Free Legal Help to ME Churches Threatened with IRS Complaints for Supporting Marriage

As long as a church stays on the legal side...I don't see the problem. Churches have a right to support issues or so I believe.

The churches would still have to pay for legal fees even if found to be on the legal side. If you made the ones bringing the suit pay then most likely no suit.

Ahhh well...It will give them the experience gays/lesbians have at paying thousands of extra dollars for not being a heterosexual married couple. Sounds like they are getting free legal help....Ahhh, special rights again for the majority.

Good spin Charlotte, I am impressed. So because the homosexuals are not allowed to get married it is ok to sic the IRS on the Church, hope you don't feel that way about any other business that supported Yes on 1 . Also it does so much for the tolerant view homosexuals tend to spout, sounds more like and eye for an eye.

Good spin Charlotte, I am impressed. So because the homosexuals are not allowed to get married it is ok to sic the IRS on the Church, hope you don't feel that way about any other business that supported Yes on 1 . Also it does so much for the tolerant view homosexuals tend to spout, sounds more like and eye for an eye.

"Ahhh, special rights again for the majority."
What baloney! This is a privately funded organization willing to help churches who are being harassed. What "special rights" do you see?

"The churches would still have to pay for legal fees even if found to be on the legal side. If you made the ones bringing the suit pay then most likely no suit."

Actually, if it goes to court, that is exactly what will happen. That is how the ACLU makes millions of dollars every year. Of course they still take money from contributors for the very same cases, so they get paid twice.

Fri, Nov. 13 2009 05:25 PM EDT
Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption
By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

"Pastors and churches have a right to speak about biblical truths from the pulpit without fear of punishment," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. "They can encourage their congregations to take a stand for marriage and can directly support legislative issues like Question 1 without running afoul of IRS rules.

"The complaints are designed to threaten the tax-exempt status of the churches, even though such support is almost always allowable by the IRS."

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091113/gay-marriage-supporters-th...

Charlotte's real agenda has been coming to the surface like so much pond scum lately. She must hear God's voice in her head telling her to straighten up and fly right and it is causing her conniptions.

Bob what I meant to say was if they bring these lawsuits and are found to be frivolous then they should pay the church's costs as well.

SNBC's Nancy Snyderman attacked Catholic bishops last Thursday for opposing abortion funding in the health care bill, agreeing with the President of NOW that the IRS should investigate them.

Snyderman: "The Catholic bishops appearing and having a political voice seems to be a most fundamental violation of church and state."

Typical of the horde of people who know nothing of the principle of "separation of church and state" except the phrase itself.

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof..."

Given the enormous and ubiquitous power of the modern Congress and government, "the exercise thereof" can't reasonably be construed to mean that Christians must confine their activities to church on Sundays. Even the Amish, who attempt to strictly avoid entanglements with government, are obliged to go to court to defend their religions practices and beliefs.

Islander - We are both talking about the same thing. When they lose in court, they will have to pay the court costs & attorney's fees for the churches. There is a technical term for it, which I cannot remember at the moment.. But it is the best fundraiser the ACLU has.

I posted this link to November's issue of First Things in another thread, but see that it really belongs here as it points to an essay by Archbishop Chaput of Denver, who sees the threat of “belligerent secularism” on churches as not only a threat to the Churches themselves, and the service and missionary work they do, but a threat to the very American model of a free and freely moral society:

“... government benefits from the partnership and usually gets more than it gives. Unfortunately, these understandings have broken down in recent years. Too often, public officials no longer respect the Church’s service to the common good or the guarantee of her freedoms under the Constitution. More and more, Catholic ministries find themselves bullied by civil authorities that seek to meddle in their operations and dictate the terms under which they provide their services.”

link here: First Things: A charitable endeavor

I've thought all along that the people who support gay marriage are looking to replace the Church with the State, to substitute tradition with compulsion, and to impose a 'secular' status quo in which the State functions as the omnipotent institution to which all other natural institutions (the family, the church, the community, etc.) are initially subservient and eventually subsumed.

Please read the Archbishop's essay, if you have a moment. He does an excellent job of articulating what exactly is at stake.

The Alliance Defense Fund is going to be very busy in the coming days as Charlotte and Jesse "I'll Find Where You Live" Connolly and the like proceed with their progressive agenda nationwide...
Catholic schools to buck city bill
No benefits for gay marriages
The Archdiocese of Washington said Thursday that it will not extend benefits to same-sex married couples employed in Catholic schools -- a pre-emptive defiance of a bill expected to coast through the D.C. Council by the end of the year.
"If this law is passed, we will have to break the law before we give up our religion," said archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs.

