Gay marriage and 501c3 churches

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 9:19am

Here's a question: would allowing gay people to be married encourage lawsuits against 501c3 tax-exempt churches who refused to marry people based on their orientation?

This is a recent argument I've heard. Some recent high courts have seemed to say it may be a problem. then again, other high courts seem to say it isn't.

Overall, I haven't seen a legal precident set when it comes to selective marriage from religious tax-exempts organizations.

Anyone know?

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:14pm

no one? for real?!

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:20pm

This is the problem when government and religion merge (even in something like a tax exempt status). Because they are religious organizations, they are also exempt from many rules and rights that other government-funded groups must answer to. They're not held accountable to answer to "the will of the people" at large. Or even the Bill of Rights, for that matter.

They can always claim that it's interfering with their religious practices and beliefs, and that would be the end of that. This is also constitutionally protected.

I'd love to see it end up in the Supreme Court's lap, though. These two "rights" are conflicting, which should make for an interesting wrestling match.

(that's the best I can do without much coffee in me yet)

EDIT: I also don't think they're 501(c)3... I believe religous organizations have their own exception code (although I'm not completely positive about that).

Updated On: 1/26/06 at 12:20 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:27pm

Well, the best thing I have heard is that churches shouldn't ever be 501c3's because it ties them to the state. Churches should be "free churches" -- which still means things are tax deductable for a minister and they pay no taxes as an organization. The only thing, though, is that I don't know if a free church can perform marriage for the state or not.

I also know status quo is churches can decide who to marry and who to not marry, so surely someone must have gotten peeved enough to persue legal action. There MUST be some precident somewhere.

Anyone who has access to lexus nexus wanna look this up and report back?

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:30pm

touchme---I just updated my post...

Are you sure they're 501(c)3? I think religious groups have their own tax exempt code. Different rules.

But I'm not positive about that.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:33pm

Best12 - I believe you are right, a different tax code altogether. I sat on the board of MCC for a year as secretary - but I can't think of the actual code #. Of course - I have not stepped into a church for a good ten years - but that's a different issue altogether.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:35pm

religious organizations can be "free church", they can incoroporate, they can be 501(c)3, or they can do corporation sole (which is sort of rare).

Recently, many churches have chosen to do 501(c)3 because members of the church like the familiarity and formality of it. But, churches don't have to be 501(c)3 in order to be tax exempt.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:37pm

I cannot see the courts permitting a legal action to go forward regarding a church's adminstration of what it deems to be religious teachings and doctrine.

It is a religious ceremony - I think the action would be construed as state interference into a religious matter and ceremony, and would not stand up even to any sort of opposition by the church.

The only way I could see any plausible argument would be if their tax exempt status was contingent upon churches conducting gay marriages, which will not happen, because that in itself is unconstitional.

Just my opinion.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 12:39pm

I was wrong in my statement abouve. I looked up the MCC articles and they are indeed a 501(c)3.

I also find it interesting the article entitled "Holy Union" which is essentially a "Wedding" ceremony.
By laws of MCC

Updated On: 1/26/06 at 12:39 PM

[kasim]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 3:44pm

no a church could refuse to marry anyone.

I believe a catholic church wouldnt allow you to get married out of your whats it caled dioses??

We arent exactly gonna have catholics married at synagoges and jews married at mosques. You can set your own rules etc.

For example an imam wouldnt allow a muslim couple to get married without parents permission.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 6:31pm

But what WOULD happen if a church or synagogue refused to marry a couple because he was black and she was white?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 6:35pm

Honestly, doesn't that happen all the time - except instead of race you use religion. Many Rabbis, Priests, Imans will not marry people of different faiths - because of their religious beliefs.

If a church teaches some offensive doctrines, including doctrines against races mixing, though I am appalled by it, I do not think it would disqualify it as a religion and a religious ceremony.

Just my opinion.


Updated On: 1/26/06 at 06:35 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 7:41pm

My father is Jewish and my mother is Episcopalian, and when they married in 1959, they wanted both a minister and a rabbi to perform the ceremony. The rabbi refused, and consequently my father turned his back on his own faith from that moment on. Not that he was hard-core or much of a "practicing Jew" to begin with. But that pretty much sealed the deal.

They were married at St. Thomas Episcopal Church on Fifth Ave., by an Episcopal minister. Only my dad's sister showed up to the wedding from his side of the family. His mother, father and brother didn't talk to him... for three years, until I was born.

I just LOVE tolerance, don't you?

[grizzabella]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 10:48pm

This is an interesting discussion and question. I know that courts have addressed the issue of whether churches must hire people who do not hold their religious beliefs if they are most qualified in other areas. In these cases,the courts have ruled that they don't. I would assume that the question of gay marriage would fall under the same sort of guidelines. As a religious organization guided by specific ecclesiastical teachings, they would probably not be required to perform gay marriages, any more than, as Best12bars pointed out, they can be required to perform interfaith marriages.

