[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion Title: Gay Marriage Supreme Court Ruling -- Rand Paul http://time.com Gay Marriage Supreme Court Ruling Rand Paul While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract. The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C. I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington. Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities. Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages. It seems some rights are more equal than others. Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract. I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others. Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals. This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere. Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage. Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party. Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right. So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow? Thomas goes on to say: To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in — making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse — without governmental interference. The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word “marriage.” State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected. So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status? And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech? We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives. Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives. The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them. We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them. George Harris, center left, 82, and Jack Evans, center right, 85, kiss after being married by Judge Garcia in Dallas on Friday, June 26, 2015. Miesha Stinson, left, and Tiarra Harris, of Ypsilanti, Mich., embrace after exchanging vows in Ann Arbor, Mich., on June 26, 2015. Jaque Roberts, left, and her partner of 31 years, Carmelita Cabello, right, arrive to apply for their marriage license at the Travis County building in Austin on June 26, 2015,. Ethan Fletcher, left, and Andrew Hickam fill out their marriage paperwork at Hamilton County Probate Court in Cincinnati on June 26, 2015. The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn't be subsidizing religion and non-profits Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.” But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay- rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears. I don’t, however, like his solution. And he’s not going to like mine. Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses. The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 exempted nonprofits from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax- free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, or most, property tax and state income tax. This system of tax exemptions and deductions took shape partly during World War I, when it was feared that the new income tax, with top rates as high as 77%, might choke off charitable giving. But whatever its intentions, today it’s a mess, for several reasons. First, the religious exemption has forced the IRS to decide what’s a religion, and thus has entangled church and state in the worst way. Since the world’s great religion scholars can’t agree on what a religion is, it’s absurd to ask a bunch of accountants, no matter how well-meaning. You can read part of the IRS’s guidelines for what’s a bona fide religion here; suffice it to say that it has an easier time saying what’s not a religion. The site gives the example of the rejection of an application from an “outgrowth of a supper club … whose primary activities were holding meetings before supper, sponsoring the supper club, and publishing a newsletter” but which professed a religious doctrine of “ethical egoism.” On the other hand, the IRS famously caved and awarded the Church of Scientology tax-exempt status. Never mind that the Scientology is secretive, or that it charges for its courses; or that its leader, David Miscavige, lives like a pasha. Indeed, many clergy have mid-six-figure salaries — many university presidents, seven-figure salaries — and the IRS doesn’t trouble their tax-exempt status. And many churches and synagogues sit on exceedingly valuable tracts of land (walk up and down Fifth Avenue to see what I mean). The property taxes they aren’t paying have to be drawn from business owners and private citizens — in a real sense, you and I are subsidizing Mormon temples, Muslims mosques, Methodist churches. We’re also subsidizing wealthy organizations sitting in the middle of poor towns. Yale University has an endowment of about $25 billion, yet it pays very little to the city of New Haven, which I (as a resident) can assure you needs the money. At the prep school I attended (current endowment: $175 million), faculty houses, owned by the school, were tax-exempt, on the theory that teachers sometimes had students over for dinner, where they talked about history or literature or swim practice. Meanwhile, although nonprofits can’t endorse political candidates, they can be quite partisan and still thrive on the public dole, in the form of tax exemptions and deductions. Conservatives are footing the bill for taxes that Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit, doesn’t pay — while liberals are making up revenue lost from the National Rifle Association. I could go on. In short, the exemption-and- deduction regime has grown into a pointless, incoherent agglomeration of nonsensical loopholes, which can allow rich organizations to horde plentiful assets in the midst of poverty. Defenders of tax exemptions and deductions argues that if we got rid of them charitable giving would drop. It surely would, although how much, we can’t say. But of course government revenue would go up, and that money could be used to, say, house the homeless and feed the hungry. We’d have fewer church soup kitchens — but countries that truly care about poverty don’t rely on churches to run soup kitchens. Exemption advocates also point out that churches would be squeezed out of high- property-value areas. But if it’s important to the people of Fifth Avenue to have a synagogue like Emanu-El or an Episcopal church like St. Thomas in their midst, they should pay full freight for it. They can afford to, more than millions of poorer New Yorkers whose tax bills the synagogue and church exemptions are currently inflating. So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions (although, as long as the IRS is afraid of challenging Scientology’s exemption, everyone else is probably safe). But when that day comes, it will be long overdue. I can see keeping some exemptions; hospitals, in particular, are an indispensable, and noncontroversial, public good. And localities could always carve out sensible property-tax exceptions for nonprofits their communities need. But it’s time for most nonprofits, like those of us who faithfully cut checks to them, to pay their fair share. Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#2. To: tpaine (#0)
Wuss statement.
