Time to tax the churches!

[BanTheGOP]

With the recent bitchslapping that has been delivered to the rethugs regarding DOMA, we can leverage the win with real reform. Because of the decision, we now have the ability to justify taxing churches if they refuse to honor and celebrate DOMA as part of their congregational duties. We should be encouraging individuals whom are not traditional male/female to register to marry in churches who have been against DOMA, and if they refuse, we can actually provide the proof that churches should NOT be exempt from taxation. This would be worth billions of dollars to our general fund.

[Arugula Latte]

1. Yep. That is LONG overdue.

[Arugula Latte]

78. What a scam. Fleecing the gullible.

And then fleecing the taxpayers.

[RGinNJ]

2. I am not sure that would work

the state gives people a marriage license. Churches just have a ceremony. With the separation of church and state IMHO a private religious institution can do what it wishes.

[stopbush]

4. That's correct. The state considers you to be legally married the second you've signed and paid for

your marriage license.

The marriage ceremony itself means nothing in the eyes of the state. In fact, a marriage ceremony held without first obtaining a marriage license won't be recognized by the state as making you married, IIRC.

[ConcernedCanuk]

24. Doesn't work that way in Canada.

.
.
.

Ontario laws anyways -

you can sign and pay for a marriage licence -

but you are not married unless there is some sort of legal ceremony.

and if not "married" either by a justice or a minister, within 90 days - the licence is void.

If you changed your mind about marrying, you would have to reapply to the Province.

Dat be Canada.

CC

[LiberalFighter]

43. The marriage license needs to be signed by someone authorized to perform cermony

and by the witnesses. Then filed with the county. You are right that the license needs to be obtained first. Otherwise the minister will not perform the wedding.

[BanTheGOP]

8. That is for a court to decide. The negation of holding the ceremony provides the trigger...

...for taxing the hell out of the organization, particularly the Catholic Church.

[onenote]

69. Churches have a constitutional right not to perform any ceremony they choose

Should Jewish congregations lose their tax exempt status if they won't marry a Jew and a non Jew (even though such a couple clearly has a constitutional right to wed)?

[AndyA]

3. I agree, churches that get involved in politics should be taxed

It sure seems like a lot of them are almost as political as they are religious these days.

[stopbush]

6. Churches should be taxed because we shouldn't allow make-believe to have the same standing

as reality. Should belief in Anubis or Santa Claus have equal standing in a court of law with objective evidence? Should belief in Anubis be funded by the Feds the way they now fund Christianity through their faith-based bullshit?

The CONCEIT of religion that its tenets have any basis in reality is a conceit that we need to get rid of.

And, yes, it would help if the words "make believe" were tied to religion at every opportunity.

[madrchsod]

18. 1 corinthians 13:11

when i was a child, i spoke as a child,i understood as a child

but when i became a man i put away childish things.

do you think that martin luther king and the other christian and jewish leaders during the civil rights movement were conceited and were not grounded in reality? what about the christians and jews that were murdered defending the civil rights of others. what about those christian children who were blown up in the basement of their church. what about the nuns and priests who gave their lives during the us backed wars in central america. to all these people faith was not bullshit based or make believe. was it bullshit when my wife prayed that i would live after suffering a cardiac arrest. personally i think it was the trained surgeons, support staff ,and my will not to die that saved my life. i would never tell them that if they pray for me or if they believed god would guide them that their faith was based in bullshit.

[Democracyinkind]

27. I think you're missing the point

Religious individuals can and should be involved in political discourse and politics. Organized religious institutions should not.

[cbayer]

30. What about other non-profits? Do you think they should not be involved

in political discourse or politics?

[Democracyinkind]

32. I don't see religions as non-profits.

To me, they are more like businesses. See "Sacred Trust".

Not that I want to hand-waive the issue. I know that I'm in the minority with this viewpoint and that it therefore isn't a viable option. Neither is selective enforcement for religions, I get that.

One way would be to tax all non-profits. Obviously, I wouln't like that. Or create a new kind of corporate entity for non-religious charities.

[cbayer]

34. Well, they are and that is where there tax status is derived.

While I think the IRS is lame in terms of finding and taxing those organizations that are not in fact non-profit, most religious groups do fit the criteria. Those that are actually profit centers should lose their status, imo.

Those that would be hurt the most by taxing religious organizations are the neediest and most marginalized in our society. Again, I would say that we should be careful what we ask for.

[Democracyinkind]

35. I agree with your last sentence.

I don't think I said anything extreme, though. I didn't even weigh in on the OP's question before you asked...

[cbayer]

36. I apologize if I came across as harsh.

I was riled up by some of the other comments being made in the thread and it was not my intention to attack you.

