Tax the church

[bpwallace49]

wouldn't you basically be taxing donations, being that is the only way a church recieves money? and hasn't that money earned by the donor already been taxed? sounds like double taxation to me.

 

 

Good point. I now no longer wish to pay sales tax on anything.

[SEC=UGA]

I think that the church as an organization should stay out of politics. If individuals in the church feel strongly about it (and depending on thier level of devotion, they would on this subject) then have the individuals take care of ghe lobbying.

 

By the church contributing to this, ghey are taking their tax free donations and trying to influence a political process where the other side does not enjoy the same tax free advantage.

 

This goes for any issue. Keep it to the pulpit and let your congregation do the heavy lifting and keep the church out of it.

 

:2xents:

 

 

In many cases the other side is also a tax exempt organization.

[The Holy Roller]

Good point. I now no longer wish to pay sales tax on anything.

 

 

You have my vote.

[Big John]

wouldn't you basically be taxing donations, being that is the only way a church recieves money? and hasn't that money earned by the donor already been taxed? sounds like double taxation to me.

 

You can write off your donations if you itemize.

[detlef]

In many cases the other side is also a tax exempt organization.

 

Which is where it does get sticky and, as a matter of principle, I don't like.

 

In concept, I don't care if the money I give to groups who will then campaign for things I believe in is taxed. I'm paying to have my voice recognized and to try and make things better. I truly don't mind doing that with taxable dollars. It is nobody's business but mine and nobody should have to make up for the tax loss we all realize because I want to save the polar bears. That's not your problem, but, in essence you help foot the bill.

 

Of course, I'm sure there's a litany of unintended consequences of taking tax-exempt status away from all such groups.

Edited May 10, 2012 by detlef

[caddyman]

I think that the church as an organization should stay out of politics. If individuals in the church feel strongly about it (and depending on thier level of devotion, they would on this subject) then have the individuals take care of ghe lobbying.

 

By the church contributing to this, ghey are taking their tax free donations and trying to influence a political process where the other side does not enjoy the same tax free advantage.

 

This goes for any issue. Keep it to the pulpit and let your congregation do the heavy lifting and keep the church out of it.

 

:2xents:

 

 

Would that apply to unions as well? I am pretty sure things would be a lot different if the members were allowed to speak for themselves. It is kind of funny that you are all worried about the influence of the church as an organization but I don't see the same concerns where it applies to unions. They are non profit and most likely influence this country a hell of a lot more that Father Anthony.

[bpwallace49]

 

 

Would that apply to unions as well? I am pretty sure things would be a lot different if the members were allowed to speak for themselves. It is kind of funny that you are all worried about the influence of the church as an organization but I don't see the same concerns where it applies to unions. They are non profit and most likely influence this country a hell of a lot more that Father Anthony.

 

 

I disagree on the level of influence. If on one hand you have your spiritual advisor telling you that if you don't support initiative "a" then you will go to hell as an implied punishment versus a union that has largely been de-emphasised in terms of competency and relevance, I am betting that the church will win 99% of the time.

 

I think it is funny how you grant unions some kind of omnipotent power when their influence continues to decrease. Wisconsin is a prime example. Unions just don't have the sway they used to, so using that as a "boogeyman" doesn't hold water.

[stevegrab]

I don't pretend to know precisely what the other state amendments say, but I do know that the new one in NC goes far beyond defining the word marriage as only between a man and a woman. It does very much restrict the rights of any non-married couple.

 

And let me make it clear that this is why your confusion of the actual bill matters. If it was as you thought, then your whole, "don't be such a dick" bit would be spot on. If, in fact, the rights of law-abiding citizens who happened to live their lives in a manner not consistent with what many feel the bible says were not under attack and it was simply about what they get to call their union, then I'd agree with you 100%. I, of course, would have voted in favor of letting gays call their union a marriage, but if that didn't pass and they merely had to live among us with equal rights but not get to use that title, then the appropraite response would be, "Oh well, not this time. We'll get 'em next time." And move forward. But that isn't what happened.

 

Further, the por-amendment side is trying to frame the consequences of their actions in terms convenient to them. "We're not antt-gay, we're pro marriage!" That was verbatem from one of the heads of the movement. But here's the thing, this hurts gay people. Plain and simple. Not "hurts their feelings because they don't get to call themselves marriage" but hurts gay people as in negatively impacts thair ability to look out for their partner and children.

 

Further, look up the data, the church is losing the youth. And they're losing the youth because of attacks like this that "the church" is making. They're either leaving it or finding more progressive churches. So, you're right in a sense, perhaps attacking the chuch for its support of things like this is going to piss off plenty, but I doubt many who would ever be swayed. But I think you're making a bold assumption that attacking the church will make it so this sort of thing never gets overturned.

