Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

Closing paragraph of ruling.

[Uncle Ted]

JL, how about another prediction here...

Schools Fear Gay Marriage Ruling Could End Tax Exemptions

Conservative religious schools all over the country forbid same-sex relationships, from dating to couples’ living in married-student housing, and they fear they will soon be forced to make a wrenching choice. If the Supreme Court this month finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the schools say they will have to abandon their policies that prohibit gay relationships or eventually risk losing their tax-exempt status.


The religious schools are concerned that if they continue to ban gay relationships, the Internal Revenue Service could take away their tax-exempt status as a violation of a “fundamental national public policy” under the reasoning of a 1983 Supreme Court decision that allowed the agency to revoke the tax-exempt status of schools that banned interracial relationships.


In a recent letter to congressional leaders, officials from more than 70 schools, including Catholic high schools and evangelical colleges, said that a Supreme Court ruling approving same-sex marriage would put at risk all schools “adhering to traditional religious and moral values.”
[...]
There are echoes of those policies in some colleges’ current stances on same-sex couples.


Brigham Young University’s honor code, for instance, bans “homosexual behavior,” including “not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”

In a supporting brief in the pending Supreme Court case, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said “it would seem a short step” from a decision in favor of same-sex marriage to the loss of tax exemptions for dissenting religious institutions
[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...ax-status.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

JL, how about another prediction here...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...ax-status.html

From your article:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in its own supporting brief, responded, “This concern is overblown.” If there is a threat to tax exemptions, the brief said, it arises from laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and not from a potential constitutional ruling on same-sex marriage.

I agree with this. Why would a marriage ruling change anything? Ironically, the LDS church has been supporting laws in Utah banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

From your article:



I agree with this. Why would a marriage ruling change anything? Ironically, the LDS church has been supporting laws in Utah banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Solicitor General acknowledged during oral argument that the tax exempt status of churches opposing Gay marriage would be in question. It's foolish to act like this isn't an issue.

[Jeff Lebowski]

JL, how about another prediction here...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...ax-status.html

BTW, the only prediction I am willing to make here is that churches in general will continue to soften their stances/doctrines/etc regarding homosexuality. (yeah, I know - another "not so bold" prediction)

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Solicitor General acknowledged during oral argument that the tax exempt status of churches opposing Gay marriage would be in question. It's foolish to act like this isn't an issue.

That wasn't really the point. I agree that it is an issue. My question is why a gay marriage ruling is more significant than widely accepted laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation? More specifically, if the church is truly fearful of losing tax exempt status, why support non-discrimination laws in Utah?

Help me out, maybe I am missing something.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

JL, how about another prediction here...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...ax-status.html

Ted, I'll make a prediction. The tax exempt status of churches that don't perform gay marriages will be attacked either through litigation or by pressing against these churches by administrative agencies.

Given the fact that lesbian couples have forced a bakery out of business because they wouldn't bake them a wedding cake and they're done the same to a photographer, I think it's pretty safe to say these people aren't cool with churches that don't want to perform a marriage for them.

Again, "live and let live" isn't what they're interested.

[Paperback Writer]

...

Conservative religious schools all over the country forbid same-sex relationships, from dating to couples’ living in married-student housing, and they fear they will soon be forced to make a wrenching choice. If the Supreme Court this month finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the schools say they will have to abandon their policies that prohibit gay relationships or eventually risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Brigham Young University’s honor code, for instance, bans “homosexual behavior,” including “not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”

Might be interesting to watch how BYU's HC enforcement unfolds. BYU can expel a student for pre-marital sex; but obviously, not martial sex. So if a gay couple is legally married ...

[cowboy]

I've seen some of my circles bring up Ireland's experience as an argument that it would have been much better had the US voted on marriage equality. I suppose it would have looked more 'neat' or 'democratic' if there was a national referendum on the issue. But when was that going to happen?

At the risk of sounding uncaring, it doesn't matter. The fundamental premise of a democratic republic is that the people elect leaders who make laws. The courts' only purpose in this instance is to interpret the law. If they disagree with the law they do not have the liberty to overrule it.

marriage is not a state issue. maybe that is the confusion here?

cowboy brought up the democratic process. what "democratic" process? we have officials and representatives that will make decisions that sometimes go against the will of some constituents. everyone doesnt get a direct vote.