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 11:02pm

I believe that what "marries" a couple under the law is the proper marriage license which they have to obtain from the civil authorities, not a church. What happens in the church is a religious ceremony only, but it doesn't bestow any rights or legal status or carry any authority under the law without the marriage license. Attempting to force a church to perform a church ritual that is counter to its doctrine is a violation of religious freedom. Whether or not we agree with the church's teachings is beside the point. Suing a church is not the proper channel for obtaining equal status under the law.

[grizzabella]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 11:13pm

You're right, of course, JTF2. However, I think the question is not regarding the civil validity of the marriage, but whether churches receiving federal monies while keeping their tax exempt status would be required to perform marriages should the courts rule in favor of the legality of gay marriage. It's the 501c3 status which is the issue, I believe, if I understand the original question correctly.

[justthefacts2]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 11:25pm

I see. But in that case, why shouldn't a church then be required to perform marriage ceremonies for previously divorced persons - I mean those churches that wouldn't otherwise according to their doctrine? Why stop at gay couples and discriminate against divorced persons? For that matter, why stop at marriage? Why shouldn't a church distribute the communion wafer to anyone who demands access instead of reserving that part of the rite for the initiated? Another point that bothers me - aren't the people who attend the church taxpayers?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 11:32pm

There is a distinction between receiving federal monies and having a tax exempt status.

If you are talking about "faith-based inititives" and money coming to churches based upon this funding, there is perhaps an argument to be made that in order to receive federal funding, they have to comply with federal law. But at this point, it is not a federal law, and unless a federal court upholds the fundamental right to gay marriage, I cannot see a state law as being persuasive. And, the odds of a federal court even ruling on the issue pre-supposes that the federal courts would deem it something it has jurisdiction on, I don't think it could ever get this far.

I do not think a federal court would rule that the government can compel the performance of a religious ceremony. Thus, the condition precedent for saying they are violating the law will not occur. I cannot envision a federal court issue the ruling requiring church perform a religious ceremony.

Again, just my opinion.
Updated On: 1/26/06 at 11:32 PM

[grizzabella]

Posted: 1/26/06 at 11:43pm

I agree with you, and this is what I believe the courts have already addressed (in other issues, such as hiring practices) in answer to the original question. Churches can't be required to act in ways that are contrary to their doctrines. That would voilate freedom of religious expression as defined in the Constitution. We know that in practice in all other matrimonial issues, no church has to marry anybody. Your examples illustrate the point completely. I can't imagine that churches could be forced to perform gay marriages any more than they are forced to perform any particular heterosexual marriages now.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 7:58am

In Bob Jones University v. United States (461 U.S. 574), the U.S. Supreme Court noted the following about the government’s intended purpose for the 501c3:

The Court asserts that an exempt organization must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest,” must have a purpose that comports with “the common community conscience,” and must not act in a manner “affirmatively at odds with [the] declared position of the whole Government.” Taken together, these passages seem to suggest that a primary quality of a tax-exempt organization is to act on behalf of the Government in carrying out governmentally approved policies.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 11:01am

This is a really tough (good) question, and I love reading everyone's responses.

*ponders*

This is the trouble when we supposedly have separation of church and state in this country... yet the state MUST govern churches to some degree, in order for them to function in our society. I would not be surprised if this issue ends up before the Supreme Court, at some point. It may be fueled by the gay marriage controversy, but I agree that the politics and history of "a selective serving of the people" go way beyond just that.

Updated On: 1/27/06 at 11:01 AM

[Plum]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 11:08am

They can always claim that it's interfering with their religious practices and beliefs, and that would be the end of that. This is also constitutionally protected.

That's not exactly true. Some religious beliefs are held more sacred by the law than others; it all depends on how close they run to the WASP ideal. For example, Native American peyote smoking? Not so perfectly protected.

Also, I just have to comment that comparing the attitudes of a rabbi and a minister on interfaith marriage is a bit unfair. In Christianity, conversion can be as easy as saying you've found Jesus and getting dunked in water. In Judaism, you really have to show a commitment, learn Hebrew, etc. It's not a proseltyzing religion. And in America, it's hard to find the line between fitting in and maintaining a distinct minority identity.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 11:14am

Touch - I would have to read the opinion, but I guess that it is referring to something related to federal funding for the school itself. Many schools get federal research funds or improvement funds. And in order to receive federal funds, they would have to comport to certain rules.

That is different from relgious ceremonies at private churches who have a tax exemption like any other church.

But, this is a gut reaction, not a deeply research position.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 11:21am

It seems unlikely that the churches will be forced to marry anyone, as many churches see "setting the societal standards" as their primary purpose.
Since any given church could refuse, yet another given church could consent, it seems unlikely that it would be a legal issue.

On the interfaith marriage issue:
There are many who want to remain a practicing and vital part of their Religious community, but are ostracized for marrying outside of their faith. The faith communities claim what they are doing is preserving the "integrity of their religion" but it is hurtful and harmful to the people who are pushed aside.

[Sing a Song With Me]

Posted: 1/27/06 at 11:27am

so many cities, then, are very fortunate to have open church communities with pastors, ministers and priests who will perform ceremonies for constituents who do not make up the "traditional" ideal the rest of this country seems to think is the only option.