 

Regardless, I already tried the cool approach, I sent the following letter to all churches in my area that displayed signage in favor of the amendment:

 

 

I sent 5 of these and got zero responses.

 

In terms of what would have happened next had it not passed? Well, what wouldn't have happened next was that right-leaning county commisioners wouldn't have immediately sent out e-mails reminding counties to stop with all, now illegal, partner benefits. Gay couples would have at least continued to live as they were and a state looking to lure businesses here would look like a bunch of ass-backward rednecks.

 

For the record, I do have faith that, despite the poor wording of the bill, judges and courts will likely strike from it the worst things that could happen. But it is still shameful that people either voted without knowing the extent of the bill or were prepared to marginalize the rights of their neighbor just to prove a point about what they thought marriage should be.

 

 

That was a very well good you crafted. I'm not surprised that you didn't get any responses, as I expect the people who received and read it (pastors) are so against gay marriage (and gays in general) that they have no desire for any compromise.

 

I also notice that the letter didn't have references to the bible as a collection of fairy tales or whatever it was you said before. I suspect if it had you might have gotten some very heated responses.

 

I think most here understand your point on the whole issue, but not the "let's tax the churches because this bill passed" idea. If it hadn't passed you wouldn't be so upset about it, yet the lobbying done by the churches would be just as wrong and warrant your proposed "tax them" viewpoint. Going down the path of removing tax exempt status from non profits has (as you said in a later post) "a litany of unintended consequences".

[Azazello1313]

By the church contributing to this, ghey are taking their tax free donations and trying to influence a political process where the other side does not enjoy the same tax free advantage.

 

that is not really accurate. first of all, the action committees and whatnot detlef is complaining about funding this issue are not "churches". they may be oriented toward what its members and donors view as a "Christian" viewpoint, but they are not "churches" and they have to play by the same rules as all the other PACs.

 

I want to say about the larger issue, I am in favor of allowing gay marriage. Ultimately, I am in favor because I believe it will do more good than harm to "the institution of marriage". I believe that inviting somewhat marginalized lifestyles more fully into the mainstream does far more to invite people into new possibilities than it does to erode the bedrocks of society. I believe all that pretty strongly, and I am pretty convinced our society is moving in that direction for better or worse.

 

But at the same time, I can't really stomach the fit of vapors many people on the pro-gay-marriage side are working themselves up into over the issue. for one thing, it seems contrived and irrational. societies throughout the last several hundred years have, for the most part, codified marriage as between one man and one woman. it's a pretty well established status quo. that doesn't mean the status quo is correct or should never be changed, but it's kind of absurd in my mind to paint anyone who wants to maintain that status quo as a hateful bigot waging war on the rights of others. they just don't agree with the law expanding into the proposed new territory. you'll do more to change their mind by being civil, rational and respectful than you will by hurling epithets. but the main reason I just can't get too worked up about this issue, is what are we really arguing about here? it's not about trying to determine how people live their lives, or what kind of relationships they maintain...it's ultimately a relatively minor issue of state imprimatur on certain types of relationships. the state of colorado's official recognition is not the glue that binds my marriage together. I mean yeah, it can have real impact on different situations, but you're just not going to convince me that whether my partner gets pass-through Social Security benefits if I die through a newly created domestic legal arrangement is a potential injustice on par with the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 60s. it's all just so much breathless hyperbole and vitriol.

[delusions of grandeur]

According to Judge Napalitano, even Obama is wrong here with his "evolving" view, but still saying it's a states-rights issue. It's not.

 

He says, "The Supreme Court has ruled that your right to choose a mate is a fundamental liberty at which the state can’t interfere", with an upheld precedent of a 1968 case Loving v. Virginia, which has been used to strike down state laws about interracial marriages, but the language is nonetheless that this is not a states-rights matter.

 

If you take the arbitrary words "racial" or "interracial" and replace them with "same sex", the decision in that case makes it clear that this is not a states-rights issue, and the government has no ground to determine which mate you choose to enter into a union with.

 

Of course it's a bit more complicated here because the arguments of the religious side are more complex than necessarily bigotry, but if states are going to pretend like they somehow have the jurisdiction to legislate morality and mates when the Supreme Court has said otherwise, I'd be in favor of those on the same-sex side taking it all the way to the top and push for an opposite ammendment.

 

Moreover, I'm still kind of astounded that in the 21st century, there are still that many who wish to enforce their personal views on others like this... I just can't believe that 48% of Americans are opposed to others having equal rights that don't affect them personally, and so I either have to question the language of that poll, or maybe now other's intentions, because I thought we'd gotten to a point where we're better than that.

Edited May 10, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[stevegrab]

According to Judge Napalitano, even Obama is wrong here with his "evolving" view, but still saying it's a states-rights issue. It's not.

