Gay Marriage Hypothetical

[AndyZ]

Reading through the liberal perspective common to this site can be pretty interesting.  For example, CBS talked about the Chick-Fil-A thing as if people were outraged about the CEO's voicing of his views, but it seems like the actual anger people feel is how the corporation sends money to various groups.

So I've got a question to toss out to people which requires the assumption that a law is passed that gay marriage is now perfectly legal.  Avoid as much as possible the issue that it wouldn't actually happen today.

Would a homosexual couple then be able to go up to a church that doesn't authorize homosexual marriage and demand to have a ceremony?  If the church refused, would they lose their 501c3 status?  How exactly would that work?  How does it work in the states where it's already been legalized?

[Beguile's Mistress]

I suppose that if this were the case some churches would begin to restrict these "services" to members only and base eligibility for membership on individuals accepting the tenets and precepts of that religion.  Those religions who have a formal instructional process for new converts ask adults to attest to their belief in the teachings of the church and to promise to uphold those teachings.  If you don't agree you don't have to join and the church doesn't have to accept you. 

[HockeyGod]

Not to long ago blacks were not welcome in many white churches.

For the most part, our positions on race have evolved (some fringe groups still fight for separatism).

Why do I compare race and sexual orientation - blasphemy to some? For me it gets at the main crux of the issue. Some people think being LGB is a choice. As though run of the mill people would choose to be hated or ostracized by people.

When people accept that homosexuality is not a choice, churches that deny participation by LGB people will be seen as fringe groups.

[Moraline]

As to 501c3 status. That's just charitable organization status. There are no stipulations on that other then how the money the organization controls is used. The status is irrelevant to the conversation.

The church is a private organization it can choose to do whatever it wants. If it was the "only" body that could grant marriages then it would be required to do so, however it is not.

[AndyZ]

I actually have no issue with equating race to sexual orientation for the comparison of external response.  I equate racism and sexism all the time.  If you have a reason for making a comparison, then by all means do.

Moraline, here's the site on the explanation of the status: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

Going to try not to comment too much so that more people are welcome to give their opinion and perspective.

[Moraline]

Moraline, here's the site on the explanation of the status: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

I read it, unless I missed something this talks about political influence and has nothing to do with whether or not an organization chooses to exercise it's power to unite a couple in wedlock.  If they were actively campaigning against or for gay-marriage then their tax status would be an issue but a simple refusal of marrying people that aren't members of their church (or not within their rules) has nothing to do with it.

Church's refuse to marry people all the time for far more mundane reasons. My parents were refused marriage by the church that they had attended because my mother was previously married and divorced. I doubt we'd see that church lose it's charitable organization status as a result of it.

If the initial post was phrased differently like "will the church lose it's charitble status as a result of campaigning against same sex marriage?" Then we'd be having a different discussion. But since the topic is

Would a homosexual couple then be able to go up to a church that doesn't authorize homosexual marriage and demand to have a ceremony?  If the church refused, would they lose their 501c3 status? 

The answer is still "no." Charitable status is not relevant to the topic.

For details on the break down of defining how they can stay within the rules see the pdf linked on the website that you posted:
Revenue Ruling 2007-41
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf

[AndyZ]

Sorry.  I'm sick today so probably not reading things right.  Not going to post on here for a while, but others are free to give their thoughts.

[Shjade]

Would a homosexual couple then be able to go up to a church that doesn't authorize homosexual marriage and demand to have a ceremony?  If the church refused, would they lose their 501c3 status?  How exactly would that work?  How does it work in the states where it's already been legalized?

In order:

1 - Yes. Would the church be required to satisfy that demand? No. Hell, they could make that demand right now; that doesn't mean anything will come of it.

2 & 3 - No. Churches have all sorts of requirements for marriage ceremonies and can be quite discriminating. Some are more so than others. Note that this has no bearing on whether or not the couple would actually get married; ceremony is ceremony, not legality. Even if you go through a whole wedding ceremony at a church you aren't actually married until you fill out the government forms, sign the certificate with witnesses, etc. etc. The ceremony is a religious thing, not a legal one.

4 - No idea, no personal experience with that.

