Gay Marriage vs. Tax Exempt Churches

By Brian Cherry —— Bio and Archives May 15, 2013

Comments | Print This | Subscribe | Email Us

So, what is the gay marriage issue really about? Is this just about the freedom for couples who share a matching chromosome set to commit to each and promise to love, honor, and endure the IRS marriage penalty together? Of course it's not. Anyone who actually believes that is naive to the point where they shouldn't be allowed to handle scissors or live in a home with sharp corners. The gay marriage issue, as it is currently being pursued, is a back door assault on the constitutional freedom of religion and fundamentalist Christian churches.

At its core, marriage is essentially religious in nature. There are many who will argue this point because a Justice of the Peace (or piece...I guess that depends on who your marrying) can officiate a wedding. Until a pastor can cite the authority of God while doing my taxes or bless my union with the probation and parole department with the words " What God has joined together let no man put asunder," I will maintain that the act of marriage falls mostly into the responsibilities of the church. And it is in that reality that we get to the REAL gay marriage issue. This is about the word "marriage", not the legal status of the couples being joined. Most marriages happen in churches. Most weddings are performed by ordained ministers. And the biggest chunk of the church/ordained minister pie belongs to Catholic and Christian churches. For the most part, both of these institutions disagree with homosexuality on a doctrinal level and can currently refuse to perform marriage rites to those they believe are living contrary to the teachings and canon of the church. This is their constitutional right. So if you are a "progressive" who sees Christian churches as an obstacle to social change, how do you get around that pesky "freedom of religion?" You legalize gay marriage at the federal level and couch the whole thing as a new civil right. That way any church that does not perform marriages for same sex couples would arguably be violating the couple’s civil rights and can have their tax exempt status taken away.

The words "civil rights" keep getting coming up when the issue of gay marriage is discussed. These words are spoken by everyone from the Occupy Wall street kids (who also think that attaching themselves to their parent’s basements like unemployed barnacles and huffing paint is a civil right) to the President of the United States who equated "marriage equality" to the efforts of Martin Luther King for racial equality. Once gay marriage is officially a civil right, the churches are over a tax exempt barrel, regardless of what the constitution has to say about the freedom of religion. Anyone who doubts that an overreaching administration would use the Internal Revenue Service against those it believes are ideologically contrary to their goals need look no further than the IRS being caught in a scandal where it used the full weight of its power against entities with the word "Tea Party" or "Patriot" worked into their names. If the gay marriage issue were really about "fairness" and the legal status of committed gay couples, than civil unions would be the solution. Same sex couples would have their unions legally acknowledged and get all the benefits of those in traditional marriages without getting those uppity churches involved in the process at all. Conversely, the churches would get the benefit of not having to deal with the issue. Everybody wins, right? Wrong, because this isn't about gay couples and their rights, it's about churches and the rights many want to see taken from them. As it sits, many Christian organizations and businesses have already been targeted for lawsuits by those representing gay couples and proponents of gay marriage. They are being forced to either do something that violates their deeply held beliefs or be bludgeoned into bankruptcy by the iron fist of courts that seem (in the name of tolerance) ironically intolerant of their constitutional freedom of religion. Getting the word "marriage" enshrined as a civil right for everyone is the Holy Grail that finally either forces churches on board with a "progressive agenda" or uses the tax code to shut down dissenting churches for fiscal reasons. Either way, the obstacle is removed. If this were about love and the right of gay couples to commit to one another and have their union legally recognized, there are very few people who are opposed to this. I'll happily shower that couple in glitter and Prada products at their commitment ceremony. But it's not. It's about twisting civil rights laws until they can be used as a pinker, more fabulous form of Sharia law that can be deployed against the Christian church. Anyone who doesn't believe this is the long term goal probably also thinks Rachel Maddow is a genius and Michael Moore should the "PX90 Extreme" spokesmodel.