 

He says, "The Supreme Court has ruled that your right to choose a mate is a fundamental liberty at which the state can’t interfere", with an upheld precedent of a 1968 case Loving v. Virginia, which has been used to strike down state laws about interracial marriages, but the language is nonetheless that this is not a states-rights matter.

 

If you take the arbitrary words "racial" or "interracial" and replace them with "same sex", the decision in that case makes it clear that this is not a states-rights issue, and the government has no ground to determine which mate you choose to enter into a union with.

 

Of course it's a bit more complicated here because the arguments of the religious side are more complex than necessarily bigotry, but if states are going to pretend like they somehow have the jurisdiction to legislate morality and mates when the Supreme Court has said otherwise, I'd be in favor of those on the same-sex side taking it all the way to the top and push for an opposite ammendment.

 

Moreover, I'm still kind of astounded that in the 21st century, there are still that many who wish to enforce their personal views on others like this... I just can't believe that 48% of Americans are opposed to others having equal rights that don't affect them personally, and so I either have to question the language of that poll, or maybe now other's intentions, because I thought we'd gotten to a point where we're better than that.

 

 

Its like I've heard Jay Leno say many times "I don't get how it harms my marriage by allowing same sex couples to get married?" Simple answer, it doesn't. The whole "preserving the sanctity of marriage" bit is just something to hide behind.

[Clubfoothead]

What non-religious reason is there to be opposed to gay marriage?

[SEC=UGA]

What non-religious reason is there to be opposed to gay marriage?

 

 

One believes that it is an "inferior" or "abnormal" lifestyle or that homosexuals are somehow inferior to them, thus they don't want to afford them the same rights as "normal" people.

[Clubfoothead]

One believes that it is an "inferior" or "abnormal" lifestyle or that homosexuals are somehow inferior to them, thus they don't want to afford them the same rights as "normal" people.

 

 

That wouldn't feel like breathless hyperbole and vitriol to me if I were gay.

[SEC=UGA]

That wouldn't feel like breathless hyperbole and vitriol to me if I were gay.

 

 

Not saying it is right, just giving you an example that you requested.

[detlef]

that is not really accurate. first of all, the action committees and whatnot detlef is complaining about funding this issue are not "churches". they may be oriented toward what its members and donors view as a "Christian" viewpoint, but they are not "churches" and they have to play by the same rules as all the other PACs.

 

I want to say about the larger issue, I am in favor of allowing gay marriage. Ultimately, I am in favor because I believe it will do more good than harm to "the institution of marriage". I believe that inviting somewhat marginalized lifestyles more fully into the mainstream does far more to invite people into new possibilities than it does to erode the bedrocks of society. I believe all that pretty strongly, and I am pretty convinced our society is moving in that direction for better or worse.

 

But at the same time, I can't really stomach the fit of vapors many people on the pro-gay-marriage side are working themselves up into over the issue. for one thing, it seems contrived and irrational. societies throughout the last several hundred years have, for the most part, codified marriage as between one man and one woman. it's a pretty well established status quo. that doesn't mean the status quo is correct or should never be changed, but it's kind of absurd in my mind to paint anyone who wants to maintain that status quo as a hateful bigot waging war on the rights of others. they just don't agree with the law expanding into the proposed new territory. you'll do more to change their mind by being civil, rational and respectful than you will by hurling epithets. but the main reason I just can't get too worked up about this issue, is what are we really arguing about here? it's not about trying to determine how people live their lives, or what kind of relationships they maintain...it's ultimately a relatively minor issue of state imprimatur on certain types of relationships. the state of colorado's official recognition is not the glue that binds my marriage together. I mean yeah, it can have real impact on different situations, but you're just not going to convince me that whether my partner gets pass-through Social Security benefits if I die through a newly created domestic legal arrangement is a potential injustice on par with the civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 60s. it's all just so much breathless hyperbole and vitriol.

 

1) The Catholic Diocese (sp?) of NC (and Raleigh) both contributed a nice chunk of money to this. Are you saying they're not "the church"?

 

2) Like I mentioned to SEC, this was not about the simple word "marriage". All civil unions other than that between one man and one woman were outlawed in the state. So, this is not a whole lot of huffing and puffing over serperate but equal or anything like this. This is not some symbolic recognition of gay unions being the same. This is, actually, "determining how people live thier lives". Maybe in Colorado, gays can't "marry" but can enjoy partner status like anyone else, but not here. For instance, a gay couple can't adopt, but a single person can. So, gays have been handling this by one person, not the couple, adopting a child. That child spends its entire life being raised by that couple. If the official "parent" dies, that kid goes to foster care or to the members of the dead parent's blood family. The surviving parent has no rights in this manner. Who do you think should raise this child? A child, btw, who was unwanted and, therefor, up for adoption to begin with.