[RubySlippers]

My father had a bigger issue chaplains in the military very often perform marriages and the only issue is the license being legal, so he was wondering if a chaplain decided not to marry a gay soldier or sailor or marine to a same gender spouse woud he be in violation of his duties. He would think yes and therefore could be disciplined but they might make such elective which I would say is unfair since they are military persons and therefore follow the same chain of command as any other member of the service, save they are not considered combatants (generally).

[Shjade]

Oooh, government-assigned marriage duty. That is a stickier situation, I'll agree. I have no experience whatsoever with military protocol, though, so no idea how any of that works.

[RubySlippers]

Oooh, government-assigned marriage duty. That is a stickier situation, I'll agree. I have no experience whatsoever with military protocol, though, so no idea how any of that works.

Well normally it would up to the immediate CO say on an AF Base in France a woman wants to marry a French woman, and its otherwise not an issue then it would be up to the base commander. If he says marry them and its a direct command then he or she would not have a choice my guess is the CO would find a willing chaplain to do so before ordering it.

[Chelemar]

501c3 status is in regards to campaign contributions so would not be effected.

Bold mine.

"Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."  As long as the church doesn't fund a particular candidate or political party with church money, or support a party or candidate with direct statements from the pulpit, in publishing, etc.. they don't lose their status.  For example:  The Catholic church in your area publishing in the local paper:  St. Luke's urges all of it's members and any catholic to vote for jack Daws for dog catcher because he's a good, upstanding catholic."  That would be cause for investigation.


Like Shjade said.
Allowing someone to participate in a wedding ceremony is up to each religion.  One can't demand to be married in a church because they wish it to be so.  Most religions have requirements that must be met before two people can be married in their religion, a ceremony that is specific in the eyes of that religion but has no legal bearing.

It's the paper's registered with the court house that count.

[WildCat]

I know we're supposed to be ignoring the question of WHETHER this could happen today.

But if we were to look into _how_ it would happen when it did... Seems to me that in most cases where gay marriage has been passed it has been passed with the explicit stipulation that churches would not be forced to perform marriages they felt should not be performed. So I suspect that is the most likely path to continue winning support.

Meanwhile, I and others likely will be working within the church towards policies of full inclusion to draw us closer to the day that point becomes moot.

[Beguile's Mistress]

This article may provide some answers regarding military chaplains.

It appears that the Army does not force a chaplain to act in contravention of his faith.

The Navy Reserve Chaplain Corp. motto is:  "We Provide for Our Own, Facilitate For Others and Care for All."  I believe it is the same motto or philosophy for all branches, active and reserve.

[AndyZ]

WildCat, I'll call that as fair to give such an idea.  I just didn't want to get into the thing I've had on other threads where people would say things like, "What's the point of discussing it?  That'll never happen."

[RubySlippers]

This article may provide some answers regarding military chaplains.

It appears that the Army does not force a chaplain to act in contravention of his faith.

The Navy Reserve Chaplain Corp. motto is:  "We Provide for Our Own, Facilitate For Others and Care for All."  I believe it is the same motto or philosophy for all branches, active and reserve.

But there is no hard policy on this, my father had officer standing if he had a first time same sex couple marriage under his command and the chaplain service was under him he would assign the senior one to handle it as he  or she would any other marriage, since he represents the branch and should set the first example. And it would be an order to do so. If he felt morally abused he could leave the service when your in uniform your there to tend to the people in the service if one is gay and wants to marry someone its no different to him as long as its legal and military rules apply. But he always was a hard as nails by the book soldier and later officer.

If a chaplain didn't want to marry a black man to a white woman (or vice versa) due to theology would that be okay to, its the same thing.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's my understanding, and I did ask this earlier today of a woman who was in the service, that no one can order a chaplain to go against his faith.  The commanding officer has as much responsibility to look after the chaplain as he or she does for anyone under their command.  The officer's job is to find a chaplain who can perform the ceremony in good conscience.

I'm hoping I'm reading you correctly Ruby. 

[pyrostinger]

My two cents.

Sure, a homosexual couple, in this hypothetical world where same-sex marriage is legalized, can walk right up to a church that doesn't perform same-sex marriage and demand a couple.  Of course, the church can and probably should tell them that they should go somewhere else.  Churches are not the only places to hold marriage ceremonies, and gay people that go to a church that doesn't do same-sex marriages and demand to be married aren't looking to be married.  They're looking to pick a fight.  If the point of this whole gay marriage thing is about love (which it should be and I believe it is) then why would a couple deliberately go into a place where they're not welcome and demand that they be married there?

