If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church

Obama's Solicitor General admits that the feds will treat orthodox Christians like racists.

By John Zmirak Published on April 30, 2015

If you aren’t following the arguments over same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court, you should be. Even if you don’t cater weddings or sell pizza in Indiana, your religious freedom is in danger. For detailed accounts of the debate and the questions asked by justices that might be readable tea leaves, see Ryan Anderson’s analysis and the capsule summary provided by Russell Moore and Andrew T. Walker.

The outcome of this week’s debate will determine whether orthodox American Christians will fall to the status of dhimmis, the third-class Christian citizens of sharia Muslim states. (Dhimmis have bare freedom of worship, but pay special, heavy taxes and are excluded from any positions of influence.) If the court imposes same-sex “marriage,” it will be exposing the churches attended by the majority of Americans to sustained legal attack. Does that sound like crazy alarmism? The Solicitor General of the United States agrees with me. Except that he is in favor of it.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether acceptance of same-sex marriage would subject orthodox Christian churches to the treatment once accorded Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status because its ban on interracial dating contradicted federal policy. Verrilli seemed a little taken aback, then answered yes, “it’s certainly going to be an issue.”

Imagine if your house of worship needed to turn a hefty profit, so it could pay the same taxes on its property and income as a casino or a strip joint.

In other words, if the Supreme Court votes against natural marriage, it will free up the feds to target organizations you might have heard of, such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. (In theory, the feds might also take aim at every mosque in America, but something tells me that the mosques are likely to get a pass.) Remember that the Obama administration has already tried to force these same churches to provide abortifacients to their employees. Attacking their tax-exempt status over biblical sexual ethics is peanuts next to that.

In case you don’t follow tax policy as a hobby, see Joe Carter’s detailed account of the grave consequences this would have for churches. Put briefly, most would close. Unless, of course, they caved.

Imagine if your house of worship needed to turn a hefty profit, so it could pay the same taxes on its property and income as a casino or a strip joint — unlike Planned Parenthood, since that abortion business is a tax-exempt (and federally funded) “charity.” Imagine if none of the money you gave your church were deductible from your taxes, unlike the money you sent to Greenpeace. Many if not most religious schools and colleges would also shut their doors, unable to pay the same business taxes as for-profit diploma mills.

The First Amendment won’t prevent any of this. When the dictates of a religion conflict with what courts have ruled is a constitutional right, the church’s claims give way every time.

A Two-Tiered System of Churches

If the court hands the Obama administration the bully stick it is requesting, it will be creating a two-tier system of churches in America — those that “obey the Constitution” and those that don’t. The first set of churches, including “mainline” denominations such as the Episcopalians, would enjoy benefits much like those of “registered” churches in China. They have gleefully worshiped Caesar, and so he will leave them in peace. He will continue their tax exemption. He will even reward them with lucrative government contracts for their charities. Expect many local congregations to leave the embrace of “outlaw” conventions such as the Southern Baptist, and strike out on their own with Caesar’s smile.

With this much money at stake, I will be shocked if some Catholic bishops don’t start performing same-sex marriages in their cathedrals. As we saw from last year’s Synod on the Family, a surprising number of prelates seem sympathetic to the practice. By American law, each diocese is sovereign, and each bishop controls its property in a corporation quite independent of Rome. (That’s why plaintiffs in sex abuse cases can’t sue the Holy See.) If a pope deposed a bishop for violating church doctrine, and the bishop thumbed his nose and stayed in place, American courts would very likely side with the bishop — especially if the fight centered on a constitutional right, such as same-sex marriage.

A large slice of ordinary Catholics (like those picketing Abp. Cordileone in San Francisco) would back any local bishop who defended “American values” and “equality” against a suddenly backward, foreign pope. German bishops have already threatened to flout Rome’s authority over communion for the remarried — again, there’s money at stake, the German church tax — and it’s not clear what power Rome has to rein them in. So expect an American Catholic schism.

When presidential candidates come to our states to court us during the primaries — the only time faithful Christians exercise any real leverage in this country — the issue of same-sex marriage must now rival abortion in its importance. Any hopeful should be pressed repeatedly to give a straight, unambiguous answer to this question: “Do you support a constitutional amendment restoring natural marriage? If not, then what exactly will you do to protect my religious freedom? If nothing, why should I support you?” We should print that question on cards and distribute it in Iowa and New Hampshire, and candidates should hear nothing else from us till they answer. We need to know whether a year from now we will be living like Americans, or increasingly like Christians in China.

Of course, things need not get that bad for your church. It’s just a teensy pinch of incense you’d have to burn, to worship Caesar….

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Marie

    Pray, pray, pray. And share this article, everyone.

  • Marie

    Bad news: this article has been erased from Facebook.

    • albert perrotta

      Hey, Marie. Thanks for sending up a flare. Keep trying to spread the article. Still working to see what was going on, whether it was Facebook (temporarily) or simply the result of our site briefly being down this afternoon.

    • Marie

      It’s back on Facebook now. 🙂

  • DJR

    As odd as this may sound, nothing could be better for the Church at this point in history. Generally speaking, Catholics have become so perverse, both high and low, even into the very highest echelons of the hierarchy, that only persecution can save us. We are being punished for our unfaithfulness, and it is well deserved. The wheat is going to be separated from the chaff. Faithful Catholics should pray for strength and discernment, but we should acknowledge that the majority of Catholics in this country will not side with us, and this will include many people in our own families and among the clergy.

    • Billiamo

      Well said.

    • Erik H Ahlblad

      They’re NOT Catholics. They are CINO’s. Otherwise they would be trying to promote Christian values, yes Separation of Church and State, NOT separation FROM Church and State. You can be a Catholic, and live like a Catholic. Catholics, DO pay taxes too.

  • Erik H Ahlblad

    If this set of ‘registered’ churches scenario come to pass, you might as well go live in China. At least their national GDP is higher than the USA. I would think that reducing Christians to ‘Dhimmis’ would just be the very beginning. Eventually the resistance against the bad laws would continue, and to fight that I believe that the gov’t will eventually outlaw Christianity, first with hard prison terms, and ultimately, high treason where Christians will be streamlined thru the courts and suffer death, martyrdom. That will be the sad state of affairs, but a HUGE blessing for the martyred as they will go right to Heaven.

  • Ukulelemike

    Bottom line, churches need to dump their 501c3 status and disincorporate. Churches should not consider themselves businesses and corporations. As well churches are considered naturally tax excepted under IRC508c1a, without any news to request it. 501c3 was not meant for churches, and when they request it, it comes with strings attached, in that the feds can dictate what you can and can’t say and do. There are no strings on me, as Pinocchio says, under 508c1a.

    • fredx2

      You did not read the article. The article says that the government virtually admitted that if fay marriage pis imposed on the country, then any church that has a school will lose its tax exempt status

      It is not talking about the churches. it is talking about the schools.

      • Arbuthnaught

        What is the difference? A church carries out its religious mission through institutions: schools, hosptials, inner city missions, colleges, seminaries, soup kitchens, non profit activities of all sorts. They are all part of the same religious mission. No it is not okay if all of those activities lose their tax exempt status just because they are not inside the 4 walls of a “church.”

  • JTLiuzza

    Thanks for this article (linked on Pewsitter).

    I keep saying it. Some people call me a nut. But as more time passes, I look less nutty.

    It is time to begin a serious discussion about an orderly secession from the former USA. The southeast is an entirely different country.

    • Rock On

      I dont know whether you are being funny or not………..but actually i believe this is how America one day will fall…….from within……and states and geographic areas within America breaking apart……it will be at least a century from now, but i see it happening way into the future. It is inevitable.
      I never thought the United Kingdom would break up………Scotland may be united with England in 2015………but there is no way they will be a united kingdom in 2115. Sad………but true.
      I remember reading a letter from John Steinbeck to Mrs. Kennedy about the lost cause of Scotland………….well the 1960s were ages ago……….Scotland may eventually get its wish.
      Scotland is not a lost cause……IT IS AN UNWON CAUSE. whod a thunk.

  • A J MacDonald Jr

    Churches have been around for 2,000 years without being 501C3 government approved organizations. If this is true it would be a Godsend.

    • fredx2

      And during much of that time, the churches were in fact under substantial control by the government. The Kings usually appointed many of the bishops, or at least had great say in that. So, if you advocate a return to the middle ages and you want the government to control churches, by all means, stay the course

      • johnschuh

        Indeed. Many people have even heard of the famous confrontation between the pope and the emperor, which ended up with the Emperor doing penance at Canossa. But that was not the start of it. It began when Constantine made Christianity the state religion. The right of the Church is govern itself has been at risk ever since. But now we are in the post-Constantine period, when the state at best tolerates the Church. We are moving toward the Soviet model, where the Constitution declares religious liberty but gives it no more protection than Germany gives legal brothels.

  • Gary Miller

    Oh stop the nonsense. No one will lose their church.

    • bonaventure

      Alito asked if a college should lose its nonprofit tax exemption for refusing to accommodate same-sex marriage.

      Verrilli conceded, “You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.”

    • fredx2

      That’s not what the article said. It said that church schools will lose their tax exempt status. As the article noted, the Solicitor General of the United States admitted that it certainly will be an issue.

      So, I suggest you re-assess which side the nonsense lies on

    • Arbuthnaught

      Chirstian pastors in Canada have been persecuted by the state as violating the Canadian constitution for preaching the orthodox view of some 2000 years on homosexuality from the pulpit.

  • Milton E. Findley

    Any discussion which relies on conjecture, peppered with the words sharia law, and leavened by fear is not a discussion that would be termed rational. Now, gay marriage is a fact, and it will remain a fact. You don’t have to like it, but you might need to simply accept that your rules do not run this country. I don’t have a clue as to what you are afraid of as a group, if you don’t like gay people having the same rights as yourself, you are going to lose. What are you afraid of? Gay is not catching, and denial of individual rights cannot be tolerated in this country. The bible says argument is irrational, as there are no denominations which follow the entire bible and all of the rules within it. What makes acceptance of gay marriage worse that a cotton dacron blend of fabric?

