Perhaps they are looking for pastors who specifically supported a political candidate. You can lose your tax exemption for doing that.
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Perhaps they are looking for pastors who specifically supported a political candidate. You can lose your tax exemption for doing that.
it'd go a long way in my book if all gays could laugh at stuff like that and just be that decent......
uhhhhmmmm........ same thing for Mormons or anyone else. . . . .
That would not make sense in the tone of this case. This is against a specific law, not a recent election. If that were the case then that is not an attempt at retaliation?
Perhaps. That was just my first thought.
Yeah, very interesting development. Not sure how I feel about it. I want more info but the only other report I have seen is a retype by Fox News.
Maktub
Well-Known Member
So what? Sexual relations is not a prerequisite for marriage. Can you show evidence that married couples have more sex than non-married? In fact, I bet the opposite is true. So maybe it's in society's best interest to allow sibling marriage?
Question is, why did the subpoenas specify pastors and members of their congregations instead of targeting other groups, such as the local Committee on Foreign Relations (known to be positively pushing the LGBT agenda while being a tax exemp private group, or the ACLU, or the Lions Club or Rotary or the Knights of Columbus or the Sierra Club or the Texas State Bar Association or about a thousand local "charities" operation through local arrangements with tax exempt community philanthropics.
Surprised you're not out there crying outrage on this one.
Religions have been singled out for public persecution and driven out of the political community, absolute disenfranchised from participating in our political system, whether acting individually or collectively in the political process.
The Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a national religion, meaning as it was intended that our Federal government could not specify a national "Church". It was a postive bar against exerting any prejudice legislatively for or against a church.
The SCOTUS failed to see that as a bar against the Edmunds-Tucker Act. . . . and against some other legislation that has favored or disfavored some specific belief systems. . . . .
While I see the problem with some Libertarian concepts that seem unsettling to the general public, I question the whole notion of state endorsement of private contracts or church sanctioned relations. Put me down for saying the government is not the solution to private prejudices. Injurious actions, yes.
Quick question - does Civil Union not already provided gay couples with exactly the same rights as a marriage, albeit under a different name?
If you have evidence of any of these groups publicly stumping for a particular political candidate, please notify the IRS.
*snort* *chortle* *guffaw*
In a country where POTUS is Christian, 95% of Congress is openly Christian (and maybe two members have no religion at all), at least 48 out of 50 governors are openly Christian, and being a non-Christian effectively makes you un-electable as a Senator in over half the states. the notion that religious people have been driven out of the political process deserves only derision.
I think intent is best explained by the writers, particularly James Madison (the primary author), who openly advocated the wall of separation.
That depends on how it is enacted. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.