Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Patrick Meighan
Is this you? Claim Profile »
8 months ago
in Proposition 8 - It’s Not Exactly Cut and Dry on Stay N' Alive
"If this amendment takes place, I predict there will come a time when all religions have to accept Gay marriage into their doctrines. Already, this has become an issue in Massachusetts where at least one religious faith is being sued for not allowing a Gay marriage to take place on their property."
You need to re-read the story you linked to. For one thing, the case in question is not in Massachusetts, it's in New Jersey, where same sex marriage is not legal... thus making the case inapplicable to Prop 8.
Now here's the facts of the case: The Methodist church in question receives a special property tax exemption from the state for their oceanfront pavillion--this is in addition to the standard 501c3 tax exemption that they receive (and which your church receives, and mine, and every other registered house of faith in our nation). The reason that the Methodist church receives that special property tax exemption from the state on its pavillion is because it has opted to allow open public usage of that pavillion. And, according to New Jersey state law, any private organization that offers its facility publicly (and receives a property tax exemption for doing so), cannot discriminate as to who it offers the facility to. If the organization wants to discriminate and restrict to whom it offers its facility, it's welcome to do so (under New Jersey law)... it just can't receive that special property tax credit. The church lost its special property tax exemption for that pavillion area, while still retaining its full 501c3 tax-exempt status to which it is entitled as a house of faith.
Now let's take homosexuality out of this. Suppose that church in New Jersey had registered its pavillion as a public area open to all (and had received a special state property tax exemption for that). And now suppose that church opened that public facility to all comers in New Jersey: blacks, latinos, wiccans, satan-worshipers, Unitarians, left-handed people, midgets... everyone except for Mormons. That church, say, has a policy that Mormons are evil and wrong, and not to be allowed use of their pavillion (even though the Methodist church registered that pavillion as publicly-available, and open to all, and received a special property tax credit for same).
Wouldn't that strike you as wrong? As illegal discrimination against Mormons. If the State of New Jersey has a non-discrimination law with respect to locations registered as available for public use, wouldn't New Jersey be correct in sanctioning that church for its discrimination against Mormons, and in revoking the property tax credit received by that church for its pavillion (on account of the church refusing to live up to the non-discrimination requirement that comes with the property tax credit)? I'm not a Mormon, but that's how *I'd* feel about such a case. Even though I'd favor that church retaining its 501c3 tax exempt status (as that New Jersey church, in fact, did), I'd say that revoking the pavillion's property-tax exemption is the right call. Wouldn't you?
As to churches being forced to accept same-sex marriage (in violation of their own tenets), or else risk their 501c3 ("tax exemption"), I gotta call hogwash. American churches have First Amendment protections as to what rites they do and don’t perform. That’s why some American churches can (and do) refuse to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages… and they still keep their tax-exempt status, despite the fact that, for most of us, it’s quite illegal to discriminate against Americans based on race or religion.
That’s also why Massachusetts churches (including the LDS Church in Massachusetts) has been able to legally refuse to conduct same-sex marriages for the past 5 years… again, without the tiniest threat to their tax-exempt status. The 1st Amendment protects the LDS church, and its right to choose what rites it will and won’t perform in its temples.
(Please note that the 1st Amendment religious freedoms and protections enjoyed by churches, such as the LDS Church, are of an order of magnitude greater than those available to commercial businesses–such as wedding photographers and fertility doctors–which are subject to anti-discrimination statutes that are not applicable to houses of faith. Also note that the churches’ right to discriminate according to their faith traditions far oustrip those rights enjoyed by educational institutions–even religious schools, like Bob Jones University–to discriminate without tax implications. For example, at the same time that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status (in 1975) for barring interracial dating, the LDS Church was in absolutely no tax danger for refusing to install blacks in its clergy. Then, as now, American churches enjoy unparalleled legal freedom to conduct the rites it wishes to perform, and not conduct the rites it does not wish to perform.)
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
You need to re-read the story you linked to. For one thing, the case in question is not in Massachusetts, it's in New Jersey, where same sex marriage is not legal... thus making the case inapplicable to Prop 8.
Now here's the facts of the case: The Methodist church in question receives a special property tax exemption from the state for their oceanfront pavillion--this is in addition to the standard 501c3 tax exemption that they receive (and which your church receives, and mine, and every other registered house of faith in our nation). The reason that the Methodist church receives that special property tax exemption from the state on its pavillion is because it has opted to allow open public usage of that pavillion. And, according to New Jersey state law, any private organization that offers its facility publicly (and receives a property tax exemption for doing so), cannot discriminate as to who it offers the facility to. If the organization wants to discriminate and restrict to whom it offers its facility, it's welcome to do so (under New Jersey law)... it just can't receive that special property tax credit. The church lost its special property tax exemption for that pavillion area, while still retaining its full 501c3 tax-exempt status to which it is entitled as a house of faith.
Now let's take homosexuality out of this. Suppose that church in New Jersey had registered its pavillion as a public area open to all (and had received a special state property tax exemption for that). And now suppose that church opened that public facility to all comers in New Jersey: blacks, latinos, wiccans, satan-worshipers, Unitarians, left-handed people, midgets... everyone except for Mormons. That church, say, has a policy that Mormons are evil and wrong, and not to be allowed use of their pavillion (even though the Methodist church registered that pavillion as publicly-available, and open to all, and received a special property tax credit for same).