    • davidc

      There have been many laws (“rules” as you say) in this country that have been unjust. If they are gravely unjust, not only do we (meaning citizens of this country) not follow them, we have a responsibility to fight against them in appropriate ways. Gay couples have no ‘right’ to marry because it is not possible for them ‘to’ marry. Therefore it is not discrimination to say that they ‘cannot’ marry, but “rational”, as you like to say. It is against the very definition of marriage, which anybody who is truly “rational” can easily deduce, and no man or power on earth has the power to change what marriage is. That is a fact, and it will remain a fact.

      • Milton E. Findley

        But, they actually can marry, and they do marry. I don’t have to accept your definition, they don’t have to accept your definition, and there is no way to keep it from happening, and apparently, the Almighty doesn’t object, after all, He is all powerful, and He hasn’t weighed in on the topic. Many Christian Sects don’t have a problem with it.

    • The_Monk

      Marriage is not a ‘right’; it is a biological union. And neither the union of two men nor the union of two women can accomplish the same fruits of which a union of a man and a woman are innately capable. The intellectually fraudulent will change the subject to ‘love’ (when they really mean ‘passion’) or ‘rights’ when they really mean they don’t have a clue….

      • Milton E. Findley

        Equal protection under the law, the 14th Amendment, means equal, if anybody can get married, everybody can get married, and unless I miss my guess, those amendments are the definition of our rights. You have it wrong.

        • The_Monk

          If any man can find a woman that will take him for a husband, then he can marry her. Or, conversely, if any woman can get a man to wed her, then can marry. 100% equality.

          What you are lobbying for is a redefinition of marriage. You don’t like the game, so you want to ruin the game for everybody by changing the rules. That intellectual fraudulence lends itself handily to the progressive point of view. Progressives are nothing more than takers and breakers. And so it is with marriage, isn’t it?…

          • Milton E. Findley

            Marriage is marriage, a legal status, not a religious status. I am not lobbying for anything, I am simply describing the facts as they are on the ground. Nor am I redefining marriage, I am simply saying that your definition will not be the definition that prevails. Accept it and move on. If you have a different belief, by all means adhere to it and practice it, nobody will get in your way. Try to deny others their rights, and you may suffer.

          • The_Monk

            You are posing a straw-man argument.
            So, sorry, but your progressive opinion is worthless….

          • Milton E. Findley

            The entire conversation has been about a straw man my friend, as is the article to which all of this is appended. And as far as my progressive opinion being worthless, if I live a few months longer I will see it become the law of the land.

          • The_Monk

            If you are correct, and your opinion does become the law of the land, it will still be invalid. No matter what you or the Supreme Court decrees, neither a union of two men nor a union of two women can bear fruit. One may introduce the spectre of technology into the argument, but that does not change the reality that neither two sperm, nor two eggs, can join to procreate. So, from a purely biological stance, your argument fails.

            I believe your beef is with biology, not religion.

            Given the fact that a number of Christians have been sued due to their choice not to participate in goofy pretend marriage ceremonies, you claim that the entire argument is about a straw man is wrong. It is telling as to the real purpose behind this movement is anti-Christianity since no gay/lesbian couples are brave enough to confront a Muslim baker or photographer. It is to laugh!…

          • Milton E. Findley

            Procreation isn’t a requirement for a marriage, nor is it even explored prior to the issuance of a license for marriage. Technology isn’t at issue here. All kinds of red herrings are appearing in your argument. Why is that? And of course, the validity of the marriage is going to be as valid as any other licensed marriage. I am sorry that Christians get sued, but surely they can stand on their faith in the courtroom and prevail. The issue is that Christians took their faith out the front door of the church, and attempted to rule the secular world, and the secular world wants no part of it. When you take faith to court, faith has to abide with the results, or avoid the contests. Which is the goal of us secular progressives.

          • The_Monk

            Procreation isn’t a requirement for a marriage, …

            Um, OK, so you are a master of over-stating the obvious. Then you inexplicably go on to rail against Christians. Not Muslims. Not Buddhists. Just Christians. Tunnel-visioned bigotry there, champ.

            Am still waiting for some of you anti-Christian bigots to go demand the same rights from the Muslims. Head on over to Syria or Iran. Your cause is to die for, right?…

          • Milton E. Findley

            So, do you feel like you are being persecuted? I am asking for you to get out of the way of gay marriage, not to grant any sort of special privileges to a group of people, like say, along the lines of allowing them to not pay taxes on property and certain forms of income like those enjoyed by religious institutions, and you are saying you are against it, for all manner of biblical reasons, plus some that make no sense at all from my chair. And then you call me an anti-christian bigot for simply asking that everyone be given the same rights as described by our Constitution? What form of logic did you utilize to reach your conclusion that I am the bigot in this conversation?

            Pilate asked, Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

            Why don’t you follow Christ’s example, and avoid all these earthly entanglements? Jesus refused to interfere, to use his influence and earthly powers, and instead, concentrated on his own endeavors.

          • The_Monk

            The redirected charge of feelings of persecution on my part is merely a self-aggrandizing attempt on your part to project your feelings of persecution to me. It doesn’t work.

            Your argument is feeble in that it belies the historically contextual truth that Christianity moved the Roman Empire out of the darkened ages into the light of reason originally instantiated by the Athenian Greeks and extended in detail by Thomas Aquinas, wherein the value of the Judeo-Christian moral ethic was rightly discerned as being a great thing, and one that was worthy of man. The context for derivation of “rights” – in ALL particulars – is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution; the Constitution for the United States of America merely codified the philosophy and vision of government the framers had intended.

            The silly argument that Jesus, the Lord of the entire Universe, “concentrated on his own endeavors” is tragically comical if you actually meant it. His purview as Creator is the divine milieu of mankind, not the uncharitable solipsism of modern, materialistic Hellenists.

            Facts convey meaning, and meaning has consequences. The universe is a purposeful place. You and I were created for a reason beyond this earth. Don’t throw it all away for a few minutes of frivolity and/or temporal power….

          • Milton E. Findley

            I am not religious Monk, so I am not throwing away anything that I have come to value. I don’t object to your being religious, I just continue to object to your belief that your belief is somehow of such power that the rest of us have to live by it. We refuse.

          • The_Monk

            Reality does not depend on public opinion polls. A clutch of scientists holding fast to the theory the earth is flat will not make the earth flat. Nor will public opinion change the fact that same-sex “marriage” is a sham. Even the hetero-folks who support you will always – ALWAYS! – qualify same-sex “marriage” as different, though they may not voice that difference. And in that same-sex “marriage” is a fraud, when honest people are told they must honor it or else, everybody loses. Shame on the people who demand that we support a lie, and shame on the people who lie to you and tell you that same-sex “marriage” is OK. I’m through with this conversation. Peace….

          • Milton E. Findley

            In your reality it is a sham, but your reality is shared by an increasingly diminishing number of the religious, and few marriages are like other marriages anyway. If you think it is a fraud, that is fine, but we are not going to let your beliefs dictate to the rest of us. You might as well stop arguing, you can’t sell what you are peddling.

          • Andy

            With all due respect, marriage is NOT a legal status. marriage is the union between two people and the government has nothing to do with it except for tax status and benefits. You do not have to register with the government to be married. Nor do you have to have a license to be married or to be recognized as married by ANY state in the union. Therefore, marriage is a personal or religious issue and not a state or government issue.
            Also, there is no one in the United States nor any law on any books that I know of which prevents anyone from getting married within the parameters of what a marriage is. Anyone can get married to anyone within the definition of marriage. This definition was not given by the state therefore the state does not have the authority to change it.

            Nothing is preventing you from moving in with someone and calling yourself married. The only thing the state has to do with it is about money and benefits, which makes this whole issue about money and pride and not about equality.

          • Milton E. Findley

            You have such a wonderful argument, it should work, until it is brought to the attention of a circuit court judge. Marriage is regulated by the state, licensed, defined as to who you can marry, under what circumstances, age limits, etc. Examine any book of state statutes for the regulations in that state. Dissolving a marriage is also regulated and a matter of statute in all states. As a pastor, you are required by law in this state, to sign the marriage document. In addition, living together does not have the stigma it once did, but it does not carry the tax advantages, survivors benefits, or other financial advantages of marriage. That is why you are losing this argument. Nobody cares what the church says in a secular legal environment.

          • Griffonn

            Of course he wants to redefine marriage.

            Also family. Family is to be “a choice”. Who you are related to is to be government’s to decide.

            That is why I know they will fail. My family embraced the “family as a choice” model decades ago – and we are seeing the fruits now. I don’t think America is really going to be happy with “ex-grandparents”. Adoptive families are going to find out that blurring the boundary between “child’s best interest” (adoption) vs. mere buying and selling (human trafficking) erodes the legitimacy of ALL adoption. And quite frankly to introduce these new rules means to introduce drama.

            It turns out, narcissism is not a “family value”.

        • Arbuthnaught

          The 14th Amendment has been stretched beyond recognition by liberal judges. The 14th Amendment now is a vehicle to enact the liberal social agenda from the bench without acts of Congress that liberals can not get passed. I wonder if the authors of the 14 Amendment could have seen into the future if they would have written the amendment entirely differently. Thankfully the founding fathers could not see the future. They might not have bothered with independence had they seen the self stultifying post modernism of today.

          • Milton E. Findley

            The 14th amendment to the Constitution means whatever the U. S. Supreme court says it means, which, rationally, means it hasn’t been stretched in the least. The founding fathers could not see into the future, but they made sure that the Constitution could be made to fit the situation as a living document. If you want to live as if it were 1787, that is your right, but the rest of us have moved on. By the way, “self stultifying post modernism” doesn’t make any sense.

          • Arbuthnaught

            That is precisely the problem. Conservatives have said for years statutory and consitutional interpretation does not work when it is just the “opinion” of 5 justices. Law exists in context. If that context is stripped away on the whim of judges then it loses its meaning. People lose respect for the judiciary when it is plain and apparent that an interpretation was stripped of its original context. That is what judical self restraint is all about, not stretching statues and the constitution beyond recognition. There is on alternative to judicial self restraint and that is judicial lawlessness.
            No the 14th amendment had and has a specific meaning.
            You are welcome to come over to my house for a game of poker and we will play by living, growing rules.
            As for living in 1787 that is a gross cliche. Original understanding does not mean, and none of its advocates would even say that you can not adapt the consitution to fit modern fact sets.
            The left hates original understanding because then they can not use the judiciary to force their liberal agenda on the people without having to go to congress.
            You should understand Critical Legal Studies, using the law to destroy the law. Using the system to destroy the system. That is exactly what post modernism is all about. Self stultification means self defeating. Perhaps if I would have said self-abnegating you would have recognized it. All post modern liberalism is self defeating nonsense. Words have no meaning. Everything is “deconstructed” to the point of nonsene.

          • Milton E. Findley

            Did you know that many of the members of the Constitutional Convention refused to sign it? That it was amended 10 times to answer objections? and that many of the members still went home without signing it? Historical fact. It will change and its meaning will change as we progress, and it must be that way.

          • Arbuthnaught

            I udnerstand the adoption of the bill of rights and its process. Yes it will change in fact circumstances and context but not fundamentals. Using judges to fundamentally change MEANINGS, not context is fundamentally dishonest. That is exactly what the left has done.

          • Griffonn

            Until the Constitutional amendment, anyway.

            The Schlieffen plan failed because, in trying to capture one enemy quickly, they dragged a whole lot of neutrals into the war – on the other fellow’s side.

          • Milton E. Findley

            There isn’t sufficient horsepower on your side of this argument to pass a Constitutional amendment at this point. As for Schlieffen, okra grows best in sandy loam soils in hot climates.

          • Griffonn

            There will be in five to ten years.

          • Milton E. Findley

            I am thinking you will have to import them, as the demographics are not there at the current time, and the naysayers in my age bracket will be well on their way out in a decade.

          • Griffonn

            Your own children will be leading the charge.

            I spent decades in a UU church. I saw the sort of bullying it takes to get those kids to support your agenda, and I heard the sorts of things they said “but don’t let my [parent] hear that I said that!!”.

            You (plural) think they approve of you when really they’re just holding out hope that someday you’ll grow up and have time for someone other than your own narcissism.

        • Griffonn

          Equal protection applies to individuals, not couplings.

          You have the same right to marry that everyone else has.

          There is no right to make a baby with one person, but share the procreative benefits and subsidies intended to support that family with someone other than the child’s actual other parent.

          If you guys had meant it when you said marriage – for you – is not procreative, you might have had a chance. But no: you don’t mean it. You drop that lie immediately and replace it with a lot of garbage about how bigoted it is to refuse to play along with the “Heather has two mommies” lie. In your greed you will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

    • Griffonn

      Gays can’t marry. The best they can do is create a semantic fallacy and force us to pretend it’s the same.

      Marriage is about making a family. Buying body parts off the internet and having them assembled in some third world country – using exploited women – does not make a family, it merely makes a purchase…and these gays are delusional if they think their kids don’t know the difference.

      • Milton E. Findley

        They can marry, do marry, and they raise families. If you want to call it a semantic fallacy, they don’t care. I don’t care what you call it either, it is a free country, and you are welcome to any opinion that suits you. The kids know the difference, and apparently, according to all of the studies I have seen on the topic, they don’t care. Young folks don’t care. In fact, the percentage of the US population that thinks it matters is steadily shrinking.

        • Griffonn

          You are welcome to believe that your sham marriages and fake families are the same as the authentic article, but you don’t have the power to change the truth, or make the distinctions irrelevant.

          Those distinctions will grow greater in time. In fact, the children of gays have already begun speaking out against the coercion and pressure – five years before my earliest guess.

          Real civil rights is about moving closer to truth, and the truth of the situation is that, however painful it is to be gay – and however much you wish you could have a normal family – you can’t make that happen by bullying little kids into twisted role-play fantasies.

          • Milton E. Findley

            Real in circuit court is real in the world I live in, and real enough. Sexuality is a broad spectrum affliction, and there is room for everybody.

          • Griffonn

            If you believe that children are possessions (objects) rather than people, then sure.

            SCOTUS ruled that people could be ‘owned’ once before, so it’s not like this is the first time.

          • Milton E. Findley

            It says you are replying to me, but I don’t have a clue what prompted your response.

  • JFX Pals

    As a priest myself I will never comply or obey. I’d rather be broke, in jail, or dead then preside at a same-sex “marriage” ceremony. It will not happen with me. Keep us true believer priests in your prayers. They’re gunning for us. No priest, no Eucharist, no Church, no salvation.

    • ACatholicMom

      God bless you and the other priests that stand fast and shine in the light od the Truth.

    • Griffonn

      My clergyman is one of you, and I worry for him.

      If there is anything I can do to support him, I absolutely will. And you too.

      God be with you.

    • Ginklestinker

      I’m sorry JFX but salvation is not dependent upon priests, hocus pocus sacraments or the Church of Rome. Salvation comes to one who sincerely believes in the deity of Jesus Christ and personally trusts in the efficacy of His atoning work for us on the cross of Calvary. To me, Pope Francis seems to be leaning strongly in that direction and you can see why some people are calling him the first Protestant Pope of the Church of Rome.

  • The_Monk

    It is a shame that so many people are willing to lie to the homosexual community and “affirm gay marriage”.

    Long after the United States has crumbled to dust, and the last Buddhist and the last Muslim and the last human secularist have been laid to rest, there will Catholic priests offering the sacrifice of the Mass. We have Jesus’ word on it. And I believe….