In federal issues that may be the case, but these are state issues where everybody DID get a vote, and in most cases overwhelmingly voted to change their state constitutions to disallow same-sex marriage. In that context, I stand by my statement that the short-circuited the democratic process.

You are the attorney, and I may be incorrect, but it is my understanding that when courts overruled these changes, they did so citing federal protections that trumped state laws. If I understand correctly, it is then the burden of the solicitor to make the case to the SCOTUS that such laws violate rights afforded everyone by the constitution. By hanging their argument on on the tenuous assertion that same-sex marriage bans interfered with the freedoms of "expression, intimacy, and spirituality", the court made it clear they were making a decision rooted in their own morality and desperately trying to find a way to justify their decision. I believe they made a poor case for their decision constitutionally, hence my argument that by overruling voter-passed initiatives in dozens of states, they denied voters their democratic right to pass initiatives and amend their own state constitutions.

I want to retract what I said a year and a half ago, the libs are absolutely going after churches and their tax exempt status if they don't perform gay marriages.

That was certainly implied in oral arguments last month:

During the oral arguments last month before the Supreme Court, Justice Alito asked the Solicitor General (who was arguing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry) if the Bob Jones University ruling would result in the loss of tax-exempt status of any religious school that opposed same-sex marriage. The Solicitor General responded, ‘it’s certainly going to be an issue.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

That wasn't really the point. I agree that it is an issue. My question is why a gay marriage ruling is more significant than widely accepted laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation? More specifically, if the church is truly fearful of losing tax exempt status, why support non-discrimination laws in Utah?

Help me out, maybe I am missing something.

How are you going to present discrimination charges against a church when there previously wasn't a federally recognized right for gays to marry? Churches were refusing to conduct ceremonies for something the Supreme Court hadn't guaranteed.

John Roberts cites this issue in his dissent and discusses how much closer it is.

[Northwestcoug]

That wasn't really the point. I agree that it is an issue. My question is why a gay marriage ruling is more significant than widely accepted laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation? More specifically, if the church is truly fearful of losing tax exempt status, why support non-discrimination laws in Utah?

Help me out, maybe I am missing something.

Wait, couldn't the church be supporting the non-discrimination laws as a means of 'heading off' potential future litigation against it's own and BYU's policies? They certainly got some (well-deserved) press from supporting the law.

[Commando]

Swish!

[Northwestcoug]

At the risk of sounding uncaring, it doesn't matter. The fundamental premise of a democratic republic is that the people elect leaders who make laws. The courts' only purpose in this instance is to interpret the law. If they disagree with the law they do not have the liberty to overrule it.

Two non-lawyers arguing constitutional law. I hope heads don't explode around here.

I might be oversimplifying the issue, but for me it boils down to this: in some states, the people (and their elected leaders) already had their chance to vote on gay marriage. No one took that right away from them. In others, the courts decided because dissenters used the very legal method of appeal to argue their position. No matter which path taken, no one can deny that gay marriage raises some significant constitutional questions. The only reason why SCOTUS got involved is because they felt those issues were significant enough to make a ruling. A lesser reason might have been to try to settle the issue once and for all, constitution be damned, but I'll let the lawyers argue that one.

I'm sure a national ballot initiative would have made the vision of a true democracy burn bright. But even after a citizen-implemented initiative, those significant constitutional questions would have still came up for judicial review. Another SCOTUS would inevitably hear arguments either way. They would interpret the results and rule whether or not it is constitutional. If they find it unconstitional, aren't they bound by their oath to strike it down?

[clackamascoug]

While I'm not opposed to states allowing gay marriage, I side with the dissent on this because I feel like the court short-circuited the democratic process. States were eventually going to legalize it anyway, so this whole thing reinforces the notion that the will of judges, not the people will rule the country. The majority opinion that same-sex marriage bans interfered with the freedoms of "expression, intimacy, and spirituality" is total bullshit.

Get off your high horse and marry it.

Isn't that the next step?

[Katy Lied]

I remember a year ago when I voiced concern that if SSM was legalized, the Church would be forced to conduct gay marriages. JL pooh-poohed this concern. I wonder if he still feels this way.