Prop 8: Response to a Comment

This was a comment to my previous post PROP 8 from “Anonymous” that I’d like to specifically address as a post:

there’s actually nothing in the constitution that says church and state are separate. it just says that the government can’t recognize one/any official religion.

also, churches are tax exempt because they benefit society. the government has an interest in making sure they can use their money to benefit the poor and the needy and organize programs to help people.

there are many non-religious arguments for prop 8.

anyways, no matter what you believe you don’t want the church’s to have to pay taxes. This means they’ll be able to endorse candidates and be more involved in politics. also, it means less money to help people.



Actually, your argument regarding the words contained in our 1st Amendment is a common misstatement made by those who cite it without comprehension of it’s intent.  And it doesn’t just say the government can’t recognize one/any official religion.  It certainly wasn’t taught to be that simple in the very basic high school civics course.

The legal intent was to build a wall between church and State, as further supported by Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists where he made this specific reference.  Recall Jefferson was a major influence of the U.S. Constitution, though he did not contribute to writing it.

There is also Everson vs Board of Education that carefully expresses those important clauses we all remember and learned about in civics:  Establishment and Free Exercise and also references the intent of those clauses to keep church and State separate.

I agree that religious organizations should remain tax exempt for the very reasons you indicate.  They are held to specific requirements and can lose tax exemption for actions such as:  attempting to influence passage of legislation or promoting ideas which contradict public policies (like desegregation, discrimination, etc).  Some religious organizations have arguably violated these or blurred interpretation of them with the recent Prop 8 campaigns.

Honestly, I have yet to hear any solid non-religious arguments for banning same-sex marriage.  It takes away opportunities from a specific group of people.  That in itself is discrimination.  If any citizen cannot have the same rights as the next citizen, that is discrimination.  

This is a hot topic.  Interracial marriage.  Suffrage.  Foreign born citizens owning land.  These are only a few historically hot topics that endured controversy and redefinition before they ended up as we know them today – nondiscriminatory equal rights.

Thank you for posting.




6 comments so far

  1. johnbisceglia on

    The U.S. government crossed a VERY serious line with PROP 8. Children’s sense of safety and belongingness were and have been threatened by Proposition 8 in California.

    Regardless of THIS particular fight, there are too many fights on too many fronts to conquer piecemeal. NOW is the time to DRAW A NEW LINE in the sand, and demand from President Obama and our representatives FULL EQUALITY on all fronts. We are EQUAL SOULS in HUMAN BODIES. Can we stop basing U.S. laws on genitalia?

    There are countless stories of Americans whose suffering needs to be addressed in this fight. Marriage laws were put in place many years ago in order to protect individuals and their families; if they were not necessary they would not exist for heterosexuals. When these laws are NOT in place for ALL of us, horrible, horrible suffering occurs.

    So Americans want to continue denying us what they have already deemed as essential. And many want us to wait 2, 5, 10, 20, or 30 more years, depending on the “civil right”. I personally have a HUGE problem with that.

    As Americans can’t we agree that there are MANY other important issues to address (like the economy, health care, poverty & homelessness, Iraq/Afghanistan), and solving those problems is more urgent than having “EQUALITY ISSUES” tie up the courts for another 30+ years?

    Will you join me on April 15th, 2009, and inform the government that WE are eager to be included in the federal tax base as soon as THEY include us in society’s laws?

  2. shamerica on

    Thank you for posting John.

    I agree, there are certainly MORE pressing issues our nation faces than marriage inequality. For some reason, people would rather spend their money and energy on this, perhaps because it is more within their reach to affect?

    We don’t ever see this enthusiasm for those other issues like the economy or health care. Every one sits around waiting for the government to do something for them.

    I look forward to April 15.


  3. buyvigrx on

    It sounds like you’re creating problems yourself by trying to solve this issue instead of looking at why their is a problem in the first place.

  4. Sueddelmerm on

    You know that saying, it takes a village to raise a child?

    Seemingly, Kanye’s village has failed him. He buy cialis online obviously doesn’t secure a real friend in the world. There does not rise to be anyone who can get through to him, to promulgate him understand that he needs to check his base behavior.

  5. buyvigrx on

    You are a very smart person!

  6. Pointer Men's Basketball on

    Best you should edit the webpage name Prop 8: Response to a Comment Welcome To SHAMerica to more better for your content you write. I loved the the writing yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: