Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Well, That Didn’t Take Long
The Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down DOMA — ostensibly a pro-federalism decision — is already being used to force states to recognize, and subsidize same-sex marriages. No surprise there. Justice Scalia predicted this outcome, as did I in my comment here.
But it’s happening faster than I thought. As Ed Whelan reports over at NRO, this past Monday a federal district court in Ohio entered an order barring the state of Ohio from applying its marriage laws that prohibit legal recognition of same-sex marriages. I haven’t read the decision yet, but according to Whelan:
Judge Timothy S. Black proclaims at the outset of his order that “This is not a complicated case.” For him, it’s dispositive, under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, that Ohio’s non-recognition of legal marriages of same-sex couples is an exception to its historical practice of providing that the validity of a marriage under Ohio law “is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.” Judge Black reads Windsor to stand for the broad proposition that “there is no legitimate state purpose served by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in states where they are legal.”
It’s worth remembering that the majority in Windsor loudly protested that the Court’s decision was strictly limited to the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, and not the validity of state laws defining marriage in the traditional way. For lower courts to disregard SCOTUS’s own caveat so quickly may be predictable, but it’s unseemly nonetheless.
Published in General
I haven’t read it either but it sounds like a decision based upon the full faith and credit clause, no?
Is it too early to say, “We told you so?”
Tommy: no. The judge entered the injunction based on his finding that the plaintiff had a strong likelihood of success in showing that the Ohio law is a denial of equal protection. As far as I can see, the judge doesn’t even mention the full faith and credit clause.
I wish we didn’t have to say it.
This story (warning: Think Progress link) is all over social media today, and in my mind dramatically points up the political and social (not the legal) perils for SSM opponents. I don’t see how one combats stories like this without being painted as heartless and in fact, actually anti-marrriage. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.
We lost and lost big last month. The fat lady has sung and gone home for a late night dessert.
This will be forced through (here or somewhere else) so that every state has to recognize gay marriage from another state and when that happens, gay marriage will go through.
If that doesn’t happen, then Justice Kennedy will find a constitutional right to same sex marriage in the next couple terms. Once you break 1 man, 1 woman, that’s it. Then comes group marriages and who knows after that.
Anyone willing to bet against group marriages will not be legal in the US by 2025?
Because nobody ignores the supreme court’s decisions.
The MSM is going to relentlessly hunt down stories like this and pillory anyone that dares talk against them.
Absolutely. It won’t take anywhere near that long.
And my advice for anyone using the charitable deduction with their church giving is to prepare to not be able to do so, and prepare to need to give more to keep the doors open. If your church doesn’t bow down, it will lose its tax-free status. They already have the precedent; I’m sure the gay lobby is already searching for a sympathetic plaintiff.
Two Supreme Court decisions by Anthony Kennedy (this and Lawrence) where Kennedy absurdly claimed that it couldn’t be used to justify what everyone knew it was going to justify: the open floodgate of gay marriage.
Note to self: whenever a SC judge claims that this case won’t have ramifications, start laughing immediately. In his face.
Hear hear!! ·6 hours ago
*shaking my head and sighing *
I’m not even sure what this means. Tax exempt status makes churches the States’ mistress? No, the opposite. It’s a recognition that churches have an independent sovereignty not subject to the State.
But with or without tax exempt status, the likelihood is that legal gay marriage will be used to destroy churches which won’t perform gay marriages. That is, those who refuse to recognize a lie. And as above, those tyrants who want to force others to live a lie will celebrate.
Several months ago Robert George was on Mona and Jay’s podcast, and gave what I thought was the most reasoned defense of traditional marriage: if we allow gay marriage, we lose whatever principled objection we may have to those in other forms of relationships from demanding that their relationships be recognized as marriage under equal protection grounds. It seems that the judge in this case is intent on putting George’s position to the test.
Illinois is one of the battleground states, as gay marriage failed to come to a vote in the last session of the legislature, but will in the fall. There’s strong opposition in the African-American community and downstate, but the question is whether that coalition can stand together after DOMA. I have my doubts.
Adam: How would the analysis differ if Jim were to move to Maryland for the rest of his life, die there, be issued a Maryland death certificate showing John as surviving spouse, and then have the family object to burial in the family plot?
I know I’m treading in dangerous waters, but I have come to notice how much the history of homosexual behavior (in men at least) is a history of violence, and the use of force by powerful and high status men against the less powerful and lower status men. Look at ancient Palestine, Greece, and Rome. We see that history continuing today. Look at prison culture. Look at what what happened to people who supported Proposition 8 in California. I’m afraid the bullying that has characterized homosexual behavior throughout history is spreading, and I do not think there is anything that will satisfy it.
A controversial stance to be certain. But do you see the cultures of ancient Rome and Greece as an analogue for what is occurring in the United States? That seems a bit of a stretch.
No, that didn’t take long at all. Flushéd floaters always swirl faster the closer they get to the bottom of the toilet bowl.
Tax exempt status has come to mean government conferred approval of the church or charitable organization.
