one hour’s wages or volunteer for one hour a week. So just so we’re clear, the anti-gay marriage objection to gay marriage on the grounds that clergy might be forced to perform gay marriage is not totally unjustified. There are actually gay rights activists like Steophan that want to force priests to perform gay marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/411 "2014-03-11T15:35:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So just so we’re clear, the anti-gay marriage objection to gay marriage on the grounds that clergy might be forced to perform gay marriage is not totally unjustified. There are actually gay rights activists like Steophan that want to force priests to perform gay marriages. “Unjustified” might be the wrong word. It still doesn’t work since it’s an overreaching argument. We’d also have to take into account whether those few gay rights activists would actually succeed; if, say, 10% of all voters were in favour of forcing priests to perform gay marriages, that’s still not enough to make it likely to occur as an obvious roll-on effect. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/412 "2014-03-11T15:42:33Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Incorrect - churches file as 501(c)(3), the same category as the United Way. “Religious organization” is not a separate category. There are some benefits that religious organizations enjoy, like parsonage exemptions as well as being exempt from filing certain financial documents - benefits that plenty of people disagree with who still maintain that churches should retain their non-profit status. Sure they fill out the same form but on that form they ask for the nature of your orginization coorect. You can be a charity, religious, educational, etc You don’t just put non p[rofit right? It seems obvious to me that religious and charity or educational are not the same thing. IMHO if the group is only a religious gathering they should not be tax exempt. That said I do realize that many churches do charity work. If I have a home business I get tax deductions for home office. I think churches that actually do charitable work should get tax breaks. ---
**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 11, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/413 "2014-03-11T15:54:26Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sure they fill out the same form but on that form they ask for the nature of your orginization coorect. You can be a charity, religious, educational, etc You don’t just put non p[rofit right? Here’s the form for [recognition of non-profit status](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf). Your organizing documents (Articles of Incorporation) delineate what type of non-profit organization you are, or rather, what your specific mission is. > [@](#): > > It seems obvious to me that religious and charity or educational are not the same thing. And yet the federal government lumps them all into the same category and gives them all the same benefits. There’s a reason for that. Which I’ve mentioned on several occasions. > [@](#): > > IMHO if the group is only a religious gathering they should not be tax exempt. And I’ll ask again - for what purpose? The level of disentangling churches from other 501(c)(3) would be burdensome to the Nth degree, even if you could provide a reasonable motive for doing so that doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment, or even the 14th (as I’d argue the equal protection clause would be far more meaningful when trying to treat churches differently from other non-profits). > [@](#): > > That said I do realize that many churches do charity work. Misconstruing “charity work” with “non-profit organization” is common. Doing “charity work” is not what the non-profit status is for, as I have laid out numerous times in this thread. Would you care to actually address any of those reasons that I have pointed out to you? ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/414 "2014-03-11T16:22:42Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So just so we’re clear, the anti-gay marriage objection to gay marriage on the grounds that clergy might be forced to perform gay marriage is not totally unjustified. There are actually gay rights activists like Steophan that want to force priests to perform gay marriages. I don’t think it’s justified. People would not accept the fact that a small fraction of Christians would like to institute a theocratic dictatorship as a justifiable reason to discriminate against Christians in general. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/415 "2014-03-11T18:04:30Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Unpopularity has never been a rerally good reason, either theologically or demographically, for a church to change its moral teachings. It’s not really a matter of what is popular or being more permissive. It’s a matter of doctrine seeming reasonable and just. And please don’t pretend that the Catholic church hasn’t changed with the times. Inqusition much? Forbid people to read the Bible lately? The entire preotestant movement was born from challenging the doctrine of the Catholic church. btw; Does the church still forbid men and women to use contraceptives? How agressively are they enforcing that doctrine? Yes there are churches who still do not ordain women, but the fact remains that is changing, which is my point. Doctrine which seem inherently unjust and unfair{not just unpopular} doesn’t resonate well with people looking for spiritual growth. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, I think churches which are perceived as wishy-washy, watering down their beliefs to suit the prevailing political fashions of the time, are the ones which are unlikely to attract members. If the church doesn’t provide you with anything countercultural, anything you won’t get from the prevailing culture, then why bother going to church at all? That’s a nice thoery not supported by the actual facts. Church membership in general is not growing which may indicate they are not adjusting quickly enough. Again, IMHO it’s not a matter of of popularity or anything political but a real sense of justice and truth. People are more educated now and as more and more information becaomes readily available and common knowledge churches will have to address it. Holding on to traitions and dogma commonly held as unjust and unfair or untrue, will not attract people. It’s hard for the message of creation united under a loving God to resonate when certain people are excluded. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/416 "2014-03-11T18:07:25Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Here’s the form for [recognition of non-profit status](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1023.pdf). Your organizing documents (Articles of Incorporation) delineate what type of non-profit organization you are, or rather, what your specific mission is. That doesn’t appear to be the actual form but something describing changes to the form. ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/417 "2014-03-11T18:19:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That doesn’t appear to be the actual form but something describing changes to the form. Scroll to the 4th page of the PDF. ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/418 "2014-03-11T18:21:34Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That doesn’t appear to be the actual form but something describing changes to the form. Seriously, you can’t scroll down more than 2 pages? Now I know why you haven’t been able to address any of the points I’ve repeatedly brought to your attention. ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/419 "2014-03-11T18:23:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So just so we’re clear, the anti-gay marriage objection to gay marriage on the grounds that clergy might be forced to perform gay marriage is not totally unjustified. There are actually gay rights activists like Steophan that want to force priests to perform gay marriages. I’m not suggesting anyone be forced to perform anything. It’s clear that people here aren’t content with simply disagreeing with my views, they have to invent additional ones based on nothing so as to disagree even more. My view is quite simply that religion should not be an excuse for bigotry. It’s all very well to explain where the law allows it to be that, but that simply means that I disagree with the law. No organisation, whether religious or otherwise, should be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, age (over majority), and quite probably a few other things. That applying this to religions would seem to be destructive to them simply shows that (some) religions are inherently bigoted, and that their destruction is no bad thing. ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/420 "2014-03-11T18:27:08Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s not really a matter of what is popular or being more permissive. It’s a matter of doctrine seeming reasonable and just. And please don’t pretend that the Catholic church hasn’t changed with the times. Inqusition much? Forbid people to read the Bible lately? The entire preotestant movement was born from challenging the doctrine of the Catholic church. btw; Does the church still forbid men and women to use contraceptives? How agressively are they enforcing that doctrine? > Yes there are churches who still do not ordain women, but the fact remains that is changing, which is my point. Doctrine which seem inherently unjust and unfair{not just unpopular} doesn’t resonate well with people looking for spiritual growth. > > That’s a nice thoery not supported by the actual facts. Church membership in general is not growing which may indicate they are not adjusting quickly enough. Again, IMHO it’s not a matter of of popularity or anything political but a real sense of justice and truth. People are more educated now and as more and more information becaomes readily available and common knowledge churches will have to address it. Holding on to traitions and dogma commonly held as unjust and unfair or untrue, will not attract people. It’s hard for the message of creation united under a loving God to resonate when certain people are excluded. I’d struggle to find that many cases where the Catholic Church has ever actually changed a core moral or doctrinal teaching. There are a couple cases that come close (weakening their definition of usury is one, accepting the legitimacy of religious pluralism is another, accepting the legitimacy of war and the death penalty, and accepting natural family planning are a couple more). A lot of Catholics would argue that these are not actually changes of doctrine, but rather developments. I think that to some degree all of them do represent genuine changes- but still, there aren’t that many of them. Please give me a cite that the Catholic Church ever forbade common people from reading the Bible (and when I say the Catholic Church, I mean either a pope or an ecumenical council or maybe one of the most authoritative theologians- not some regional meeting or some low-level priest somewhere). The Catholic Church, yes, still prohibits the use of artificial contraception, as it always has. It categorically prohibits remarriage after divorce, too. They don’t particularly enforce the rule, but then, they don’t particularly enforce their rules against homosexuality either. Neither contraceptors, nor sexually active remarried people, nor sexually active gays are supposed to take communion in a Catholic Church, unless they have genuinely repented with an intention of not continuing that activity. I doubt the Catholic Church will ever accept the legitimacy of condoms, though it’s possible they may eventually accept hormonal contraception. Do you have any evidence that embracing modernism and liberalism in the realm of sexual ethics would attract more people to Christianity? It’s possible, I suppose, but I consider it quite unlikely. (And for the record, I am not especially traditionalist on sexual ethics, or on homosexuality specifically, myself). ‘Liberal’, pro-gay churches tend to be demographically declining, while evangelical churches are doing a much better job and attracting and keeping people. Many conservatives would argue that’s because sexual teachings are core to Christianity, and once you gut them, everything else is up for grabs, and you no longer have a strong faith that can draw people in. I think that’s too simplistic. I think the most important reason that the pro-gay churches are declining is that people who tend to be strongly pro-gay (i.e. culturally liberal people), both tend to take a ‘liberal’ approach to the rest of scripture, and also tend to have fewer children. I don’t think there is a causal relationship there- it is perfectly possible to believe that the New Testament is literally historically true, to have a stay at home wife who raises five kids, and also to think that homosexuality is morally OK. Speaking for myself, I have highly traditionalist views about gender roles, and take a pretty much literalist view of the New Testament, and I also think that homosexual acts are _probably_ not always a sin. It’s just a correlation (which may not be true in future- who knows) that people who do the former two are relatively unlikely to do the latter. I don’t know of any positive evidence, though, that a given church would attract more people if it changed its teachings on homosexuality and on marriage. The churches which have taken steps in that direction have generally _not_ seen an influx of people, and are declining faster than conservative evangelical churches. Since we’re in the realm of personal anecdote here, I would consider very strongly leaving my church if they ever _formally_ embraced the idea that Christian marriage can be extended to same sex couples. To my mind, that would throw out some very core elements of what Christian marriage is. ---
**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 11, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742/421 "2014-03-11T18:29:11Z")
For the record, I don’t think the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches will ordain women anytime soon either (nor should they). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-churches-that-refuse-to-perform-gay-marriages-lose-tax-exempt-status/681742.md?page=22)