Any church that doesn't want to perform same-sex marriages shouldn't be forced to perform them.  That's they're prerogative.  Nor should they suffer any negative consequences for that, aside of maybe losing some parishioners who think differently.

[Caehlim]

Reading through the liberal perspective common to this site can be pretty interesting.

It's not surprising that this site would have a biased sampling of the population. It's a very niche service.

So I've got a question to toss out to people which requires the assumption that a law is passed that gay marriage is now perfectly legal.  Avoid as much as possible the issue that it wouldn't actually happen today.

Hypothetical accepted.

Would a homosexual couple then be able to go up to a church that doesn't authorize homosexual marriage and demand to have a ceremony?

Doubtful. I think it would be more likely to affect people's relationship with the state, not with the church. Of course it depends on the exact law passed, but I've never heard anyone suggest a law that requires mandatory church participation in gay marriage.

If the church refused, would they lose their 501c3 status?

I don't know what a 501c3 status is, but I'm guessing from context that it's tax-exemption? (Ah, thankyou Wikipedia for confirming that one). Again I would say doubtful, though it does depend on the specifics. Whether a church should receive tax-exemption or not is an entirely different can of worms that I won't go into here.

How does it work in the states where it's already been legalized?

Not sure. I'm Australian. We haven't legalized it anywhere here.

[AndyZ]

It's not surprising that this site would have a biased sampling of the population. It's a very niche service.

I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean this as a pejorative.  I haven't found a lot of places where the left and right actually talk to each other, so I like to find out both perspectives and see which sides have merit.

Apologies if this came off as offensive.

[Caela]

Reading through the liberal perspective common to this site can be pretty interesting.  For example, CBS talked about the Chick-Fil-A thing as if people were outraged about the CEO's voicing of his views, but it seems like the actual anger people feel is how the corporation sends money to various groups.

So I've got a question to toss out to people which requires the assumption that a law is passed that gay marriage is now perfectly legal.  Avoid as much as possible the issue that it wouldn't actually happen today.

Would a homosexual couple then be able to go up to a church that doesn't authorize homosexual marriage and demand to have a ceremony?  If the church refused, would they lose their 501c3 status?  How exactly would that work?  How does it work in the states where it's already been legalized?

I didn't read the rest of the thread so this might have been said already.

No.

Churches already have the right not to perform services against their religious beliefs. As an example, Catholic churches won't marry a couple where one of them has been divorced. The divorced party must go through the process of having their previous marriage annulled before the Catholic Church will marry them and if they cannot get an annulment then the Church won't marry them. Many churches also require some forms of counseling or marriage classes etc to perform a wedding in them and if you aren't willing to do those they won't marry you.

You could also think of it this way...Does the Catholic church have to perform a Jewish wedding simply because the couple likes the building and is straight? Of course not. 

[BCdan]

Here is my stance on marriage as a legal institution.  It shouldn't be. If 2 or more consenting adults want to sign a contract that is exactly like a marriage contract, then fine.  All tax benefits should be extended to single people and things like hospital visitation rights should be in the contract that people negotiate.  Having a specific set of laws that pertains to a specific contract has obviously caused countless problems and its mostly done for religious reasons instead of practical reasons.

For that matter, I think churches are within their rights to refuse anyone business for any reason but they need to be treated as any other business and not given any sort of special treatment or even acknowledged as being churches.  If they sell a service, physical or spiritual, then they shouldn't be treated different.  Though I think a lot needs to change in tax law to support all forms of business. 

[Oniya]

You could also think of it this way...Does the Catholic church have to perform a Jewish wedding simply because the couple likes the building and is straight? Of course not.

Quoted for emphasis.  This should be the number one talking point when dealing with people who say 'You're going to force us to perform gay marriages!'  (Besides, it's not all that hard to find gay-friendly ministers.  I'd point at the UU's and the ULC, just to start with.)

[Chelemar]

If they sell a service, physical or spiritual, then they shouldn't be treated different.

Churches don't actually sell weddings. :)  You don't actually have to pay for the service.  It's an honorarium. 

