Reply Well, Orthodox can disagree with Conservative Protestants on politics and economics but not on morally. As I mention in the past the legal codes of the Byzantine and Russian Empires didn’t except homosexuality or abortion. In the first couple months abortion was not punished but in the later stages but the Byzantines and Russians didn’t see thie as morally right.

Yesterday’s oral arguments before the SCOTUS on the California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8 can be listened to or read here from NPR.

Today’s oral arguments before the SCOTUS on the DOMA can be listened to or read here from NPR.

In our collective wisdom of attempting to manipulate and “load” the court with “our wo/man,” to vote in our favor – and we now have a history of justices themselves who refuse to retire, simply to prevent a sitting president of an “opposing” party the opportunity to appoint a replacement – our societal moral direction more frequently comes down to the swing vote of one living, breathing human being. And you believe we should worry about federal overreach? We created & fashioned it. The SCOTUS has accepted two cases from California regarding gay marriage, and what is the likelihood that both will be found unconstitutional? And if not this session, the next session. It is inevitable.

I was about to write, “I hate repeating myself…” but in this case I most certainly do not: we turn full circle to face the reality that we are in this world, but not of this world. The school of Great Lent seems quite dedicated to forcing us beyond what are ultimately concerns of the world: “These things I have spoken to you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (Jn. 16:33) And as we will sing in the Kontakion of the Glorious Feast of the Ascension of our Lord, “I am with you and no one can be against you.”

Well, there’s the rub, isn’t it? If homosexual marriage is construed as a “public interest,” then federal overreach will settle that question for everyone.

I have always agreed that we need to consider the rights of people to not be compelled to act in a manner that violates their consciences and/or religious beliefs. Elements of the new Affordable Health Care Act are a concern, especially when it comes to abortion.

At the same time, I doubt you’re arguing that, in the case of BJU, interracial marriage should have remained illegal merely to ensure the religious liberties of those who might oppose it. This doesn’t seem either just or practical since just about everything is opposed by someone on principled grounds for one reason or another.

No. It seems obvious to me that the answer is to revise the 501c3 laws given the vague guidelines of what constitutes the “public interest” and the lack of a governing authority to even assess what that is.

The ruling is clear (see: Bob Jones University v. United States (No. 81-3) No. 81-1, 644 F.2d 879, and No. 81-3, 639 F.2d 147, affirmed):

(a) An examination of the IRC’s framework and the background of congressional purposes reveals unmistakable evidence that, underlying all relevant parts of the IRC, is the intent that entitlement to tax exemption depends on meeting certain common law standards of charity — namely, that an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy. Thus, to warrant exemption under § 501(c)(3), an institution must fall within a category specified in that section, and must demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest, and the institution’s purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred. Pp. 585-592.

(b) The IRS’s 1970 interpretation of § 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools’ policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above “charitable” concept or within the congressional intent underlying § 501(c)(3). Pp. 592-596.

(c) The IRS did not exceed its authority when it announced its interpretation of § 501(c)(3) in 1970 and 1971. Such interpretation is wholly consistent with what Congress, the Executive, and the courts had previously declared. And the actions of Congress since 1970 leave no doubt that the IRS reached the correct conclusion in exercising its authority. Pp. 596-62.

(d) The Government’s fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners’ exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners’ asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604.

Presumably, if opposition to homosexual marriage is construed as being “contrary to established public policy,” tax-exempt provisions could be at risk.

Although I was aware of BJU’s policies on interracial dating, I was not aware that they had lost their tax-exempt status due to their discriminatory policies (although it’s not clear to me whether the lost it due to the policy on interracial dating or due to simply barring blacks from joining at all).

If what you say is true, could not a Christian university also lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating based on religion? For example: a Christian university denying admissions to Mormons or Jews (either as faculty or students)? I would think, if the laws are consistent, they could.

If that is the case, the question is not really just about gay marriage, per se, but about what policies a private institution can maintain while remaining tax-exempt.

