Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court has spoken on same-sex marriage. Some would think that the highest court in the land would have the final word on the law in this regard, but some voices from a post-marriage equality nation are quite the opposite.

• Texas 

  – “Numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious liberties,” says a statement from the Texas attorney general. State officials affirmed that county clerks in the state will be permitted to turn away couples seeking marriage licenses.

• Mississippi

  – Opining that the Supreme Court “usurped” every state’s “authority to regulate marriage within their borders,” Mississippi’s governor is considering putting a halt to all marriage licenses in the state. State officials are said to be mulling over a range of legal options to oppose the effect of the same-sex marriage ruling.

• Louisiana

  – The state’s attorney general claims that “there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples” following the court’s recent decision. Clerks in the state have been advised to hold off on issuing licenses for 25 days, the amount of time that the states have to appeal the ruling.

• Georgia

  – The governor acknowledged that the state “is subject to the laws of the United States.” A county judge in Atlanta performed the first same-sex marriage in the state.

• Michigan

  – The governor called for compliance with the court’s ruling, adding that the state is to “treat everyone with the respect and dignity they deserve.” Legislators mull new laws that some imagine might get the government out of the marriage business.

• Alabama

  – The state attorney general observed that, “the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is now the law of the land” and promised to enforce the law. Some counties, however, are reported to have stopped issuing all marriage licenses in an effort to avoid allowing same-sex marriages.

• Utah

  – A Republican state legislator is reported to be drafting legislation to get the state out of the business of issuing marriage licenses, leaving the status of marriage in the state uncertain. A legislator familiar with the proposal affirms that it would “end government agencies’ involvement in issuing marriage licenses.” While the legislator who discussed the proposed bill supports and admires its intent, he said that it had little hope of passage, in his view.

Tax Exempt Status at Risk?

Acting proactively against a perceived risk, Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT, introduced a bill in the senate in recent weeks entitled the First Amendment Defense Act. The intent appears to be to protect the tax-exempt status of religious institutions, even if they continue to refuse to support same-sex marriage.

Some see a promise of some sort of such protection for religious believers and organizations in the language of the court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy. The court promises that with marriage equality as the law of the land, there will still be measures so that “religious organizations and persons are given proper protection” in their beliefs. What that line and the one paragraph on the subject in the opinion will mean in the actual practice of implementing marriage equality is hard to say, precisely.

Tax the Church

One commentator supports what he sees as a common-sense answer to the potential conflict of religious institutions with same-sex marriage equality, which is to end the tax-exempt status of church-run businesses. With no questions for the federal government to resolve what is or is not a religion, and which ones deserve exemptions from taxes, the tax code could be simplified, he argues.

Noting the increased tax burden that falls on all other taxpayers when churches do not pay property tax on valuable real estate, or are exempted from business taxes on an enterprise operated by the church, the author proposes a revision and simplification of the tax code to eliminate the tax-free status that was granted to non-profit organizations by the federal government in 1917. He acknowledges that it would be a big step that would be certain to have push back on many fronts, but sees the benefits in spreading tax burdens equally, to the extent of covering profitable religious organizations and church-run businesses.