    • Rock On

      remember the early Church…….a handful of apostles and disciples…..just a handful.

  • Yankeegator

    How are you enjoying The Enlightenment now Mr. Zmirek?

    • Rock On

      He may be thinking of Baltimore before he can enjoy what you seem to.

      • John Zmirak has written that “Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equals the Inquisition.” He’s the premier Catholic defender of Liberalism, and it’s appropriate to remind him that his Enlightenment faith as now come a cropper.

        • Griffonn

          He’s got his cause/effect backward.

          If Christianity were as brutal as its enemies make out, the Enlightenment would not have happened.

  • davidc

    Using abortifacients is not against “biblical sexual ethics?” Really? Ever heard of “Thou shalt not kill?” Is divorce and remarriage against “biblical sexual ethics?” If you are even slightly familiar with the Gospels you know the answer is “yes”. And yet Protestants have no qualms about it.
    You say that, “With this much money at stake, I will be shocked if some Catholic
    bishops don’t start performing same-sex marriages in their cathedrals.” Prepare to be shocked, then. Unlike Protestants, Jesus’ Church is never “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.” It preaches the Gospel “in season and out of season.” And it’s definitely “out of season” and will become more and more so. How many Protestant churches ‘already’ either perform same-sex weddings or accept them? Hmm? And they all say they are being “biblical” using “Jesus accepts everybody” as their justification. That is ‘exactly’ what “being tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles” looks like in practice. That’s what happens when you build your own house on sand instead of God building His House on Rock, as He has done, according to His own words.

    • Dennis D

      davidc–John Zmirak IS a faithful Catholic. He defends the Church in all his writings. I don’t know what you’re writing about. All you’ve done is quote his article as if he doesn’t mean what you’re quoting. Perplexing.

      • davidc

        I apologize. Glad to hear it. However, he directly pits “biblical” marriage (which, incidentally, is more than just “biblical”, but part of the Natural Law) against abortifacients, directly implying that the use of abortifacients is “biblically” licit. That’s something our “separated brethren” do on a daily basis.

    • Griffonn

      It needs more time.

      I am sorry to say this, but the amendment needs to be popularly supported, which means that more people need to suffer demonstrable harm first.

      Do not despair: the children of these unions have a lot to say, the six who submitted amicae curiae briefs are not some fringe exception. It takes a lot of bullying and pressure to force a kid to play along with such extraordinarily toxic dysfunction.

      As for Christianity, trial and persecution might be the best thing that could happen right now. If nothing else, all the fake Christians will drop their pose.

    • Guy Dudebreaux

      “With this much money at stake, I will be shocked if some Catholic bishops don’t start performing same-sex marriages in their cathedrals.” Prepare to be shocked, then.
      I tend to agree with the author. Cardinal Timothy Dolan comes to mind.

  • Rock On

    I remember being taught years ago that atheistic Soviets tried to burn down all the Churches.
    Last I looked, the Orthodox have made a comeback in Russia.
    Furthermore………our great ally Israel does not allow gays to marry in Israel legally. Israel only recognizes gay marriages performed OUTSIDE of Israel……..the rabbis control marriage within Israel and they say NO to gay marriage and no to sodomy. Gay marriage will not be made legal in the Jewish State of Israel. Does this mean the USA will consider Israel guilty of racism ?
    LOL America calling Israel racist! LOL I cant picture that!
    AMERICA calling ISRAEL racist? bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    That will be the day.
    American politicians know better!

    That would be as funny as having America nominate a Muslim-American to be the next ambassador to Israel! bwaaaaaaaaaaaa
    Who thinks of such things to incite or offend? bwaaaaaaaaa Tell me, I want to know~!

  • Rock On

    I do not mean to be an agitator…..but for the life of me I cannot understand how people think they can so easily redefine marriage and that will be that.
    In history, Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage to Catherine….then he wanted a divorce…..and soon he got a divorce……..then another…. then another…..although some of his wives were not so lucky. My point is once you go down a path, you allow more than you bargained for. What is the reason why polygamy is outlawed? Is not the dignity of the child born out of wedlock compromised? I mean if Tom is married to Sue and they have a child, everything is fine, but what if Tom is married to Sue and has an affair with Jane and Jane becomes pregnant……..why is Janes child treated unfairly? If Tom and Sue and Jane want to be married as a threesome, wouldnt the children of both women be better off? My point is once you open the door, it remains open!

    • Milton E. Findley

      No, slippery slopes are not the norm, nor are they intellectually honest forms of argument. Get up, and close the door.

      • Griffonn

        This is why I don’t think “same sex marriage” will endure: because the argument that if skin color is irrelevant to marriage, that sex must be too is the ultimate slippery slope.

  • ron_goodman

    Bob Jones University wasn’t a church. Big difference. Has anyone successfully sued the Catholic Church to force it to marry divorced couples, or sued an Orthodox rabbi in order to force him to marry a couple of non-Jews? I didn’t think so.

  • Benjamin Wortham

    If the analogy of interracial marriage where true the obsurd apocalypse your describing would have already occurred. The paranoid delusions your spinning are laughable on their face. This is the precise reason the traditional marriage argument is failing. It simply doesn’t jibe with reality.

