Be respectful of others' views and choices.
 #1556  by LordJim
 
The thing is, the marriage license is a state document. There is no need to use a church. A judge can marry you. And even with a church wedding the license is still returned to the state. Just get some witnesses to sign, then return it to the court house.
Absolutely correct. The church wedding is simply a religious ceremony. That shouldn't be interfered with by you, me, or anybody else. It certainly shouldn't be interfered with by the government.

-
Jim
 #1565  by Gotarheels03
 
"For those offenders who warrant incarceration, I'd attempt to make sure there are programs available to actual rehabilitate and change the behavior"

I'm going to have to totally disagree with you on this Rob. When it comes to violent offenders I'm a heartless asshole. With my upbringing, my parents, and the stories I've heard / cases I've discussed I just can't feel pity for violent offenders. Give them the death penalty or lock em up 23 hours a day and throw away the key. There are two keys to violent crime in this country, race and recidivism. Actually lets say three because drugs play a huge role as well. By race I mean that black men ages 18-24 account for the majority (over 50%) of both offenders and victims of violent crime. Remember, blacks as a whole comprise only 12% of the population so this means a tiny segment of the population is responsible for most of the crime. It is without a doubt a black problem, a cultural one, and no, I don't believe that stating this is racist in any way.

Recidivism. In case you guys don't know the DE AG's office has a "habitual offenders" division. Most (i'm talking a huge majority) of violent crimes committed in Delaware are prosecuted by this division. Remember the guys who killed the cop in Philly? The shooter had a 13 page rap sheet (including multiple weapons violations) and he got out early on parole. I've heard about cases involving the worst criminals DE has to offer, and I've sat in on trials of a few of these guys. They are bad people. They should not under any circumstances be free to roam the streets with the rest of us. Hell I wish more of them would get the death penalty, and I think it should be carried out quick and simple rather than having guys sit on death row for 30 years and then die via lethal injection.

No one would EVER vote for me if I ran for office. I tell it like it is and don't care if stating the facts offends some people. You can't be straight, honest, blunt, or a realist as a politician because people don't want that. They want hope, change, blind idealism etc. and they'll swallow up loads of BS as long as it sounds good at that very moment, unintended consequences be damned. Far too many people want their chains. They don't want liberty because they don't want the personal responsibility inherent in it. They'd rather cede that responsibility over to the government.
 #1566  by LordJim
 
No one would EVER vote for me if I ran for office.
Giuliani took a 'tough on crime' approach in NYC and managed to really clean things up during his term in office. I take a 'lock 'em up' attitude, I'd vote for you.

-
Jim
 #1569  by Wynder
 
My wife's catholic, so we had to do the pre-caina stuff too -- Coming up on 10 years here.... But yeah, those are the 'Civil Unions'.
 #1941  by Jeff the Baptist
 
Also married in a civil ceremony by a judge. The wife's Jewish so while we received pre-marital counseling at my church, neither my minister or her rabbi would marry us. Was kind of fun because we got to do what we wanted with the ceremony. Trying to design a "traditional" inter-religious ceremony was a challenge, but I think it went well.

I could accept civil unions. I'd suggest adopting it as a state constitutional amendment though to make everything ironclad. Other states are having slippery slope problems with civil unions turning into full marriage through the courts. An amendment should stop that.

I'm with Lord Jim on Wynders tax exemption policy. If you remove tax exempt status from those that don't comply, you are certainly forcing them to comply. Not only are you stripping the church of tax exempt status, but you're also stripping all those church members of their tithe's tax deductability. Churches are not closed to the public (and therefore "private") and religious organizations are already allowed to discriminate perfectly legally on the basis of religion so how is this any different.
 #1942  by Wynder
 
Jeff the Baptist wrote:Churches are not closed to the public (and therefore "private") and religious organizations are already allowed to discriminate perfectly legally on the basis of religion so how is this any different.
I'm a Methodist and have been to a Catholic service, so they don't discriminate -- even though they operate primarily for their particular faith, they don't turn away people at the door if they're Jewish or Hindu and want to attend. If someone went to a Mosque and they turned them away because they were baptized Catholic, see how fast an attorney would be on that. There's no such thing as 'legal religious discrimination'.

In order to have tax-exempt status, 501(c)(3) of the code says that the organization "...must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests..." and it's arguably a private interest that the church wishes for gays not to get married.

Removing the tax-exemption is simply doing that... it doesn't force the church to do anything; if you begin to interpret the law differently for two different organizations, you're creating two different classes of business. If they want to do that, that's fine -- but they'll need to codify that. Until that point, the law must be interpreted and applied equally.

