Churches after the ruling yesterday on Gay Marriage.

Several things I have seen could come out of this.

1. Could preaching against Gays become Hate speech?

2. If churches give up their 501c status do they have an argument that 501c status of gay organizations who preach against churches who give up their 501c status fight back they are being targeted by bigots because they are only preaching this in their club?

3 Does a for profit exclusive club have the right to have membership dues and sign an agreement ( take a survey and agree to) they will not go against the clubs rules?

The ruling wasn't about hate speech. It wasn't about churches. It was about federal recognition of marriages involving same-sex partners on an equal LEGAL and CIVIL footing with those involving a man and a woman.

That's the only thing the SCOTUS ruled on.


Can you try that one again in plainer English? I know what a 501c is, but the rest of it really came across as garbled.


I don't even know what you're trying to ask here in relation to yesterday's SCOTUS ruling, so you might want to clarify this question too.
So no, none of those are going to come out of yesterday's ruling.

The crystal ball says 'We shall see in the future.'

Hippie, nothing in that ruling had anything to do with hate speech or even with churches.

All that was ruled is that same-sex marriages be recognized on the same civil and legal footing with marriages between a man and a woman. It's got nothing to do with anyone's religion, as we're talking solely about the legal status of couples who have married in states which allow same-sex partners to legally marry one another.

Some groups have been preaching against homosexuality for years, with or without the involvement of marriage in the discussion. And others have been accusing those groups of sowing hatred. Personally, I'd agree that they have, but that isn't the same as suggesting they be charged with hate speech or hate crimes (and US law is a bit fuzzy on both of those concepts right now anyway).

Even churches don't all agree on the subject of same-sex marriage. Some prohibit it, while others (such as mine) happily perform such ceremonies and have done so for years. But the ruling is about CIVIL marriage laws. Religious institutions have always been, and as long as we retain our First Amendment freedom of religion in this country, always will be free to decide who they will or will not allow to marry under their traditions.

They just don't get to dictate civil law in the matter, and that is as it should be.

If I read it right,the Ruling means that any Gay Couple,married in a State with legalized Gay-Marriage shall have the same rights under Federal Law as hetero Married Couples have!
Was actually long overdue!

That's why I said the crystal ball indicates we'll see what else comes out in the future. The crystal ball is a little broken.

*orders a gift-pack of Krazy Glue sent to Hippie's address*

Most of the Christian community is against Gay marriage. Many times those who preach against this are called bigots.

The ruling went against common religious beliefs.

Through the last 50 years many decisions have went against their beliefs.

Not just this one. It is a continuing process.

If and I say IF. a not for profit organization preaches against Gay Marriage, Homosexuality ( and u understand what u must do as a 501c organization) could preaching against this give the Govt. the right to tell them they can not do this because of their not for profit, tax exempt, tax deduction right of their members cause them to not do this or loose their 501c status?

Speaking of churches and gay marriage, good for the National Cathedral!

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/26/national-cathedral-rings-bells-to-cheer-gay-marriage/

National Cathedral Rings Bells to Cheer Gay Marriage

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The National Cathedral is pealing its church bells, along with some other Washington churches, to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decisions on gay marriage.

Cathedral spokesman Richard Weinberg said the bells rang at noon Wednesday for 45 minutes to an hour. Bells also rang at other Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Unitarian and other Christian churches.

The cathedral scheduled a prayer service for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families Wednesday at 7 p.m. to celebrate the ruling.

In a statement, the cathedral’s dean, the Rev. Gary Hall, says the church is ringing its bells “to celebrate the extension of federal marriage equality to all the same-sex couples modeling God’s love in lifelong covenants.”

Hall says the ruling should serve as a call for Christians to embrace religious marriage equality.

Ty.. That's interesting

Much, but not most, and whether or not they are against it, and whether or not they are bigots has nothing to do with anything in this ruling. The SCOTUS did not rule on a religious issue, nor on a speech issue. They ruled on the legal status of same-sex couples who have been legally married under the laws of their respective states.


The ruling went against the religious beliefs of a certain subgroup of Americans, which is of no consequence as this is a matter of civil law rather than of religion. Plenty of things are legal in the United States that some religion or other would view as running counter to their moral code. It is legal to eat pork in this country, regardless of the religions restrictions against it in Judaism and Islam. It is legal to get divorced and remarried, regardless of the Roman Catholic Church's prohibition against doing so. It is legal to engage in work and commerce on Sundays, despite the fact that a number of fundamentalist Christian sects prohibit their members from doing so as they hold the sabbath to be a day of rest.