In context: --- --- "The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage. Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party. Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right. So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow? --- "
The main reason the Court made its ruling was because of government benefits (over a thousand total) and a lot of rights under state laws that are assigned to spouse. You have to hit the marriage goodies to reduce the appeal of marriage to gays. However, you would likely institute a set of benefits to attach to children directly, regardless of parental marital status. That would work as well for gays as straights generally. Rand's idea sounds good at first but you have to consider the effect on family courts and family law in the fifty states. Also probate, medical guardianship, etc. In short, not easy to do.
Appeal? Don't tell me you've bought into that garbage. Committing to one person is the antithesis of the gay lifestyle choice where a different sex partner every week is the norm. This is borne out by the fact that, since 2004 when gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, only 2% of gays nationwide got married. I'm guessing only half of them still are. I suppose you also think that overturning "don't ask, don't tell" meant that a vast majority of gays really wanted to enlist. Or that gays really, really wanted to join the Boy Scouts. Gays are fighting these issues because it brings their lifestyle choice that much closer to general acceptance. THAT'S the goal.
Well, the stats are a little shaky. Let's dismiss the 2%-3% of the LGBT that are bisexual. You can't really do much with them. So we can adopt the claim that exclusively homosexual Americans are 2% of the population (for the sake of argument). 350M Americans × .02 exclusive homosexuals = 7 million exclusively homosexual citizens. As of last week, there were still under 400,000 married couples who were married in the 36 states that have legalized sodomy marriage (mostly imposed by federal courts). That is less than 800,000 married homosexuals. (No reliable figures on how many of those couples have already divorced.) Since gays tend to live in big Blue population centers or to migrate there from more rural areas, only a small percentage of gays wanting to marry would be affected by the sodomy marriage decision. Only a few large Southern states with large populations have enough people for it to affect more than a few thousand people. In low population rural states, you'll only see a few thousand such marriages in the next year or so and that will be to aid in adoption or government benefits for a spouse. Keep in mind, Teh Gays have been free to marry in Canada or Blue states with marriage laws for a decade or so. And, if they did, the Court's decision will legitimate their marriages wherever they live. And, if they did, they may be able to sue for the denial of their marriage rights going back many years. This would apply mostly to couple who traveled to another state to legally marry. I expect a rash of such lawsuits. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more polygamous families with children in America than there are homo couples with children (keeping in mind Kennedy's For The Children majority opinion).
Pew (2013) put the number at 71,000 marriages. That was the figure I used. Census survey (2013) cited by CNN says 251,000 couples. According to Gallup polling, the 2015 number is 390,000 couples. I don't know why they don't simply count marriage licenses.
You notice they somehow always forget to include the number of gay divorces. Convenient.
If Gallup actually conducted a poll in 2015, that poll would reflect the current number of gay marriages. I don't trust Gallup's number in that I believe it's in the respondent's best interest to lie about it. It should be easy enough to count the number of marriage licenses issued to gays. Divorces are also public record.
#23. To: misterwhite (#16)
I think they don't want to report the true number. I think it is likely in the range of 150K-200K.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|