I'm not trying to start a holy war here, nor do I have any vendetta against religion -- the wife is a devout catholic, my kids go to a Catholic school... I just don't agree with the idea that the church wants to act as a private entity, but get the tax-exempt status as well.
 #1961  by Jeff the Baptist
 
There's no such thing as 'legal religious discrimination'.
Yes there is. Religious organizations are specifically exempted in statutes (like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for instance) and allowed to use differential treatment even for protected classes provided the discrimination is considered religiously valid. Religious validity covers a broad range of precepts that can include things like divorce or sexual orientation. Churches let anyone attend, but it is entirely permissible for them to discriminate based on religion when they hire, fire, or choose to fill lay leadership positions.

It is also entirely permissible for them to refuse to marry people for religious reasons that may be quite arbitrary. My church will not marry you if one or both people are not Christians, if you do not receive pre-marital counseling, or if you are already living together. This is all completely legal.

Your reading of the "private interests" clause is simply wrong. The clause actually means that you can't create a "charity" whose sole purpose is to benefit individuals. From the IRS:
A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.
Essentially, a 501(c)(3) cannot be created simply to pay out any contributions to it's board members. Nor can it used to pay a persons wages who then work for someone in control of the 501c3. I couldn't create a "Give JtB a Million Dollars" charity or a "Get JtB a Gardner" association to get myself tax free money or services. Well I could but once the IRS caught on it would be shut down and I'd probably be convicted of tax evasion.

This is tax code. It is talking about donations of money or something of monetary value (like man-hours of work) to specific individuals, not something amorphous like marriage which might bring recognition to a group of unspecified people. 501(c)(3)s are even allowed to lobby and advocate for public policy within monetary limits and under certain rules like not working for a specific candidate or party. So even if this was social advocacy, it is still allowed.
 #1964  by Wynder
 
Jeff the Baptist wrote:Religious validity covers a broad range of precepts that can include things like divorce or sexual orientation. Churches let anyone attend, but it is entirely permissible for them to discriminate based on religion when they hire, fire, or choose to fill lay leadership positions.
Only where the religion, gender or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business.
My church will not marry you if one or both people are not Christians, if you do not receive pre-marital counseling, or if you are already living together. This is all completely legal.
Do you happen to know if it has ever been challenged in court? I'd be interested in seeing if there is actually any case law to back up our positions, one way or the other.
Your reading of the "private interests" clause is simply wrong. The clause actually means that you can't create a "charity" whose sole purpose is to benefit individuals.

From the IRS: A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests.
Firstly, it is not specifically for a "charity", 501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, funds, foundations or community chest that is operated for scientific, literary, religious, charitable or educational purposes. Additionally, it can be argued that paritioners would qualify as "persons controlled" by those private interests where "Control" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition) as "To exercise power or influence over."

Nowhere in the statute does it define "benefit" strictly as monetary compensation and the scenario your presented, while is indeed a valid scenario, is not the only possible one.
This is tax code. It is talking about donations of money or something of monetary value (like man-hours of work) to specific individuals, not something amorphous like marriage which might bring recognition to a group of unspecified people.
It's also law and, unless it is specifically defined in the code as such, "benefit" is an amorphous term that can mean anything that puts an organization or individual(s) into a position greater than what was before.
501(c)(3)s are even allowed to lobby and advocate for public policy within monetary limits and under certain rules like not working for a specific candidate or party. So even if this was social advocacy, it is still allowed.
Well, it's not even working for a particular candidate, it's if they even attempt to influence the outcome of public office election. But the question here isn't about social advocacy, it about potentially actionable decisions.

I'd like to keep this a constructive and respectful debate about the law and not about religion, though the issue itself does play a role. I don't know whether there's a right or wrong answer for this or if it's ultimately a matter of opinion, but if it needs to disagreed upon, that's fine, but I don't want this to descend into a strict religious argument.
 #2010  by stephpd
 
I have just a simple question. If marriage is regulated by the state why would the state care what the church thinks? Call it civil union or whatever, just not marriage.

I know many would take offense to it being called marriage so just call it something else. Since you don't need a church or any religious organization to get married. Go to any court house and a judge can do it.

I see that I'm not the only one here who had problems with some religion not wanting to perform a service. Like I needed their permission or conversion and classes.

I come from a large family, nine kids. The success rate of marriage is independent of what any church requires. Only four of us are still in our first marriage. Two are in or out of a second marriage and one went through three. One never married, still lives at home (46 yrs old). Total of seven divorces.

So given such a high rate of divorce and most not converting and whatever else was needed to get married.

Why would anyone care what organized religion has to say about something that doesn't even require their involvement?

Given that two religions that I've been a member of wouldn't marry me, I just don't see the problem with gay people doing what I did. Go shopping for a place to get married. Or just use a court house. It's still state regulated and not solely left to religion.