N.H. law forces old people to watch gays marry

[rugertoter]

A sign of the times - maybe we are reaching the end.

 

[sbcman]

Yep.

When you invite religion into government, you also are inviting government into religion.

That never ends well...

Exactly right- thank you for sharing with us a hard learned lesson of history and the true nature of government and church. Repped

Yup. There is no reason why these for profit organizations operate free from taxation. Particularly since its impossible to separate government from religion.

And where do we exactly have a "seperation of church and state"?

Answer: We DON'T. And NO I am not for religion sticking it's nose in government affairs.

Personally I think the problem is calling "it" marriage. Everyone should be allowed the same benefits hetro OR gay IMO. The sticking point is the term marriage. Call it a union, whatever but don't use the term marriage and IMO ALOT of the *****ing would cease.

And yes, churches SHOULD be paying taxes. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".

In this case, Ceaser has said churches don't have to pay taxes. But let's pretend you guys are right and that churches are "for profit" (which is a joke, obviously you haven't seen too many churches budget reports). If churches pay taxes then we are entitled to representation. How would that work? Would we have certain seats of congress for Baptists, others for Catholics, others for witchcraft? And, if we pay taxes, we are entitled to any government benefit. Would you really be OK with your personal tax dollars coming into my church in part of a stimulus (not that we would take it, and in fact, Southern Baptists have repeatedly refused government funds for disaster care relief)? And what if a certain denomination grew so large within government that it began to pass laws for the persecution of "non-believers"? Are you cool with that?

Long story short, we've been there and done that before with the state churches of the early New England states. It was found that nobody apart from the state/church wanted their tax funds supporting it. In time, the laws pertaining to it were changed by the vote of the people. I guess this particular lesson of history is getting lost on us. What a pity.

When the government includes the church it fails to be a government of the people. When the church includes the government, it fails to be a church.

A sign of the times - maybe we are reaching the end.

I can only hope!

 

[level.eleven]

Sweet. I just declared my home a church. No more taxation.

 

[RockofStrength]

Sweet. I just declared my home a church. No more taxation.

Let us know how that works out

 

[sbcman]

Sweet. I just declared my home a church. No more taxation.

Unfortunately for you, your taxes just went up.

As a pastor (if you are the pastor of the new home church) you now must pay self-employment taxes. And, no, the church cannot pay those for you. If they give you more to cover it, you have to pay on the increase.

AND, since the home is now considered a parsonage provided by your church, you now have to pay social security taxes on the fair market value of the dwelling.

AND, the church will contiue to be assessed for property taxes, which are now more for you since a church files under the "non-profit business category." You can also expect an increase in all your insurance and utility bills because they count you under that same filing now.

Congratulations!

BUT, you can rest easy in the fact that any tithes and offerings brought into the church remain tax free. You can actually use those funds for spreading the gospel and helping those in need.

 

[$mooth]

And where do we exactly have a "seperation of church and state"?

Answer: We DON'T. And NO I am not for religion sticking it's nose in government affairs.

Personally I think the problem is calling "it" marriage. Everyone should be allowed the same benefits hetro OR gay IMO. The sticking point is the term marriage. Call it a union, whatever but don't use the term marriage and IMO ALOT of the *****ing would cease.

And yes, churches SHOULD be paying taxes. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".

+1

I've often advocated that if the gov't wants to be involved, it needs to be a union and can have nothing to do with marriage. I got married under God, not the state of Texas. They should be distinct and possibly unrelated events. But as of now, as i understand it, it is illegal for a priest/minister to marry a couple without a license from the state (hearsay on my part, maybe someone can clear that up for me).

So if a church that is accepting of homosexuals and wants to call it marriage, great. if your church doesn't that's fine too.

 

[Westside]

Originally Posted by techres
Yep.

When you invite religion into government, you also are inviting government into religion.

That never ends well...

Exactly right- thank you for sharing with us a hard learned lesson of history and the true nature of government and church. Repped

Quote:
Originally Posted by level.eleven
Yup. There is no reason why these for profit organizations operate free from taxation. Particularly since its impossible to separate government from religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firehawk
And where do we exactly have a "seperation of church and state"?

Answer: We DON'T. And NO I am not for religion sticking it's nose in government affairs.

Personally I think the problem is calling "it" marriage. Everyone should be allowed the same benefits hetro OR gay IMO. The sticking point is the term marriage. Call it a union, whatever but don't use the term marriage and IMO ALOT of the *****ing would cease.

And yes, churches SHOULD be paying taxes. "Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".

In this case, Ceaser has said churches don't have to pay taxes. But let's pretend you guys are right and that churches are "for profit" (which is a joke, obviously you haven't seen too many churches budget reports). If churches pay taxes then we are entitled to representation. How would that work? Would we have certain seats of congress for Baptists, others for Catholics, others for witchcraft? And, if we pay taxes, we are entitled to any government benefit. Would you really be OK with your personal tax dollars coming into my church in part of a stimulus (not that we would take it, and in fact, Southern Baptists have repeatedly refused government funds for disaster care relief)? And what if a certain denomination grew so large within government that it began to pass laws for the persecution of "non-believers"? Are you cool with that?

Ok, there are several points that need to be addressed here.

1) I agree with not calling it "marriage" call it union call it partnership whatever. the only requirements should be that you are older than 18, or the current enlistment age of the military. and you are a U.S. citizen with a social security number. Other than those two requirements all else is fair game.