[Democracyinkind]

37. I didn't want to accuse you.

We fundamentally disagree but I've read enough from you to respect you and don't jump to conclusions ( 99% of the times, at least - I bet we could have nasty fights about liturgy or dogmata if we wanted to.)

[cbayer]

38. Let's call them spirited and not nasty, lol.

I appreciate your comment and feel the same, which is why I did not wish to offend you.

FWIW, I am a religionist in the same way a man can be a feminist, so it is highly unlikely I would engage in debate about liturgy or dogma. But I will defend the religious who I feel are on my side when it comes to social and political issues.

[Democracyinkind]

39. Granted. Spirited it is then.

I feel like I learned something important about you in your last post. I see you in a different light now and I will keep that in mind.

Nevertheless - the way you post would make me respect you even if you turned out to be the leader of Opus Dei. That's saying something.

[cbayer]

40. Wow. I feel honored by your words.

I"m not sure I have had the opportunity to talk so directly with you before, but I will not forget your very kind words and look forward to talking with you again in the future.

[onenote]

70. Did you feel that way about churches that led the fight for civil rights or against the Vietnam War?

[AndyA]

72. I was too young to have an opinion back then

Trying to make trouble where there is none?

[onenote]

74. Okay. If you had been around in the 1960s, how would you feel about tax-exempt churches

(including many black churches) that promoted the civil rights and anti war movements from the pulpit and helped organize and transport church members to rallies and marches and were directly involved in voting registration drives?

I'm not trying to make trouble, just pointing out that you should be careful what you wish for (i.e., the taxation of churches that get involved in politics), since advocacy of policy positions is not something that is exclusively to churches with a conservative tilt.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

5. Amen, brother!

[JustAnotherGen]

7. Agree with a few others

Your religious ceremony is just that (In NJ). You go to the town and get a marriage license. You get married by an OFFICIANT. You sign your license. You are married.


You absolutely do NOT need to get married in a church to be able to get the marriage tax credit. My focus on gay marriage has been that. Folks should be able to get the Federal credit if they are legally married in the eyes of the state in which they reside.

Now - what I would suggest for all who do live in states where you are legally married is to start putting each others name on investments, accounts, etc. etc. Really merge NOW so you can't get turned away.

I was married on April 15 2012. February 2, 2013 I read an email from our accountant and was in tears. I've never ever in my life received a tax refund. Let alone one for a several thousand dollars.

[BanTheGOP]

10. Not completely the point.

I understand the actual marriage as honored by the state is dependent upon the certificate. But the point of the post is to force churches to perform ceremonies, or risk losing their tax-exempt status. The key is that churches can no longer be used as Holy Sanctioned money-laundering operations for repugnant republicans anymore, and we now have the major legal argument to take away the gravy train.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. The Problem Is

I don't agree with that!


I don't want the state to tell the Churches, Temples, Fellowships, Synagogues what to do: EVEEEEER.

You can ask for the state to tax the individual Religious Institution itself (example closest to me is a Temple serving the Hindu Community) at minimum from a 'property tax' perspective.

There's already a roadmap for it. My husband's country - Italy. It actually provided tax RELIEF to home owners in Italy this year by its implementation. We saw a marked difference in our properties abroad.

I would love it in NJ. We have some of the highest property taxes in the country. It would certainly help to offset ours.

But I absolutely do not want a bunch of religious right wingnuts telling a bunch of Hindus or Bhuddists what to do. They can go hang. We don't want to open that door up - because you watch and see if my Unitarian Universalist fellowship doesn't get shut down by the bastards.

By the way- we fly rainbow flags in our community. So come on home.

[d_r]

33. i agred with you

freedom of religion and freedom of association. Church's are free to chose members in any way that they would like, and only to perform ceremonies or rituals for members. We have no right to demand that a religion we are not a member of perform a ritual for us.

I would like politically active churches to be forced to pay taxes, but imho this is not a path for that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. Carole Rylander didn't understand about Unitarian fellowships.

She refused to grant a tax exemption when she was Texas state comptroller to the Denison, TX, UU fellowship, because she compared them to Halloween pranksters and trick-or-treaters.

Seriously. Yes, she did. And reversed herself later after the shitstorm.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. Wow

And being UU's - they probably invited her to a potluck supper at the church AFTER she reversed the decision . . because they wanted to let her know all's well that ends well and all are welcome. Even assclowns. But don't let my Pastor hear you say that! She gets on me sometimes.

[premium]

42. Why should the govt. force the churches to accept

something they may fundamentally disagree with or lose their tax exempt status?
That's blackmail, pure and simple.
And just what is this major legal argument you speak of? The SCOTUS ruling of DOMA being unconstitutional? That only applies to Federal agencies, not private entities nor the states.
The Govt. would have no standing to force churches to perform gay marriages.
You should be careful what you wish for.