Beyond filing status, does practicing religious or racial discrimination open private institutions to lawsuits?

I don’t believe religious liberties are absolute, but the question is where that line is drawn. I’m not sure I have an answer to that yet.

That’s correct. It has been a long time since I studied the case but I believe there was also testimony from other family members. There was also evidence from the medical record and her physicians. But yes, the primary source of information was Michael Schiavo, and his motives were questioned.

But Michael Schiavo was in effect “exonerated” in the 2003 report by Jay Wolfson, the guardian at litem appointed by governor Bush. (“Exonerated” is not the right term because he wasn’t charged with a crime, but hopefully you get my meaning.) For example, it was alleged that Michael Schiavo had misused the money awarded in a malpractice lawsuit that was supposed to be used for Terri’s care. Wolfson wrote: “This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa’s estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.” [Report, p. 9] Wolfson also noted that Michael had been “very aggressive and attentive in his care of Theresa. His demanding concern for her well-being and meticulous care by the nursing home earned him the characterization by the nursing home administrator as “a nursing home administrator’s nightmare.” [Report, p. 10]

James: “This [revoking the tax exempt status of churches] is about as bizarre an assertion as one can make. No pastor has ever been forced to perform an interfaith marriage or a heterosexual remarriage or even an interracial marriage. Why would this change? I don’t care what they do in Canada or Norway. Their constitution is not ours.”

This has ALREADY happened in the United States, albeit with a different issue, as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University v. United States. The University did not allow interracial dating on the grounds that it was forbidden by the Bible. Students who dated outside of their own race could be expelled, in addition to students who advocated interracial dating or who belonged to a group advocating interracial dating.

Because of the University’s policy on interracial dating the IRS revoked the group’s tax-exempt status. To make a long story short, the Court held that “The institution’s purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred [by the exemption].” It doesn’t take a very great leap of imagination to conclude that, if the government can revoke a tax exemption because of one theological belief that it perceives as being “at odds with the common community conscience,” it can also revoke a tax exemption because of another theological belief — especially since civil rights for sexual minorities are often seen as equivalent to civil rights for racial minorities.

True, the IRS has not yet revoked the tax-exempt status of a church based on the issue of same-sex marriage. But with those on the political left increasingly in control of what counts as the “community conscience” on this issue, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen. I think it’s a reasonable concern, and not at all “bizarre.”

James, ever read what gays say about “breeders?” Insults come from both directions.

As for pastors being forced to perform same-sex marriages or, more likely, fined for refusing to perform them is not bizarre at all. If homosexuality is codified as a civil right (interfaith or interracial marriage never were), they will be penalties attached for non-compliance. That why the signers of the Manhattan Declaration state that if homosexual marriage were codified into law, they would be forced into civil disobedience.

According to my understanding, they were only able to ascertain Terri’s wishes from her husband, Michael Schiavo (as opposed to a living will or some sort of medical directive directly from her), and it was his motives that were suspect. I’m willing to be corrected if my facts are wrong.

Jim Holman writes: “The supporters of same-sex marriage frame the issue such that opposition to SSM is perceived as not merely wrong, but as a manifestation of irrational hatred and bigotry. ”

Some of it is. Consider some of the comments at MSNBC:
“Steve-452464
“If your a frickin gay you won’t have to worry about anything in 40 years you sick maggot cuz, you’ll all be dead from aids.”

Charming. I’ve been on the receiving end of it more times than I can count. It wears on you after a while.

Of course, people can object to a certain behavior and not be irrational, hateful bigots. That doesn’t mean that they won’t be called names. So what? People will say what they like, and it’s not always kind. Go to any news blog. The discussion could be about the weather, and you’ll find some disgusting language and accusations. What’s your point? How does someone calling you names threaten your freedom?