"Ahhh well...It will give them the experience gays/lesbians have at paying thousands of extra dollars for not being a heterosexual married couple. Sounds like they are getting free legal help....Ahhh, special rights again for the majority."

Any legal problem gays face because they can't be married could have been fixed at the beginning of this year, if the bill offering protecting had been accepted by the progressive gay activist movement. Instead, you all decided to attempt to force your view of morality down our collective throats by the threat of the government punishing us for having the audacity of defying you. If you were willing to meet us halfway, you could have had virtually everything you claim you want--instead, you don't have the legal protections you want for gay couples, and you are left to cry "Homophobia! Bigotry!" because a private organization offers help to churches to protect them from a gay-activist inspired vendetta by a government agency. This isn't "special rights for hetrosexuals", it's going to be more money wasted down a rathole because of the intolerance of progressive gays.

Has anybody ever wondered if Equality Maine actually speaks for the "gay majority", so to speak, or are they self-appointed, not unlike Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition" or Sharptons' thug organization? I wonder if, given a genuine voice, the bulk of gay people in Maine could live with a civil union?

GLAAD presents itself as a tax-exempt nonprofit. I imagine a first-amendment-compliant application of the rule urged would de-exempt GLAAD, as well as Equality Maine.

I hear the sound of crickets on this issue from the "No on 1" advocates, when I point this out.

I see very little chance that any group challenging a church's tax exempt status will be paying even a dime of church legal defense fees. First of all, a challenge on the grounds described above would not result in a private entity filing a lawsuit against the Catholic church. In my view, the goal would appear to be to get the IRS to question (most unlikely) the tax exempt status which would, if successful, result in fees for fending off the IRS.

This is not a private right of legal action filed, for example, by the ACLU against the catholic church. Even if that was the case, the general rule under American law does not have the losing plaintiff of the lawsuit paying the fees of the "winner" defendant except in situations where an award of fees is specifically permitted by statute (e.g. prevailing plaintiff in a discrimination case). Court rules do provide for an award of costs, but "costs" do not include attorney fees and are really limited to some witness costs, court transcipts and other relatively minor costs associated with a lawsuit.

To the extent churches have to defend their tax exempt status, I would be shocked to see the end result having the ACLU or any other adversary paying church legal fees.

SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). It's a lawsuit that is specifically intended to intimidate, silence, and censor political opponents (and here in Maine, small newspapers) by burdening them with the legal defense costs until they abandon their opposition or criticism. Winning the lawsuit is not generally the intent of the group or people filing the SLAPP; violating civil rights is.

From the NoLo site:

A friend once said the best law he would like to see enacted would be a very simple one - six words..

"You sue, you lose, you pay"

meaning the bringer of the suit, if the case was lost, would pay all legal fees for both sides. Sure would bring down the number of frivolous cases filed in courts.

Cuz, in principle that should work to slow down frivolous suits, and it would if "normal" law firms were involved. But the ACLU and its minions have found a "win, win" in frivolous law suits: No matter what happens with a case, they get the big bucks.

What possible incentive is there to prevent them from filing every single frivolous suit that comes their way?

The Christian fundamentalists' real agenda has been coming to the surface like so much pond scum lately. They must hear God's voice in their heads, telling them to straighten up and fly right, and it is causing them conniptions.

Funny how vicious it sounds when several words are replaced, isn't it?

'cept it ain't true when you play that game.

Charlotte's real agenda has been coming to the surface like so much pond scum lately. She must hear God's voice in her head telling her to straighten up and fly right and it is causing her conniptions.

-------

The Christian fundamentalists' real agenda has been coming to the surface like so much pond scum lately. They must hear God's voice in their heads, telling them to straighten up and fly right, and it is causing them conniptions.

Funny how vicious it sounds when several words are replaced, isn't it?

--------

Not that I agree with the tactfullness of either statement, when you change several words of a statement (the subject in this case) and pass it off as what was said, that is a lie, regardless of whether the first statement was true or not....a typical liberal spin tactic to mislead?...you be the judge.

Personal opinion, pond scum at least fullfills the purpose our Creator designed it for - unlike agendas some are trying to use force of law to impose.

The point being, that it's possible to make points and debate without being vicious.

Unless, of course, that's the real agenda.