[BanTheGOP]

66. How can you "blackmail" an organization whose tax exempt status is fraudulent in the first place?

It's called "enforcement," which should be our progressive prerogative.

[premium]

67. Why is it fraudulent?

Because YOU say so?
The IRS, you know, the ones that granted them the tax exemption status, says it isn't.
I think I'll take the word of the IRS over someone on an internet board.

[LiberalFighter]

44. There is no reason to force churches to marry those that they don't want to.

If that route is taken then it would require them to marry anyone that steps into their church regardless of the faith involved.

As it is, those wishing to be married can do so via the civil ceremony. If that option wasn't available then I would see a problem. For example atheists that wish to get married or 2 people of different faiths.

[greymattermom]

55. that depends on your income

Use this calculator to see what will happen. In my case being married increased my taxes by 10,000 every year.http://marriagetaxcalculator.com

Many professional same sex couples are about to get sticker shock.

[cbayer]

9. Be careful what you wish for.

Do you want all non-profits to be taxed, because that is what would have to happen?

While the laws prohibit non-profits from endorsing specific candidates, they permit involvement in political issues. We would lose a lot of progressive/liberal organizations if those laws were to change.

And then there is the separation issues noted by another respondent. The government should not be involved in telling churches what they should have to "honor and celebrate" any more than churches should be telling government.

[BanTheGOP]

11. I trust the government far more than I trust the republican rethugs

I trust the government of progressive institutions such as the current Obama Administration. And once we get immigration reform, we will never have another republican administration, as the transformation will be complete, and our next major movement will be to integrate the United States into a more globally-administered organization, where we can merge with other progressive citizens and societies to ensure that Americans cannot isolate their wealth and destructive edicts from anyone else in the world, which means a pragmatic end to anything the rethug party stands for.

[cbayer]

12. My goodness, you are optimistic.

Are you equating the Republican party with all things religious in this country? Because that would just be patently untrue.

[BanTheGOP]

14. Pretty much. Most rethugs are religous neanderthals, most democrats are enlightened progressives. nt

[cbayer]

15. So what do you make of the large groups of progressive/liberal religious people and organizations?

Being an enlightened progressive has nothing to do with religion in many cases.

[BanTheGOP]

16. Progressives don't use religion to politicize. Rethugs do.

[cbayer]

17. Really? Tell that to this guy:

NAACP’s William Barber emerges as leader of Moral Monday protests

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/06/24/naacps-william-barber-emerges-as-leader-of-moral-monday-protests/

[BanTheGOP]

19. NAACP is not a religion. Duh.

His church can be taxed if it's not predominantly involved with NCAAP activities, but most progressives I know do not mind this.

[cbayer]

20. The man is a minister. Take a look at the article.

He is deeply involved in his religious beliefs.

Do you dismiss the religious beliefs of MLK? How about the religious groups that have been actively involved in fighting for GLBT civil rights and are celebrating today?

Your position is extreme and narrow. You might want to get out more.

[premium]

21. Oh, man this is scary.

Even his sig line advocates the banning of a political party
Much as I detest the Repub. party, I certainly don't want to ban it or any party.
That smacks of McCarthyism, IMO.

[cbayer]

22. Agree. It's just a bit too much, I would say.

[bamacrat]

23. I agree they should be but not for this.

Churches should be taxed because so many are political mouthpieces for the right. They should not have a say or influence in our countries processes and policies.

With that being said, a church doesn't have to acknowledge gay marriage, only the government does. I was not married in a church nor did we have a pastor/priest or any biblical verses read at the ceremony, we actually had a Cherokee poem read at the end. So my marriage is not recognized by any church and I like it that way. Yes there are religious homosexuals and the churches they are members of should treat them with the acceptance and love Jesus taught. You can find ministers etc. that will do gay weddings. But, the only thing that really matters in the reality of life is that the government recognizes your marriage and applies the same safeguards and privileges across the board, regardless of gay or straight.

[BanTheGOP]

25. The technicalities are not important

We have always had technical superiority of the facts when it comes to the justification for suing churches. The problem is that there had been this huge republican-sponsored campaign to use "faith" as a basis for not taxing not just the organization but virtually every industry around the institution.

With the bitchslapping of DOMA, we now have the popular and, in my opinion, the impetus to go over the edge where we can actually influence the judges to make the right decision. Of course, I'm looking longer term when judges ruled, not juries, who can go either way. But I believe we can actually get about five or six cases filed, and we will either force them to accept gays on an equal basis, or tax the hell out of them...literally.

[cbayer]

28. What do you mean when you use the term "bitchslap"?

[premium]

52. That's a pretty darn sexist term being used.

If poster has any sense at all, it would be deleted and substituted for a more benign word.

[cbayer]

57. I am not able to take this member seriously at this point.

This is just flamebait and I am out.

Nice seeing you, premium.