[Oniya]

Here is my stance on marriage as a legal institution.  It shouldn't be. If 2 or more consenting adults want to sign a contract that is exactly like a marriage contract, then fine.  All tax benefits should be extended to single people and things like hospital visitation rights should be in the contract that people negotiate.  Having a specific set of laws that pertains to a specific contract has obviously caused countless problems and its mostly done for religious reasons instead of practical reasons.

If I remember right, there have been some same-sex couples that filed incorporation papers in order to get around some of the insurance, inheritance, and visitation rights.  (Business partners are allowed to name each other as beneficiaries, etc. under some corporate law thing.)

[BCdan]

Churches don't actually sell weddings. :)  You don't actually have to pay for the service.  It's an honorarium.

Then in my kinda of tax system that is based on consumption instead of income, there is less to worry about and churches wouldn't be taxed at all. 

[Shjade]

Churches don't actually sell weddings. :)  You don't actually have to pay for the service.  It's an honorarium.

Uh, yes, yes you do. If nothing else you pay for renting the space. You might not be paying for the actual marriage itself, per se, but if you want to have it in their church with their organist, etc., you're paying for it.

[Silk]

Largely the stipulation is the running of a "public" or a "private" service. If the service is conducted publically, then you lose right to discriminate, (such as the owners of a B&B who refused a gay couple after they had already booked.) However churches and marraiges in particular are usually considered private function's. Which result in having more right in who they will or not allow.

[AndyZ]

See, personally, I'd rather not see rules where you aren't allowed to discriminate.  If someone actually wants to discriminate based on something stupid, let them try.  If it's a stupid reason like sexual orientation in a job where it doesn't matter, the floodgates will open even worse than they did for Chick-Fil-A, which doesn't stop people from buying their product.

I guess I'm weird in that regard, though.  I wouldn't want to go to a place where I'm not wanted, but maybe I don't understand how things are in some places.

So, another question of mine (but feel free to keep posting about the first!): what happened to the compromise thing about civil unions?  Wasn't there supposed to be some thing ten years ago or so where they wanted to have that as a compromise of having legal marriage rights but not calling it marriage?  Or was that considered too discriminatory or what?

I get that it wouldn't be considered a perfect solution; I'm just curious what happened with that.

[Oniya]

Not all states allow civil unions.  What I've heard about why it hasn't gained a lot of support in the gay community is that it's seen as about the same thing as the 'separate but equal' schools back in the late 50s:  Nice in theory, but some are more equal than others.

[AndyZ]

Fair enough.  Next question: somebody mentioned about the corporate marriage thingy, I forget what it's called.  Could an insurance company voluntarily offer the idea of a beneficiary to be listed for same-sex couples, or does it absolutely require government intervention to have such a beneficiary?  Or have some companies already done this?

[Torch]

Short answer: It depends.

For instruments such as life insurance, investment accounts, 401k's, etc. you can put whoever you'd like as your beneficiary. You could list Bozo the Clown if you'd like.

However, if you have a legal spouse, that spouse is automatically assumed to be your beneficiary unless the spouse gives permission for someone else to be listed. For example, I'm automatically Mr. Torch's beneficiary on his life insurance policy and his retirement portfolio. I didn't have to do anything or sign anything. If he wanted those benefits to go to anyone else, he'd need me to sign off on it.

It's just another hoop same-sex couples have to jump through that legally married hetero couples don't.

As far as company sponsored health insurance is concerned, many companies are beginning to offer benefits to same-sex partners (I know Mr. Torch's does), but I doubt it's the norm.

It should also be noted that hetero couples who aren't legally married face the same obstacles as same-sex couples.

[Chelemar]

Hijack

Uh, yes, yes you do. If nothing else you pay for renting the space. You might not be paying for the actual marriage itself, per se, but if you want to have it in their church with their organist, etc., you're paying for it.

While some churches may have a guideline for you to follow as far as fees, it is still a honorarium for the majority, as far as I have seen.

Though you might have to pay for the services of secular workers, I.E. the janitor, organist, choir, whose services you may use and are not required to take a vow of poverty and do not work for the church. 

As for paying for the church, if you are a member, most of the time, you will be permitted to use it for free or a nominal donation.  Again, they may have a guideline set, but it's still up to you to decide if you will pay it.  Also, they will go by income as well.

I have been to weddings where no one thought to bring a fee for either the church or the pastor, (the best man was supposed to and he totally forgot)  the wedding still was performed and the pastor was gracious, the organist and choir still sang, again with grace. 