And therein lies the key: In the USA, we have freedom of religion and no national religion, which means that the prohibitions of any particular faith apply ONLY to those individuals who are its adherents.

So a matter of civil law in regard to same-sex marriage has no bearing on those whose faith prohibits homosexuality, as it does not affect one way or another what those churches and their faithful do in regard to their own lives.


So? We are a nation ruled by secular laws, not a theocracy.


No "if" involved here; they've been doing it for years.


Under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, religious organizations may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

Doesn't say anything about preaching that homosexuality is wrong or even about saying that the government or SCOTUS are wrong about something. Liberal church members and pastors talk about social issues too, and the government's been known to be mentioned. As long as a religious congregation or organization is not engaging in direct campaign speech, the organization and its leaders/members should be covered by the general free speech clause of the First Amendment.

As ViaMusica correctly stated, the SCOTUS rulings about same-sex marriage pertain to civil law, not to the religious liberty of churches.

Churches are still free to teach against same-sex marriage in accordance with what the New Testament teaches.

What she said.!!


ViaMusica, excellent post!! You took the words right out of my mouth.... No, you did a better job than I could have done.

Homosexuality is wrong for two reasons.

1) It is unatural. There can never be anything right about one man commiting sodomy with another. The laws of nature cannot be ruled upon.

2) The consequences of such unions have resulted in the AIDS plague.

3) It's a freakshow and to want to bring children into that is seeking to corrupt minors.

Having said that, based on facts not hate, based on a respect for what is safe and true, not based on penis pursuit, I would still feed them if they were hungry, clothed them if they were naked and saved them if they were drowning, as is my moral obligation to my fellow man.

The only thing I cannot do is save them from hell.

This is off topic, but I think Churches should pay taxes.

In answer to #3, yes a private club can do just about whatever they want....except something illegal. Look at the powerful leaders who meet every year at the Bohemian Grove.

wiki:

Bohemian Grove is a 2,700-acre (1,100 ha) campground located at 20601 Bohemian Avenue, in Monte Rio, California, belonging to a private San Francisco-based men's art club known as the Bohemian Club. In mid-July each year, Bohemian Grove hosts a two-week, three-weekend encampment of some of the most powerful men in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

I would recommend the chapter where Jon Ronson and Alex Jones crash the Boho Grove in Ronson's last book

Jesu defined this sort as follows

Matthew 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

How can anyone kid themselves soooo much?

Yet men and women have since Jesus time.

WRONG...that's the oldest argument in the book, and there isn't evidence strong enough to sway my stance on this. AIDS occurs REGULARILY OUTSIDE of homosexual sex. And for u to use that disease as reason to prove the immorality of homosexuality is disturbing.

So you're also going to accuse African children of living 'immoral lives' when they contract AIDS due to poor living conditions? How so?

And you coined the term 'plague' in your post. Oh yeah, AIDS is ravaging our nation.

This reminds of a thread by MsHarmony where people just don't "get" other cultures and read the Bible through filters of their own culture. Back then the famous "BUTT-SEX" was used much like it is used in prisons today and it is not a prohibition on homosexuality. For example, they will point to the story of Sodom and proclaim "Hate the Homo", when the Bible itself states the story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality:

Ezekiel 16:49

New International Version (©2011)
"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn't support the poor and needy.

International Standard Version (©2012)
Look! This was the sin of your sister Sodom and her daughters: Pride, too much food, undisturbed peace, and failure to help the poor and needy.

NET Bible (©2006)
"'See here--this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had majesty, abundance of food, and enjoyed carefree ease, but they did not help the poor and needy.

actually, parents do unwittingly impose their sin on their children,, its unfortunate but true

my strongest belief as far as Africa is that the sin leading to their epidemic was largely the consumption of simian blood,,,,which is a noted 'beginning' to hiv

and then carried here,, I believe sexual immorality,, (First in the 'homosexual' community,, spread what had mutated to HIV into its current epidemic,,,,,


and lets not forget 'homosexual' is a label that does not mean a strict exclusivity with the same sex,, it means a 'preference' for it

noting how many homosexuals have children,, that's a fact,,,,so,, homosexual can and often DO still have the occasional or rare interaction with the opposite sex,,,,