 

I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree" on how effed up we think that is.

Edited May 10, 2012 by detlef

[Clubfoothead]

Not saying it is right, just giving you an example that you requested.

 

 

I'm just wondering where that attitude comes from becasue not everybody holds it, obviously. I'm not even saying it comes from religion because I know plenty of religoius people who aren't opposed to gay marriage.

 

What I don't understand in general is the need on the part of those opposed to gay marriage to have it be illegal, why is simply not being a party to a gay marriage enough? Taking action to make something illegal is hardly remaining neutral on the issue, it is an overt act. So, I can certainly understand how a gays might feel persecuted when a state decides to treat them differently.

[bushwacked]

wouldn't you basically be taxing donations, being that is the only way a church recieves money? and hasn't that money earned by the donor already been taxed? sounds like double taxation to me.

 

 

Pastors like Ted Haggard make up for this by not paying taxes on meth and finger-banging underage boys.

[SEC=UGA]

I'm just wondering where that attitude comes from becasue not everybody holds it, obviously. I'm not even saying it comes from religion because I know plenty of religoius people who aren't opposed to gay marriage.

 

What I don't understand in general is the need on the part of those opposed to gay marriage to have it be illegal, why is simply not being a party to a gay marriage enough? Taking action to make something illegal is hardly remaining neutral on the issue, it is an overt act. So, I can certainly understand how a gays might feel persecuted when a state decides to treat them differently.

 

 

One of my cousin's husbands is very non-religious and EXTEMELY homophobic, to the extent where he is unwelcome at family reunions due to his comments to one of our gay cousins. I've talked with him about his extreme dislike of homosexuals, actually there is not much talking with him about it, it is more less him going off on a tirade for minutes at a time, he finds gays, their mannerisms and their lifestyle "abnormal and repulsive."

 

I don't know the origins of his hate, but he feels that gays are different enough, abnormal enough, where he doesn't feel that they should be treated in the same manner as the rest of society. Maybe he had a bad experience while younger, has had "urges" or is just hard wired to detest that which he views as abnormal.

 

With regard to gay marriage and the legality of it, this is something that doesn't seem to be a hot button issue amongst my friends. I'm having trouble recalling the last conversation I had regarding the issue, but, from what I can gather, it appears that some people don't limke the idea of using the word "marriage" for a civil union between two homosexual people. In their view it demeans their marriage. It could be the syntax, using the word "marriage", in which gay civil unions are presented that is getting blow back from "average" americans.

 

With regard to taking action to make something illegal comes the other side of the coin; those groups taking action to make it legal. If you look at laws that arose from cultural shifts in our society there were always two sides, first the side that wanted to affect the change and then the side that wanted to maitain the status quo. In most all of these cases there was a very contentious environment and laws issued to squelch the change prior to suit being filed by groups who were for the change. Most recently, I believe that it was Oklahomo passing a law banning Sharia law prior to any Sharia law being contemplated in the state.

 

Of course gays feel persecuted when a state tries to treat them differently. But, so have all "minorities". It takes a while for the majority to recognize minorities as citizens, people, on a level playing field with them. Society will eventually come around as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable and the younger generation, who is much more tolerant, begin to run things.

Edited May 10, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[bushwacked]

Good point. I now no longer wish to pay sales tax on anything.

 

 

And I no longer wish to pay property tax from my wages that were already taxed.

[The Holy Roller]

And I no longer wish to pay property tax from my wages that were already taxed.

 

Alright! Now we've got the ball rolling! Let's not pay taxes on ANYTHING anymore!

[bushwacked]

Alright! Now we've got the ball rolling! Let's not pay taxes on ANYTHING anymore!

 

 

USA USA USA!

[Yukon Cornelius]

Alright! Now we've got the ball rolling! Let's not pay taxes on ANYTHING anymore!

 

i wish i could but i am not a 1%

[SEC=UGA]

i wish i could but i am not a 1%

 

 

Ummm... They do pay a goodly portion of the taxes.

[Azazello1313]

Maybe in Colorado, gays can't "marry" but can enjoy partner status like anyone else, but not here.

 

no, they can't. at least not yet. we've been in the news for just this reason, with a "civil unions" bill stalling in the legislature. "civil unions" are sort of a mid-point expansion, they are not the status quo ante. most states in the country do not recognize civil unions or gay marriage. some folks in NC wanted to create a constitutional bulwark against the sort of incremental chipping away with legal rulings and civil union bills, and some 60% of the voters in the state agreed. if you've got the votes, it seems like a pretty effective strategy against incrementalism. so, as a result, I would think it's safe to say that NC is not going to be any sort of pioneer when it comes to state recognition of gay marriage, and that for the foreseeable future the legal definition of domestic partnerships there will stay the same as it's always been. that's all it really means.