|
It Begins: Extremist Gays Attack Church
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Institutions fear losing tax breaks if they oppose same-sex unions; Rightly so, gay-rights group says
Alex Hutchinson Sound Off
The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning.
"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings, and is behind www.equalmarriage.ca.
"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."
Several Liberal backbenchers have been pressuring Prime Minister Paul Martin to amend the controversial gay-marriage bill, which is now before the House, to protect the tax status of churches that refuse to perform such marriages.
Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.
"They can't connect their views with any political candidate," said Peter Broder, the director of regulatory affairs at Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities and non-profit groups.
But the role of the Catholic Church in public debate is legitimate and legal, according to Bede Hubbard, the associate secretary general of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"Right from the very beginning, the representatives of the government have called on Canadians to express their opinions," he said. "And certainly, Canadian churches are among Canadian citizens."
Even if the churches are in compliance with tax laws --with or without an amendment to the marriage bill -- they could still be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is unlikely to succeed, Mr. Broder said.
"It's hard to see how that would happen," he said. "For example, I'm not aware of any religious group having been challenged on their refusal to marry divorced people."
Churches rely heavily on their charitable status to encourage more frequent and more generous donations, according to Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
"The loss the charitable tax status would really affect the ability of these ministries to carry out their functions," she said. "That includes a lot of things that are beneficial to society, like homeless ministries, outreach to the poor, and international development."
As a result, the Evangelical Fellowship favours an amendment to the bill guaranteeing that charitable status will not be challenged-- even though the group opposes the bill as a whole.
"If they're going to redefine marriage anyway, we would like to see these kinds of amendments in the bill," Ms. Buckingham said.
Bonnie Greene, a retired United Church official who specialized in tax issues, said the charitable status of churches is not under any immediate threat.
However, the regulations governing charities are greatly in need of updating, she said.
"In Canadian law, the definition of charitable activity is over 400 years old, based on a legal case in England," Ms. Greene said. "This is not good for democracy in Canada."
For Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Varnell, who run the website www.equal
marriage.ca, the distinction between advocacy and partisan politics is artificial.
"Our website is completely self-funded," Mr. Bourassa said.
"We are not a charity, because fighting for our Charter of Rights is considered by the government to be advocacy. What is the difference between fighting for equality and fighting against equality? There's none."
Currently, groups promoting human rights, the environment and peace are not considered charities. The rules should be changed to reflect the needs of civil society -- needs that were not present 400 years ago, Ms. Greene said.
Any new rules will need to keep faith and politics separate to satisfy Mr. Bourassa, who is a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto.
"During the last election, my church removed all linkages to political non-charitable groups that were fighting for same-sex marriage from their website because of the political implications and the tax implications," Mr. Bourassa said.
And he intends to make other churches follow the same path.
"There are charitable activities that are legitimate within faith communities," he said.
"Political activities are not charitable activities."
© The Ottawa Citizen 2005 |
|
|
| starsearcher |
lol
it must have been something like this...
 |
|
|
| mindspin |
| this is absolutely stupid....taking away a church's charitable status because they won't adhere to the wish's of queers? (no offense to any gay ppl on this board) To me this is nothing more than gay ppl acting like grown up babies. How dare they challenge the catholic religion? Because the catholic religion is, and has always been opposed to same sex relations? For oh, 1500-2000 years now? Since the conception of the religion......So the gay ppl expect the catholic, or any other religion for that matter to change their age old policies because of a law that is going to be passed in one country? this is retarded....i'm actually angered by this! :mad: |
|
|
| Matt |
that article = June 12
if I recall, amendments were made to the bill to protect tax status of churches that refuse to perform gay marriage. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| Most misleading thread title ever. I was expecting a gay army leading a march on a church, only to destroy it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mindspin
this is absolutely stupid....taking away a church's charitable status because they won't adhere to the wish's of queers? (no offense to any gay ppl on this board) To me this is nothing more than gay ppl acting like grown up babies. How dare they challenge the catholic religion? Because the catholic religion is, and has always been opposed to same sex relations? For oh, 1500-2000 years now? Since the conception of the religion......So the gay ppl expect the catholic, or any other religion for that matter to change their age old policies because of a law that is going to be passed in one country? this is retarded....i'm actually angered by this! :mad: |
A couple of points;
a) don't go putting something like "no offence" after using a term like "queers". The word queer means strange. Calling a group of people strange is an attempt to marginalize them. If you are trying to marganilize a person(s) what you are doing is trying to discount them, you're saying they aren't important or at least as important as the rest of society. Telling anyone that they don't count is offensive to that person so please, don't think everything is okay and no one will be upset because you make a lame assed attempt to cover your bigotry by saying "no offense". That's like hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat and saying "oh, I didn't mean to hurt you."
b) A challenge to the charitable status of churchs refusing to preform same sex marriages is not an attempt to force them to change their beliefs so much as it is a protest against the state subsidising a group that discriminates against citizens of the state. That being said, I do not believe that religious institutions that fail to preform same sex marriages should have their charitable status revoked as I believe their freedom of conscience and thought trumps the limitation this places on the homosexual couple challenging the status' freedom of expression.
I'm looking forward to this one hitting the courts. As someone who has spent significant time studying constitutional law I will be very interested to see how the court determines which freedom is paramount. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
It may seem like he's acting like a baby, but the idea he has is one I've advocated for a long time.
If most people generally don't have a problem with the idea of a civil union for same-sex couples and the hang up is basically with the term "marriage", then just stop using that term in the civil realm.
Leave "marriage" to the churches (and each religion can decide for themselves if they wish to "marry" same-sex couples or not).
From a government / civil stand point, there will no longer be "marriages" for either straight OR gay couples, but rather some sort of civil union which entitles each type of couple to the same civil benefits / responsibilities. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Most misleading thread title ever. I was expecting a gay army leading a march on a church, only to destroy it. |
I would want a video of that.....it would be funnier then the french army
:haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Most misleading thread title ever. I was expecting a gay army leading a march on a church, only to destroy it. |
 |
|
|
|
|
