- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A little nugget about this same sex marriage bill
Posted on 11/17/22 at 2:55 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 11/17/22 at 2:55 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Correct. There aren’t any conscience protections for the individual. So this bill cannot protect things that don’t exist.
Glad we agree.
Glad we agree.
2
Posted on 11/17/22 at 3:11 pm to the808bass
The bill does not prevent the IRS from denying tax-exempt status to churches or other religious institutions because of their views of marriage. It just says that this bill itself cannot be construed to do that. But the IRS has the authority to take away tax-exempt status (see the Bob Jones case) and the same thing could happen to churches that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Maybe the courts would say that is unconstitutional this time, but maybe they would not. We don't know what the administration and courts will look like in the future.
It would have been better, as Sen. Lee suggested, if the bill explicitly provided that no religious institution can have its tax-exempt status revoked because of its view of marriage, not merely that this bill shall not be construed to require that.
And if you don't think churches should get tax-exempt status (and I assume no nonprofits should either?) then fine, argue for that, although I disagree. But nobody actually thinks that all churches would have their tax-exempt status revoked, only those that take a certain view of marriage. That is simply intolerable.
It would have been better, as Sen. Lee suggested, if the bill explicitly provided that no religious institution can have its tax-exempt status revoked because of its view of marriage, not merely that this bill shall not be construed to require that.
And if you don't think churches should get tax-exempt status (and I assume no nonprofits should either?) then fine, argue for that, although I disagree. But nobody actually thinks that all churches would have their tax-exempt status revoked, only those that take a certain view of marriage. That is simply intolerable.
This post was edited on 11/17/22 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 11/17/22 at 3:52 pm to Zach
quote:
Some gays who don't give a shite about which church performs the wedding will pick one that refuses and then the tax man attacks.
So, why don't gays just get married by all the churches that do it?
This. They want to expose and kill all that don't bow
Posted on 11/17/22 at 3:54 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
It turns out that the new bill allows the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of churches who hold fast to biblical doctrine on this issue.
We knew it was coming.
Posted on 11/17/22 at 3:57 pm to Zach
quote:
I've never heard of one. The Catholic Church has had a long policy of requiring a pre-marriage counseling session. And sometimes the priest will suggest 'This really is not a good idea...think about it.'
But they still go ahead and do it. But since the CC is not denominational (very little local option on policy) they cannot marry gays.
Zach, I had to chuckle, havent thought about it in years. The ex was protestant so we did the counseling. One session they give you each 50 cards with questions, you put in 3 envelopes, yes, no, depends. Next session he will discuss.
Next session, well the questions were in five categories and Ive put the answers each of you put on this paper. Before we start, you two are living together so you know each other pretty well. You argue, all couples do. What is it about....no let me tell you....money. Good grief you guys are at polar opposites, he looks at the wife "living on credit is not a bad thing?". You guys better fix this before you get married, infidelity is not the number one root cause of divorce money is.
We didnt fix it, he was right.
Posted on 11/17/22 at 3:57 pm to Eli Goldfinger
If the bill passes, catholic church stands strong on their beliefs. Church has pay taxes than large Hispanic vote will more to red side.
Posted on 11/17/22 at 6:05 pm to the808bass
quote:
Correct. There aren’t any conscience protections for the individual. So this bill cannot protect things that don’t exist.
Glad we agree.
Awesome. We agree on something that is irrelevant to this topic.
Posted on 11/17/22 at 10:00 pm to alphaandomega
yes but if you read the bill here is what I see will happen.
Same thing with abortion, you will have some states push it and some states ban it because as the bill is written it leaves it up to the states.
Now states would have to recognize unions from other states but not have to grant them
Same thing with abortion, you will have some states push it and some states ban it because as the bill is written it leaves it up to the states.
Now states would have to recognize unions from other states but not have to grant them
Posted on 11/17/22 at 10:01 pm to LookSquirrel
go 1 more section down and to me this reads that states can outlaw gay marriage just like abortion.
quote:
or the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
Posted on 11/17/22 at 10:07 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
We agree on something that is irrelevant to this topic.
As “conscience protections” are mentioned in the actual bill, it might be a tad off to assert that it’s an irrelevant topic.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:36 pm to Eli Goldfinger
So amendments to protect Religious Freedom is being voted on today?
Got to love how God given rights of a group actually protected in The Constitution is being taken away to give rights to people that are less than 5% of the population.
To add...remember that this was pushed on the nation when the Democrats ignored the "vote of the people" of CA to get SCOTUS to make national law. Thats the kind of "democracy" the democrats prefer.
Got to love how God given rights of a group actually protected in The Constitution is being taken away to give rights to people that are less than 5% of the population.
To add...remember that this was pushed on the nation when the Democrats ignored the "vote of the people" of CA to get SCOTUS to make national law. Thats the kind of "democracy" the democrats prefer.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:39 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
don’t care to overturn it
The same network of "evangelicals" that went after Roe will absolutely go after same sex marriage. Just ask one they will tell you thats next.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:39 pm to Eli Goldfinger
There’s always something....
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:44 pm to Lakeboy7
The same network of "evangelicals" that went after Roe will absolutely go after same sex marriage. Just ask one they will tell you thats next.
This misunderstands the conservative legal movement and its priorities. Reversing Roe has been a goal for decades, and public and elite opinion is different on the issues. The Court was not going to reverse Obergefell for those reasons.
This misunderstands the conservative legal movement and its priorities. Reversing Roe has been a goal for decades, and public and elite opinion is different on the issues. The Court was not going to reverse Obergefell for those reasons.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:46 pm to Eli Goldfinger
It’s an attack on religion. They will force religions to perform gay marriage ceremonies. They will go after the cake makers of the nation who dare to oppose this abomination.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:46 pm to Revelator
No way Romney would OK that if it was in there. His career would be over.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:48 pm to Eli Goldfinger
who are the top 3-5 Democrats who sponsored this?
I want to look Satan in the eye and see what he looks like on this one
I not scared of that fricking damned piece of shite
I want to look Satan in the eye and see what he looks like on this one
I not scared of that fricking damned piece of shite
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:49 pm to mikeybates
quote:
This misunderstands the conservative legal movement and its priorities.
I'm not referring to Conservative legal priorities. Evangelicals are coming after gay marriage and they will use their anti abortion network (which is extensive) to do it.
While it make be ok with most Americans it is an absolute no go for evangelicals.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:51 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:I've heard that iterated, but still haven't seen the language. Do you have a link to the bill language?
It turns out that the new bill allows the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of churches who hold fast to biblical doctrine on this issue.
I ask because the stated 'rationale' SSM legislation is that it could reduce the chance of the SCOTUS' previous SSM rulings getting "Dobbsed". Legislation going after churches, which is always what I suspected would happen, would be a new paradigm entirely.
My feeling was SCOTUS should have sanctioned gay civil union as a marriage equivalence, while ceding rights to SSMariage to churches at their option.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:57 pm to Lakeboy7
I'm not referring to Conservative legal priorities. Evangelicals are coming after gay marriage and they will use their anti abortion network (which is extensive) to do it.
While it make be ok with most Americans it is an absolute no go for evangelicals.
Okay. There are no evangelicals on the Supreme Court, though, and no reason to think that their views on this issue affect the Supreme Court's behavior, absent broader support. It just isn't like abortion, but whatever.
While it make be ok with most Americans it is an absolute no go for evangelicals.
Okay. There are no evangelicals on the Supreme Court, though, and no reason to think that their views on this issue affect the Supreme Court's behavior, absent broader support. It just isn't like abortion, but whatever.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News