2) church's or other not for profits shouldn't pay taxes, and neither should for profit business. As SBC said they are not represented the entities do not vote and are not represented in government. They should all be sub-chapter S and forced to flow all of the money to the owners of the business or distribute the money to missionaries, evangilists, or whatever in the case of the church. The entinty should not be allowed to hold more than a six month operating cost in the bank for more than a fiscal year. As SBC also stated in a later post all the money that the pastors and staff of the church receive is taxed. So everyone pay's and business don't pay taxes and can use that money to expand business or pay current employees. I am cutting this short if you would like me to expand further on this particular subject i would be more than glad too, just ask.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

No, they should drop the term "marriage" and admit that long term relationships are an economic issue. Long term pairings are encouraged by the current tax structure - married couples pay less. Does a homosexual relationship have any greater probability of becoming chaotic and unstable than an heterosexual relationship? Why not let the government license all unions of any sort between two adults, and let the churches figure out for themselves who they will recognize or perform marriage ceremonies for? Easy on .gov since they don't lose their revenue stream, easy on religion since the churches aren't forced to join anyone they don't want to.

Why only two?

 

[NYFelon]

Why only two?

because we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Westside]

Why only two?

why would you want too? I have my one and most days that is more than enough estrogen in the house. (we are newly weds and she has gone into I want a little ingo'er mode.)

 

[Paco Bedejo]

why would you want too? I have my one and most days that is more than enough estrogen in the house. (we are newly weds and she has gone into I want a little ingo'er mode.)

I don't want more than two in my marriage...but there's a certain religion which isn't permitted to practice its beliefs because some people decided to use the force of our government to prevent them from having polygamous marriages...even after a bunch of them specifically moved to a state which was friendly to their beliefs at the time.

I'm just curious how people justify using government force in such a way as to prevent religious ceremonies & consensual domestic groupings.

 

[ATOMonkey]

The sticky point with gay marriage is that the several states and federal government have laws and regulations specifically referring to marriage. Such as, inherritence, end of life decisions aka living will, next of kin, children, allocation of assets, etc etc etc. The homosexual partner is not recognized as a viable person in any of these instances.

So, you would either need to change all of the laws, or just change the definition of marriage.

IMO, it's easier to just change the secular definition of marriage.

I don't agree with any of the above, but that's the reality of the situation. Thank your grandparents.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't want more than two in my marriage...but there's a certain religion which isn't permitted to practice its beliefs because some people decided to use the force of our government to prevent them from having polygamous marriages...even after a bunch of them specifically moved to a state which was friendly to their beliefs at the time.

I'm just curious how people justify using government force in such a way as to prevent religious ceremonies & consensual domestic groupings.

Actually, there are at least two religions (likely more, when you get right down to it) that recognise plural marriages. All should be allowed to practise their religions without government interference.

 

[Westside]

I don't want more than two in my marriage...but there's a certain religion which isn't permitted to practice its beliefs because some people decided to use the force of our government to prevent them from having polygamous marriages...even after a bunch of them specifically moved to a state which was friendly to their beliefs at the time.

I'm just curious how people justify using government force in such a way as to prevent religious ceremonies & consensual domestic groupings.

I am not saying they can't read my first post. I only had two requirements above the enlistment age of the army and a U.S. citizen. If you want a partner for each night of the week that's your business. I was just saying I personally have all I can handle with one spouse I wouldn't want another.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Actually, there are at least two religions (likely more, when you get right down to it) that recognise plural marriages. All should be allowed to practise their religions without government interference.

Ok, so when the husband dies and leaves no will, which wife gets the children, house, cars, debt, etc?

When he's a vegetable in the hospital, which wife gets to pull the plug?

And on and on and on.

Not that I'm disagreeing, just pointing out that our legal system is steeped in marriage and "divorcing" our laws of marriage would be a hefty project to undertake.

 

[Gabriel]

because we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Why only two?

Oh yeah...that is just what I need....two disappointed women instead of just one

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Ok, so when the husband dies and leaves no will, which wife gets the children, house, cars, debt, etc?

When he's a vegetable in the hospital, which wife gets to pull the plug?

And on and on and on.

Not that I'm disagreeing, just pointing out that our legal system is steeped in marriage and "divorcing" our laws of marriage would be a hefty project to undertake.

Yeah, step 1 is the repeal of all laws containing the words "marriage" & "spouse". Step 2 would be counseling people to create proper contracts, instead of leaving their decisions up to the State.

 

[mrjarrell]

Ok, so when the husband dies and leaves no will, which wife gets the children, house, cars, debt, etc?

When he's a vegetable in the hospital, which wife gets to pull the plug?

And on and on and on.

Not that I'm disagreeing, just pointing out that our legal system is steeped in marriage and "divorcing" our laws of marriage would be a hefty project to undertake.

So, the governments way of doing things would have to change. I don't see that as a bad thing. More choices, more freedom. As for your examples, the children go with the biological mother, as they would today. All other assets are sold or split evenly, that's what probate courts do on a daily basis. If he or she doesn't have any medical directive then the wives, or husbands come to a consensus and take the decision. My father faced this dilemma years ago with my mother and everyone was consulted. Since we were all aware of her wishes in the matter we knew how to act.
While the current system is set up with certain leanings, it is adaptable.
(Edit: I see Paco had something to say, that covered it well, too.)

 

[ATOMonkey]

That's all fine, just pointing out that it's a matter of semantics at this point.