Church, state collide at gay-marriage...

Church, state collide at gay-marriage corner

There are 360 comments on the The Santa Fe New Mexican story from Nov 16, 2008, titled Church, state collide at gay-marriage corner. In it, The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that:

The people a ' of some states, anyway a ' have spoken: What they had to say was pretty ugly and un-Christian, considering that a couple of influential churches threw their weight around.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Santa Fe New Mexican.

First Prev
of 18
Next Last

Since: Sep 08

Santa Fe

#1 Nov 17, 2008
Any church that makes a financial donation for political cause should lose its' tax-exempt status. It's understandable to have an opinion and express it, but to make a financial donation is against the very concept that makes separation of church and state legitimate. It's at that point that the church is, itself, a political entity and not a religious one.

Since: Sep 08

Santa Fe

#3 Nov 17, 2008
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>So do you also think the HRC and other radical homosexual hate groups should lose their tax exempt statatus?
As I said, any church that enjoys tax-exempt status and donates money to political cause should lose that tax-exempt status. Other poltical groups, whether profit or non-profit, are other matters to be taken up with current law.
PlacitasRoy

Albuquerque, NM

#4 Nov 17, 2008
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>So do you also think the HRC and other radical homosexual hate groups should lose their tax exempt statatus?
You are making the unsubstantiated assumption. It appears the only people using the term "radical homosexual hate groups" are bigots who oppose activists working for equal rights. Kinda like radial racial hate groups, like the NACCP, Urban League, ect.

There are definite tax code requirements that have to be met. Anyone who violates them should lose their exemption.
what do

Los Alamos, NM

#5 Nov 17, 2008
RandyNason wrote:
Any church that makes a financial donation for political cause should lose its' tax-exempt status. It's understandable to have an opinion and express it, but to make a financial donation is against the very concept that makes separation of church and state legitimate. It's at that point that the church is, itself, a political entity and not a religious one.
you do if it's members of a church who make those donations. They already pay taxes.
Zorkon756

Honolulu, HI

#6 Nov 17, 2008
Are you talking about income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes, a combination or what?

Why should a church be exempt from taxes if corporations and individuals are not?

In fact the churches should charge an admission fee similar to theater ticker prices to cover these taxes, and stop asking for handouts every Sunday, like the homeless bums on the corners of our streets patrolling the ATM machines.
Doncol

AOL

#8 Nov 18, 2008
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is in the bible. If these people want to buy property, autos, whatever they can do it without getting married. Marriage is a sacred vow that allows a man and a woman to become one. Roommates share expenses with written contracts they don't get married. Prenups are done everyday to protect everybody assets. There are alternatives and they are just using God as an excuse.
MattJ

Milpitas, CA

#9 Nov 18, 2008
Doncol wrote:
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is in the bible. If these people want to buy property, autos, whatever they can do it without getting married. Marriage is a sacred vow that allows a man and a woman to become one. Roommates share expenses with written contracts they don't get married. Prenups are done everyday to protect everybody assets. There are alternatives and they are just using God as an excuse.
By law in the State of California, we can have no religious test for the validity of marriage. So if you really want to help the cause, you must argue on some other basis. I suggest the basis of the branch of philosophy known as political theory, from the school of philosophy known as "moderate realism" or "classical realism". Good starting points for both of these are http://radicalacademy.com/ and http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.... chs. 1-3.
flyboy

Glen Allen, VA

#10 Nov 18, 2008
Realism is, civil marriage for gay couples should be legal across the world and religious chuches/politicians should stop letting personal morality influence decisions.

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#12 Nov 18, 2008
Nick Tremble wrote:
"Any church that makes a financial donation for political cause should lose its' tax-exempt status."
Would that apply to all the black churches that supported Obama, or only those that support the sanctity of traditional marriage?
If Black churches were making financial contributions to Obama's campaign, they should surely lose their tax status. I don't believe that was the case though, do you?

Since: Sep 08

Pendergrass, GA

#13 Nov 18, 2008
This was an editorial of the SFNM?

Since: Sep 08

Miyazaki

#15 Nov 18, 2008
dementia wrote:
<quoted text>Are there any Blacks in Japan?
Yes, in fact one black hip-hop artist has recently become a smash hit with his renditions of a Japanese classical style of singing called "Enka"

He is called "Jero" here but his full name is Jerome White, Jr. More at:

http://www.japan-zone.com/news/2008/02/26/jer...