Tea Party affiliates whose tax exempt status was delayed by the IRS had difficulties fundraising. People are acclimated to only giving to organizations that are certified by the IRS as tax-exempt.
If it were a case of people not giving to organizations because they have been identified as terrorist or supportive of terrorists, or simply criminal … that would be one thing. But people won’t give to a charity that is not tax exempt.
The tax exempt status has the additional effect of limiting how churches can use their assets (parking lots, gymnasiums, etc) in a commercial way to generate income to support their core activities.
Tax exempt status hides one essential indicator of whether or not a church is doing its job. Being tax exempt means if congregants are not showing up, or tithing enough (and you are supposed to support the place that gives you spiritual comfort and sustenance) it takes longer to see this clearly.
Tax exempt status binds churches too much to the state, and gives the state a power over them last exercised by Henry VIII.
Would it be such a terrible thing for churches to have to lose the privileges of working too closely with government in order to be true to their own beliefs?
The Constitution separates Church and State, and the IRS puts Churches in bed with the State.
Maybe it is time for Churches to stop being the State’s mistress, and be Faithful to God instead.
Yeti,I feel sorry for the dying man (John), but lets think about the supposed issue here. John wants an Ohio-issued death certificate listing his partner (Jim) as the surviving spouse so that the Jim can be buried in John’s family plot which is limited by a covenant. But that covenant is a matter of private contract law; if nobody in John’s family objects to Jim being buried in the family plot, there’s no issue. The state of Ohio isn’t going to stand in the way. And if John’s family objects, then, what? John really wants to leave it to Jim to litigate against his family and prove that he is the surviving spouse? Nonsense. If John and Jim want to be buried together they can simply bypass the family plot and pick their own adjoining plots in a different cemetary. What this case involves is a dying man who is allowing others to exploit his situation to establish a precedent.
Maybe it is time for Churches to stop being the State’s mistress, and be Faithful to God instead.
Hear hear!!
So if I understand correctly we need to take away / give up tax exempt status from churches. This would effectively mean that people would effectively be funding the Church and Government every time a member gave a gift to the church. So who is whose mistress?
No, the people would be Tithing. Truly Tithing.
Early Christians Tithed before they even paid their taxes to Caesar, with no expectation of ever getting a deduction. And the churches, when they had taxable assets or income paid their taxes. They did not seek a patronage relationship with Caesar,
If you think for two seconds that applying for Tax Exempt status is not seeking the Patronage of the Federal government, you are wrong. You do not decide if you get Tax Exempt Status, you do not set the criteria. The IRS does.
The congregants would know how much the church they claim is important to them needs to meet its tax obligations, due before the church can do anything else. If the congregation cannot generate enough revenue through to pay its taxes, it has failed.
And the churches would be able to say to government when it tries to force them to go against their doctrines:
We pay our taxes, and take nothing from you.
FJG:
Go to a you did not help to pay for, and tell them you do not like what they are doing with it. Tell them they need to stop doing what they are doing because you do not like it.
Mind you, they are not doing anything that is even remotely criminal in nature.
They will tell you to get off their property.
Go to a Church who pays their property taxes, and whose priests and ministers pay their income taxes, whose congregants are perfectly happy with the Doctrine that the Church adheres to (and those who are not go elsewhere). Tell them that the hospital they run on their own time and their own dime needs to start performing abortions, or they need to start offering Holy Union (which has no Legal Standing now because they have given that up too) to SSM couples, or that they need to make the gym available for SSM couple’s wedding receptions.
They will tell you they are paying for and minding their own business, and you need to mind yours.
You want Freedom, you start by supporting yourself and not asking for subsidies of any kind.
Edward, I pay taxes and all levels of government can and do still tell me what to do. Churches will likewise not be at all protected from government “antidiscrimination” pressure by paying their taxes.
I am sure you have heard “the power to tax includes the power to destroy.”
I suspect the tax-free status of churches has a different origin than that of educational institutions or charities, whose tax-free status is, as you say, a form of government encouragement or meddling.
I get the feeling that the Churches got in the mess they are in in the United States by starting with applying for tax-exempt status. You do have to apply for it, and probably renew it.
Then they went for waivers in city parking regulations, accepted money from Entitlement programs like Medicaid and Medicaire, and generally “took the free money”.
I dislike the Mortgage Interest Deduction, and the Depreciation Deduction you can claim for investment and residential properties.
I dislike being able to deduct the interest from my student loans.
I dislike any write-off or subsidy that lets anyone you don’t want looking into your business look into your business.
America is a country where too many people “took the free money” for too long for anyone to be able to say they have not sold off their freedom, one deduction at a time.
Mind you, get rid of the “free money” and you become free.
People, and churches have to start somewhere. Government won’t pull back. So we should.
BTW, what would happen to all of the Progressive charities if their supporters could no longer write off their contributions?
In addition, churches would be unshackled from engaging in political actions….
I doubt that Churches can ever detach themselves completely from political activity. Not being beholden to government might improve the strength of their advocacy for their core Doctrines