    • JClarke

      *were *absurd *you’re *you’re *jive

      • Griffonn

        I think he’s saying that…I can’t tell what he’s saying?

        • Benjamin Wortham

          Thanks for the spell check! Damn my dyslexia, I’m so ashamed. That must truly mean I’m a mendacious person.

        • Benjamin Wortham

          Also I must apologize for the brevity of my first post since it put a burden on you to read and recall details from the article.

          • Griffonn

            I will read the article, but I came here from Disqus.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            Expecting enough quotes for a comment to be self contained is a bit much to expect on a comment thread.

          • Griffonn

            I’m not normally a grammar tot4litarian – I am not in a position to do so, as I make loads of typos and sometimes use wrong words & phrases, on top of the usual grammatical mistakes – but you might want to edit that comment because I really couldn’t tell what the point was supposed to be.

        • JClarke

          Haha!

  • Rev. Theresa Stirling

    Please hate and fear monger, tell they’re, as clergy we always have the right to not perform marriages. Just stop this nonsense. Get real. You are stirring a pot of misinformation. Just how on earth are you being persecuted. This malarkey is laughable. Move on to loving your neighbor as we are commanded, not projecting fear…

    • Griffonn

      “Love your neighbor” does not mean what you think it does.

      We are commanded to love the sinner, but hate the sin.

      • Benjamin Wortham

        Just curious. Do you think a celibate gay person can still be gay?

        • Griffonn

          I am not the person in charge of defining sexual categories.

          My concern with categories is in terms of sexual behavior only.

          I have a great deal of compassion for the situation gays find themselves in, and since this is NOT a theocracy I do not oppose some sort of accommodations so that they are not estranged from family life. I will argue quite vehemently that if they want to belong to a given church, they have to accept what that church teaches and NOT insist the church change its teachings, but not all churches oppose homosexuality – the UU church does not – and UUs have rights too.

          So therefore my concern is with how two groups of people with “zero sum” beliefs can live in the same nation. Marriage cannot be both – to embrace the new definition of marriage is to destroy the other. That gay rights advocates pretend to not see that is a sign of bad faith on their part, but marriage has as its function the protection of the family unit, and the institution tasked with protecting a unit cannot simultaneously do that while normalizing and legitimizing the act of ripping biological families apart so that the babies may be sold and the women reduced to “gestational carriers”, livestock, Handmaids <–(the term lefties used when fantasizing about Christians doing it)

          To me, the important thing is the family tree, because that is the one thing that, once broken, cannot be put back together again. When a child is raised motherless or fatherless, that child is deprived of something precious, something that will affect his whole life – and even affect his childrens' lives. Gays insist that marriage is, for them, "not procreative", but they don't mean it; if they did, there would be no reason why they couldn't just marry their lover while coparenting with their child's real other parent.

          They also insist that because they're married, "and raising kids is part of marriage", and it's bigoted to to prevent them from adopting (as if their rights were more important than the child's legal protections against exactly such a "property rights" view of themselves as objects).

          These are the things that need to be reconciled before the two groups can live together.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            The Constitution already protects churches from ever having to change their teachings. It also protects clergy from being forced to marry anyone they don’t want to. The only way that will change is with a constitutional amendment. That is almost impossible to achieve these days so your fears are not reasonable. Unless your willing to roll back no fault divorce laws, the worst cause of family breakdown, then the vast majority of children in single parent households will continue be from heterosexual marriage. The fact is when governments created no fault divorce laws, for good or ill, they essentially abdicated their interest in child rearing and left it to individual parents to decide how their children are raised. If you believe “I do not oppose some sort of accommodations so that they are not estranged from family life” and I understand you correctly to mean that gay couples should have the legal protections of marriage but not the title of marriage, then your making a semantic argument. By the way, I’m still waiting for that scripture and an answer to my query.

          • Griffonn

            The Constitution also explicitly protects religious liberty, but that doesn’t stop people from creating “laws” that can drive people out of business and punish them with six-digit fines as punishment for refusing to participate in what their church forbids.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            That’s true. Since business activities are usually inherently secular that’s the way it should be. If a business is not inherently secular, like a Christian publisher, you can claim Constitutional protection.

          • Griffonn

            “Inherently secular” = just a way to apply the rules in a way that Christians have to embrace humanist values and beliefs, because humanism uses the “little lie” that it is not a rival belief system, but the “absence” of a belief system – “the truth”.

            Fortunately this lie is going the way of the dodo, and I say it can’t happen too soon.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            In that case substitute civil for secular to avoid the philosophical baggage. The point is catering a civil marriage with no religious meaning at all doesn’t pass legal muster as an undue burden on religious conscience worthy of Constitutional protection. If it’s a religious ceremony where your being forced to participate in a religious ritual( say a CC gay marriage) that you object to, that would be an unconstitutional burden on your first amendment rights. Expect to see this being worked out in the courts in the future. Since I’m not an militant atheist I concur that humanism is a belief system with religious features. I don’t think most humanists would have a problem with that assertion. I would also include scientism and reductionism on that list. In any case my original comment was on a Mark Tooley article, not this one. Somehow Disqus moved it here. In any case I will be moving on. By the way I have read Augustine’s Confessions and would not inflict that pain on others. I much prefer Aquinas but I’m not a professor. I’m a farmer and part time musician at my church. I am however somewhat old depending on your perspective. I prefer timeless. I bid you adieu. 🙂

          • Griffonn

            Gays can’t “marry”. A “gay marriage” is like a black mass: a parody of something sacred.