In the town where I live, there are a few Afro-Americans and a lot of Africans, as well.

Since: Oct 08

Questa, NM

#16 Nov 19, 2008
flyboy wrote:
Realism is, civil marriage for gay couples should be legal across the world and religious chuches/politicians should stop letting personal morality influence decisions.
Yea we know you never let personal marality influence you.....

Since: Oct 08

Questa, NM

#17 Nov 19, 2008
RandyNason wrote:
Any church that makes a financial donation for political cause should lose its' tax-exempt status. It's understandable to have an opinion and express it, but to make a financial donation is against the very concept that makes separation of church and state legitimate. It's at that point that the church is, itself, a political entity and not a religious one.
And let's tripple your taxes to make up for the work that the churches do in the communities....
duststorm

Texas City, TX

#18 Nov 19, 2008
RandyNason wrote:
Any church that makes a financial donation for political cause should lose its' tax-exempt status. It's understandable to have an opinion and express it, but to make a financial donation is against the very concept that makes separation of church and state legitimate. It's at that point that the church is, itself, a political entity and not a religious one.
Ditto
JB WIlliams

Powhatan Point, OH

#19 Nov 19, 2008
Nick Tremble wrote:
"Any church that makes a financial donation for political cause should lose its' tax-exempt status."
Would that apply to all the black churches that supported Obama, or only those that support the sanctity of traditional marriage?
racist
JB WIlliams

Powhatan Point, OH

#20 Nov 19, 2008
Doncol wrote:
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is in the bible. If these people want to buy property, autos, whatever they can do it without getting married. Marriage is a sacred vow that allows a man and a woman to become one. Roommates share expenses with written contracts they don't get married. Prenups are done everyday to protect everybody assets. There are alternatives and they are just using God as an excuse.
actually you are using God as an excuse.

Since: Aug 08

Venice Beach, CA

#21 Nov 19, 2008
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR SAME-SEX CASE
1:57 PM, November 19, 2008
The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved earlier this month that banned same-sex marriage. But it also denied a request to put the ban on hold until it considers the challenge. From the court:

The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8. The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11...
little old

Albuquerque, NM

#23 Nov 19, 2008
ladies shouldn't go to a protest if they are afraid of being protested.
Dave S

Albuquerque, NM

#24 Nov 19, 2008
Mormon church's role in Prop. 8 fight debated
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times religion reporter

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localne...

As gay-rights advocates continue demonstrating against the Mormon church, some saying it crossed a church-state line and should be stripped of its tax-exempt status, experts say the church was well within its rights to act in support of California's gay-marriage ban, Proposition 8.

"Any religious group has as much freedom as they want to argue for or against these public-policy issues," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va.

That said, there are rules churches must follow to retain their tax-exempt status: They cannot endorse or oppose individual candidates.

But what has upset many gay-rights advocates is the extent of the Mormon church's support for Proposition 8, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and overrides a ruling that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.
Top church leaders urged members in California to do all they could to support the proposition, and members gave millions.

Internal Revenue Service rules are grayer on how involved churches can be on ballot measures, saying such activity is permitted so long as it doesn't form a "substantial part" of what the church does.

The IRS determines on a case-by-case basis what constitutes "substantial part." Haynes said courts have suggested that a church is safe if it spends less than 5 percent of its resources on an issue.

It's unlikely The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the Mormon church — jeopardized its status, Haynes believes.

"The LDS church is huge," he said. "This would be a very, very small part of what they do."

PC Chavez

“Hee-hee-hee, snort!”

Since: Sep 08

Laguna Beach/Santa Fe

#25 Nov 19, 2008
Nick Tremble wrote:
Not surprisingly, the Gay Mafia is not content with respecting the will of the people. African Americans, little old white ladies and peaceful church-goers better run for cover.
Absolutely not true (the part of your post about Blacks, et al.). You are just trying to spread rumours, start trouble and Gay bash with your hateful lies.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 16 min NE Jade 30,814
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... 19 min Pietro Armando 9,165
News Venue owners appeal fine for denying lesbian co... 33 min lides 72
News LGBT anti-discrimination bill lives, barely, fo... 46 min Sneaky Pete 22
News Rand Paul: a Plenty of placesa will hire you if... 54 min Sneaky Pete 91
News Gay groups seek to buy NYC church known for hat... 56 min Sneaky Pete 13
News New research says sex education ignores gay and... 1 hr lides 1,299
Choose not to be gay 2 hr help 575
More from around the web