Wouldn't that strike you as wrong? As illegal discrimination against Mormons. If the State of New Jersey has a non-discrimination law with respect to locations registered as available for public use, wouldn't New Jersey be correct in sanctioning that church for its discrimination against Mormons, and in revoking the property tax credit received by that church for its pavillion (on account of the church refusing to live up to the non-discrimination requirement that comes with the property tax credit)? I'm not a Mormon, but that's how *I'd* feel about such a case. Even though I'd favor that church retaining its 501c3 tax exempt status (as that New Jersey church, in fact, did), I'd say that revoking the pavillion's property-tax exemption is the right call. Wouldn't you?
As to churches being forced to accept same-sex marriage (in violation of their own tenets), or else risk their 501c3 ("tax exemption"), I gotta call hogwash. American churches have First Amendment protections as to what rites they do and don’t perform. That’s why some American churches can (and do) refuse to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages… and they still keep their tax-exempt status, despite the fact that, for most of us, it’s quite illegal to discriminate against Americans based on race or religion.
That’s also why Massachusetts churches (including the LDS Church in Massachusetts) has been able to legally refuse to conduct same-sex marriages for the past 5 years… again, without the tiniest threat to their tax-exempt status. The 1st Amendment protects the LDS church, and its right to choose what rites it will and won’t perform in its temples.
(Please note that the 1st Amendment religious freedoms and protections enjoyed by churches, such as the LDS Church, are of an order of magnitude greater than those available to commercial businesses–such as wedding photographers and fertility doctors–which are subject to anti-discrimination statutes that are not applicable to houses of faith. Also note that the churches’ right to discriminate according to their faith traditions far oustrip those rights enjoyed by educational institutions–even religious schools, like Bob Jones University–to discriminate without tax implications. For example, at the same time that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status (in 1975) for barring interracial dating, the LDS Church was in absolutely no tax danger for refusing to install blacks in its clergy. Then, as now, American churches enjoy unparalleled legal freedom to conduct the rites it wishes to perform, and not conduct the rites it does not wish to perform.)
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
1 reply
Jim
Great response and right on target ... Churches are in no danger from this Proposition. Thanks for clearing up some of the FUD that continues to build up on this issue.
9 months ago
in Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8 on ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected
"First, I thought this was really odd considering that 22 states, to date, have passed Marriage amendments and there are two other states this go around who have similar measures on the ballot (Arizona and Florida.) That’s odd to me because out of 25 opportunities, they pick this one. So … I am guessing (TOTAL conjecture) that there are big time investors and prominent employees who identify as gay working for/investing in Google. I would further guess that most of those folks live in California.
Just guessing."
Google's headquarters are in California, and the writer of the piece, Sergey Brin, lives in California, so his/their interest in the fight for marriage equality in this state is naturally more pressing than their interest in the marriage equality fight in other states.
Also, please note that one does not have to be homosexual, or have homosexual investors or employees, to favor marriage equality. I, personally, am not homosexual, and have no homosexual investors or employees, and yet I'm a very ardent opponent of Proposition 8, and a strong supporter of the right of each Californian to marry the man or woman whom he or she loves, and who loves him or her in return.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Just guessing."
Google's headquarters are in California, and the writer of the piece, Sergey Brin, lives in California, so his/their interest in the fight for marriage equality in this state is naturally more pressing than their interest in the marriage equality fight in other states.
Also, please note that one does not have to be homosexual, or have homosexual investors or employees, to favor marriage equality. I, personally, am not homosexual, and have no homosexual investors or employees, and yet I'm a very ardent opponent of Proposition 8, and a strong supporter of the right of each Californian to marry the man or woman whom he or she loves, and who loves him or her in return.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
1 reply
B.T.Carolus
Out of curiosity...why are you such an ardent supporter of "marriage equality"?
9 months ago
in Prop 8 Ad on Terry Ann Rendon
" Prop 8 (is) a proposition that will appear on the November ballot in
California that will allow voters to decide on adding a constitutional amendment
to the California constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman."
By the way, it's worth noting that the word "keep" there is misleading.
Same-sex couples in California already, at this moment, are entitled to marry each other. If Prop 8 fails, the status quo remains, and homosexuals in California will get to keep the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
California that will allow voters to decide on adding a constitutional amendment
to the California constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman."
By the way, it's worth noting that the word "keep" there is misleading.
Same-sex couples in California already, at this moment, are entitled to marry each other. If Prop 8 fails, the status quo remains, and homosexuals in California will get to keep the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
1 reply
terryannonline
I used the word "keep" as a way of saying limiting.
9 months ago
in Prop 8 Ad on Terry Ann Rendon
My wife and I are a heterosexual couple who are very adamant in our opposition to Prop 8.
In fact, my church is filled with heterosexual couples who are adamant in our opposition to Prop 8.
You don't have to be homosexual to believe in fairness and equality for all Californians.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
In fact, my church is filled with heterosexual couples who are adamant in our opposition to Prop 8.
You don't have to be homosexual to believe in fairness and equality for all Californians.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
1 reply
terryannonline
Very true. Plenty of heterosexuals are against Prop 8. However, don't you think voters should know exactly what they are voting for? The ad says absolutely nothing about same sex marriage. The ad almost makes it seems if you vote against Prop 8 you're voting against all marriages.