[premium]

58. Nice seeing you also cbayer.

You have a great day, we're in an excessive heat warning here in Nevada for the next week or so, temps are supposed to top out at 117 degrees.

[premium]

51. Bitchslapping?

That's a pretty damn sexist term there, maybe you should delete that offensive word and use something else.

[hrmjustin]

26. I disagree! My Church does a lot of good and could not do as much if taxed.

[cbayer]

29. He's apparently of the opinion that all religious organizations are republican by definition.

[hrmjustin]

31. I can tell him my church is definately not.

[LiberalFighter]

45. A way to do this right in my opinion would be to

Tax anything that the church receives. When they pay the salaries of the clergy, teachers, maintenance of the building, utilities, etc. It should be taxed. Non of the contributions received for that purpose would not be tax deductible.


As to the good the church can either set up a non-profit that is set up at arms distance or encourage their members to contribute to specific charities. That would be tax deductible.

[hrmjustin]

46. I think the system is fine as is. If a few reforms are needed than do it but I am in favor of not

taxing churches. But I do understand how some get annoyed.

[LiberalFighter]

48. Another option is to not allow tax deductions for contributions

that are used for non-charitable purposes.

Churches should still pay the taxes associated with public safety, roads, sidewalks, etc.

[hrmjustin]

50. Then so should all non-profits then.

[LiberalFighter]

62. There are different classifications of non-profits.

There is a difference between charities and churches. But even charities should pay the portion that is intended for public safety, etc.

Considering that there are charities that likely pay rent instead of owning a building. Those paying rent are doing so indirectly through the owner.

[musicblind]

41. You realize that not all churches are conservative and politically active. The Metropolitan Church

is a pro gay church that fights for gay rights.

The United Church of Christ has also fought for gay rights.

A lot of churches have.

I think you are confusing Christians with republicans.

They are not. Trust me. I'm a gay Christian.

[hrmjustin]

47. That is the biggest thing that bothers me on ths site.

To many Christian = GOP. I wish people would realize not all Christians are a bunch of right wingers.

[Freddie]

54. Me too

I'm a liberal Christian (ELCA Lutheran). It's not just here, any left-leaning place seems to tar us with the same broad brush. Check out The Christian Left on FB.
Yes churches should be taxed the second they tell parishioners who to vote for from the pulpit.

[hrmjustin]

59. I love the The Christian left FB page.

By the way my church is in communion with yours. The Episcopal Church.

[Chan790]

49. Oh dear void...

this shit again from you? Please stop. It's idiotic and you make thoughtful humanists and freethinkers look like assholes because we get associated with this crap whenever it gets spewed.

Further, it's false. You cannot compel churches to perform same-sex marriages. You can't start taxing them for refusing. Every major atheist/agnostic/freedom-from-religion organization is already on record as saying if this were ever litigated they'd support the autonomy of the churches as they believe that freedom from religious interference goes both ways: just as we're not compelled to practice their religion or hew our laws to their faith, they're not compelled and should not be compelled to violate the tenets of their religion.

[premium]

53. ^^^This^^^.

Excellent post.
Just look at the sig line, I will never trust someone who wants to ban a political party just because they disagree with it, smacks too much of McCarthyism.

[Jeneral2885]

56. DISAGREE

It's not Christianity which is at fault, It how they have interpreted it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. That's not how it works....

The repeal of DOMA prohibits discrimination as a matter of public policy.

Churches are free -- and have always been free -- to follow whatever theological path they choose. No church is now required to perform a marriage ceremony because DOMA has been repealed, just as no church was required to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony under DOMA.

[premium]

61. The OP really has no grasp on reality

when it comes to this issue, he advocates forcing churches to perform gay marriages even if it goes against the basic beliefs of the church and, if a church refuses, he wants the govt. to revoke it's tax exempt status.
That's blackmail, pure and simple and repugnant.

[JustAnotherGen]

65. And he forgot that

There are Sikh Temples, Hindu Temples, Mosques (Islam), Synagogues, Fellowships, Lutheran, UU, Church of Christ, etc. etc.

Whether any of these faiths/paths are behaving the way a Mega Born Again I've Been Saved Christian Church or not -


It has to be applied fair and square. What you do to one, you will have to do to another.

[dawg]

68. Tax the churches?

We can't even tax political 501(c)4's that go so far as to have "tea party" in their freaking names.

[Ter]

73. Tax the rich

No one else.

[BanTheGOP]

75. When the rich has billions, if not hundreds of billions, of untaxed money for the GOP to use...

...then it actually becomes rather obvious as to what we must do, isn't it?

[NaturalHigh]

76. I was wondering how long it would take for this sort of bullshit.

No, you can't force churches to perform marriages that violate their beliefs. No court in the country is going to allow that. There are plenty of churches that will perform the rites if someone wants a church marriage.