The question is whether there will be legal ramifications to having certain views. As far as I can see, there won’t be. Westboro Baptist, perhaps the most virulently anti-gay group in the nation, won a recent Supreme Court case which allows them to continue preaching the Bad News of God’s eternal hatred at a military funeral near you.

“Furthermore, there will be calls to revoke the tax-exempt status of any church whose clergy refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages”

Seriously? This is about as bizarre an assertion as one can make. No pastor has ever been forced to perform an interfaith marriage or a heterosexual remarriage or even an interracial marriage. Why would this change? I don’t care what they do in Canada or Norway. Their constitution is not ours.

James writes: ” . . . Metaxas insists that redefining marriage will lead to a huge negative impact on religious liberty in a manner that doesn’t exist already, yet he doesn’t say how.”

It is a threat to religious liberty in this way: the supporters of same-sex marriage frame the issue such that opposition to SSM is perceived as not merely wrong, but as a manifestation of irrational hatred and bigotry. One author puts it this way:

“As the conjugal view [the man/woman view of marriage] comes to be seen as irrational, people’s freedom to express and live by it will be curbed. Thus, for example, several states have forced Catholic Charities to give up its adoption services or place children with same-sex partners, against Catholic principles. Some conjugal marriage supporters have been fired for publicizing their views. If civil marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—that it is a male-female union—will be seen increasingly as a malicious prejudice, to be driven to the margins of culture.” [Girgis, Sherif; Anderson, Ryan T; George, Robert P (2012-11-27). What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense (Kindle Locations 188-192). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.]

In other words, religious (and even non-religious) people who adhere to the idea that marriage can only be between a man and a woman will be judged to be first cousins to the racists of a few decades ago. The conjugal view of marriage will be seen as equivalent to racism. Anyone expressing that view will be demonized. Furthermore, there will be calls to revoke the tax-exempt status of any church whose clergy refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages or whose teachings support the conjugal view of marriage.

These are not things that will happen in some far-off future. They are happening right now. Go to any web site that is largely populated by people on the political left and you will see supporters of man-woman marriage discussed in the most vile terms. As that view permeates throughout the larger society the demonization of the supporters of man-woman marriage will become the norm, and intolerance for their views will be socially acceptable.

Fr. Hans writes: “So the forced dehydration of Terri Schiavo was morally justified?”

I remember our discussions of this issue a few years ago. Without writing a book-length response, I’ll just say this: The decision to withdraw or forego a medical intervention is a decision for the patient to make. In the event that the patient cannot speak for himself, it is up to the patient’s representative to express what the patient’s wishes would be as near as can be determined, were the patient able to speak for himself. The key here is what the PATIENT wants — not the patient’s family or friends. Not the patient’s minister or priest. Not the governor of the state in which the patient resides.

The purpose of the legal process in the Schiavo case was to determine what those wishes would have been. And upon a consideration of all the evidence the judge — himself a conservative Christian — determined that Terri Schiavo would have wanted the medical intervention of artificial nutrition and hydration to be discontinued. The judge found the evidence for discontinuation to be “clear and convincing” — the highest standard of evidence in civil cases.

It is clear from your language (“forced dehydration”) that you disagreed with that decision. Thus the burden of proof is on you to explain why you disagree with it. You can’t just say “I don’t like the outcome.” There are several options:

1) Discontinuing artificial nutrition and hydration was Terri’s wish, and you disagree with her wish, believing it to be immoral. Of course, what you believe about her wish is irrelevant, since it was her decision to make and not yours — unless you want to argue that people shouldn’t be able to make such decisions for themselves, in which case the burden is on you to make that argument.

2) The judge “got it wrong” — Terri really wouldn’t have wanted the medical intervention of artificial nutrition and hydration discontinued. In this case the burden is on you to explain why the judge got it wrong.

3) The process for making such decisions is defective, in which case the burden is on you to explain what the process should be, keeping in mind that whatever process you recommend would apply to ALL such cases, not just to the Schiavo case.