/end hijack

Personally, I just want to be able to have the same rights as everyone else has.  I've been with Jated, my partner for over eight years.  We consider ourselves married.  We wear rings.  But, until recently, I couldn't go and see her in the hospital if she was in critical condition because I am not legally family. 

Jated had cancer and was in Critical care after her surgery.  I had to tell them I was her sister to be permitted to visit her.  The nurse was about to tell me no, as she knew I was lying, when the doctor came and told me to come with him to see her.  He was my doctor as well and knew we were a couple.  So, yeah... that sucked.  It still makes me cry to think about it.

Second, J has a 12 year old son whom I adore and who loves me.  Should anything happen to her, I have no rights at all to see him.  As a step parent, I at least might have the chance to have some way to be able to have some sort of ability to file for visitation.  At least I could hope.  He's been a part of my live since he was four, and I have been a part of his. 

Third, Jated and I are buying a home together.    We have been for six years.  If I die, I have insurance... it will automatically pay off the house.  However, if anything happens to Jated, I have nothing.  I am not her spouse, she can not get insurance due to the cancer, and her income will not come to me because .... that's right, I am not her spouse.  I am not entitled.

If something happens to J.  I know what she wants done.  No living on machines, etc.  But, anyone from her family can change that. 

Same with me, she knows what I want, but... anyone from my family can change that.  Even with living will.s

So, what about a civil union.  Everyone who gets married really only has a civil union as far as the law is concerned.  It's not the religious ceremony that counts as far as the government allows.  We can go to any pastor, priest, rabbi, person with an internet certificate of investure, and have them say words of unity and be spiritually married in the eyes of God or any Deity you want, but legally, nope. 

So, give me the civil union please.  That is what I want.  I can find the religious service from a religion that accepts me and that I can embrace. 

I like that term civil union.  To be united with civility.  Yes, please.  I'll have one of those.

[Caehlim]

I wanted to clarify that I didn't mean this as a pejorative.  I haven't found a lot of places where the left and right actually talk to each other, so I like to find out both perspectives and see which sides have merit.

Apologies if this came off as offensive.

Sorry if I didn't respond very quickly. I never thought it had been meant in any negative fashion.

[Lux12]

As I far I know they do not have to.You don't need a priest or minister to marry you.You can get a judge to do it.

[Caehlim]

See, personally, I'd rather not see rules where you aren't allowed to discriminate.

Given how difficult it is to police and administrate, combined with the dangers of people using threats of litigation as cudgels or for blackmail purposes I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

Of course imagine that you're looking for a rental property with your boyfriend and discover that no one seems to accept you as tenants and I think you would find new appreciation for these laws.

If it's a stupid reason like sexual orientation in a job where it doesn't matter

In what job would it matter?

> Edit: I'm just teasing your choice of words. :P

what happened to the compromise thing about civil unions?  Wasn't there supposed to be some thing ten years ago or so where they wanted to have that as a compromise of having legal marriage rights but not calling it marriage?  Or was that considered too discriminatory or what?

Given that ten years ago, I had only just become old enough to be able to vote in elections and there hadn't been one yet that I could vote in, that consensus or compromise hardly includes me. And there's a lot of other people in the same chronological situation. Looking at it from the other end, there are other people involved who have since died.

Any discussion now is from the perspective of a new generation who are going to see things differently.

[Oniya]

In what job would it matter?

I kind of read that statement as implying that 'in a job', any job, one's sexual orientation doesn't matter (since 'having sex with _____' isn't part of the required duties), and therefore discrimination based on it is stupid to begin with.  I suppose if you were applying for work at a brothel, or as a phone sex operator or porn star, there might be some relevance, but I'm going to say that's a stretch.

Of course, the color of one's skin shouldn't matter in any job either. 

[Caehlim]

I kind of read that statement... (snip)

Sorry, I was just kidding. I read it the same way but was just trying to be funny. I forget it's not always obvious on the internet.

[Oniya]

Ah okay *brushes off humor detector*

Too used to this part of the forum being full of people taking things too seriously. ;D

[Lux12]

Ah okay *brushes off humor detector*

Too used to this part of the forum being full of people taking things too seriously. ;D

It has a way of doing that to a person.The internet is filled with drama created by this incredibly common mistake.