            The right to do a thing does not include the right to force other people to participate, celebrate, affirm, or believe.

            You have no more right to demand that a baker bake a cake that violates their sacraments than I have the right to demand the New York Times run an ad that by THEIR values constitutes an obscenity.

          • Griffonn

            A marriage is a union of man and woman; the tying together of two family trees.

            What gays do is a parody: they are aping those whom they envy, but they are inverting everything important.

            Marriage is important because it protects and preserves the biological family – protecting weak or vulnerable family members from exploitation, abandonment, abuse, neglect at the hands of rich, powerful family members – in other words, protecting women and children from exactly the sort of things wealthy gays and lesbians want to do.

      • Benjamin Wortham

        Also would you please quote that scriptural command chapter and verse?

        • Griffonn

          Sorry, I have a personal policy of not taking assignments from “homework trolls”.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            That shouldn’t be work for a Christian which implies you are the mendacious person.

          • Griffonn

            It has nothing to do with whether I’m willing to provide quotes. It has to do with the recognition that playing the games put forth by trolls leads to bad outcomes. It is wrong to support bad outcomes.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            You really don’t know do you? 🙂

          • Griffonn

            The topic at hand is whether or not is about the attack on religious freedoms in the name of a specific belief (namely humanism) which needs to inflict its religious beliefs on everyone else. The question is not whether I am literate.

            I prefer arguments, not “clever troll” tricks. Come back if you have an argument relevant to the topic.

          • Benjamin Wortham

            Oh you wicked thing! 🙂 You’re not Christian at all. The short answer is their isn’t one. It’s an exegetical opinion based on multiple scriptures, the principal one being Jude:22-23 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by asnatching them out of bthe fire; to others show mercy cwith fear, hating even dthe garment7 stained by the flesh.

          • Griffonn

            This is the point where your lefty professors (if you’re even that old) give you a pat on the head and tell you how smart you are, isn’t it? (If I were your teacher I’d take off points for not mentioning St Augustine, but you are probably used to playing your little games with sola scriptura types and don’t know that this is important?)

            So okay. Now care to explain why this is in ANY way relevant?

            To ANYTHING?

        • Mo86

          You know nothing and care nothing for Scripture.

          Now, address the points of this article and save your trolling for someone else.

    • Mo86

      “Please hate and fear monger, tell they’re, as clergy we always have the right to not perform marriages. ”

      English, please?

      LOL!

  • Mo86

    Horrifying, but all too realistic a scenario.

  • Anthony Commarata

    Loose your Church’s, NO. Loose your Church’s non-profit status, YES. As they should. This country was build on and is still and will always be held to the highest of standards based on the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible. If you don’t like it, move. The founding fathers build our country with the full support of “Separation of Church and State” for a reason. This Includes freedom of religion, any-religion not just one, as well as, freedom from religion. In this country, we see broad guarantees of “Civil Liberties” based on the federal U.S. Constitution. Religious Right activists and right-wing television preachers often claim that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation. Even some politicians agree. If the people who make this assertion are merely saying that most Americans are Christians, they might have a point. But those who argue that America is a Christian nation usually mean something more, insisting that the country should be officially Christian. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and in Article VI, which prohibits “religious tests” for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian. Early national leaders understood that separation of church and state would be good for all faiths including Christianity. Jefferson rejoiced that Virginia had passed his religious freedom law, noting that it would ensure religious freedom for “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, the infidel of every denomination.” 😉

  • Annette Rf

    I am ordained to officiate at marriages, funerals, etc. I have done a few in my time, too. I do not have a church currently but my ordination remains. I refuse to perform same-sex unions. If push came to shove, I would just stop performing any marriages for anyone. Or maybe do them in secret, as the Celtic priest did in Braveheart, then send the couple to City Hall to have it done again by a judge. That way, they would be married religiously as well as civilly.

  • howard bell

    Rest assured, God is in the business of taking care of business.
    And in the meantime:
    “Hate what is evil”….Romans 12:9

  • Ginklestinker

    To my mind, no church property used for worship or private education should automatically have a tax-free status. As on all private and commercial enterprises, the appropriate tax should be levied and paid by the church organisation. Should part of the premises be used for the wider benefit of all in the community, the church can apply annually to be considered for a City Hall grant from the public purse, The size of this grant will be determined by available funds and the perceived benefit to the public. Hopefully, this will bring an end to the shame that has blighted the Christian testimony over many centuries through the erection of unnecessarily opulent edifices. If we can’t afford to pay the taxes, sell the premises and return to the New Testament way of operating the local church.

  • Ginklestinker

    Well said, Stefanstackhouse !
    The church is built upon Jesus Christ and we should always keep our eyes of faith on His grace. Of paramount importance is that we live in submission to the Living God, be filled with the love of Jesus and walk in the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t need a Temple or any such structure.

Inspiration
One Nation Looking Upward at God’s Glory
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us