But it makes lots of people uncomfortable, so be warned!

Organizations that exist to service its members tend to be tax free; those that are educational or charitable, even if that education and charity isn't that official sanctioned by society's govermental overseers, are also tax free. They're a place where subgroups of society can organize their own structures for their own purposes, and do social work that's independent of government.

Sometimes that's dangerous but good. Take the role of numerous gay-rights NGOs under DOMA, or civil rights workers under Jim Crow. If the government overlords decided what was the only official thinking that we could express, and we needed government oversight and sponsorship, life for them would have been different. The problem is that when government is undermined for what we like, then it's great because it's what we like; when it's counterworked for things we don't like, then it has to be bad. We're saying that we should be the final deciders as to what others are allowed to think and do without government interference. We're all equal, but some of us (not them) are clearly far more equal than others.

It also gets really, really tricky. So take gay-rights NGOs when official policy was DOMA. Suddenly, now that they support the government, they're entitled to a tax exemption; those organizations that supported the government now have their exemption revoked? Doesn't that mean civil society is just an extension of government--which is the exactly opposite of what "civil society" is taken to be? Instead of "we the people" forming a government, it's "we the people, obedient to the government"--which suddenly becomes a group of people different from we the people that are in charge of li'l ol' us.

The hitch is thinking of anything that the government doesn't take as something the government gives. Subsidies are monies that are given. The ACA gives people subsidies. Tax exemptions aren't subsidies; they're groups from which taxes aren't collected. That's colleges, religious organizations, social work, some education-oriented political groups.

Unions are forever non-profits. It was deemed that unions so express the will of we the people that they are a kind of hybrid organization: they need no legal code to grant them non-tax status because government isn't taxed. No matter how much money they take in, how much power they have, even if they go against government policy, they are forever non taxed. Such was the SCOTUS' thinking at the time this matter came up. Perhaps you think that, too, should be reconsidered. After all, they're not as powerful as they are now. And often they go against government. Must be evil.

And I don't like tricky.

Or at least don't use this decision as a stick to beat religious institutions yet. A vast majority of people are or soon will be fine with the decision even if not about gay marriage itself. And all governments are legally bound to accept gay marriage and very few individuals will object/protest for long (it's very low on their priorities) as long as they come to realize this decision really doesn't affect their marriage or rights as they've been told it will.

There will be challenges and attempts to avoid implementing the law but I doubt they will have public support for long. But, the more the issue is pushed beyond government into businesses and religious institutions, the more the sides will be divided and the more their "leaders" can say "see, we told you this decision would hurt you". I could see it like Roe v. Wade where every woman has a right but many have no access for a long time to come without going through new court battles and often losing.

The legal part is mostly decided at this point. There's still a big social aspect to work on and trying to live together seems like a much better approach than trying to destroy the other side. Not that tax exemption will destroy any institution but it will give their "leaders" a rallying cry with that theme. R politicians in many areas can't really make gay marriage an issue unless R voters feel that gay marriage proponents are "rubbing the decision in their face" or using it as a step toward restrictions on the first amendment.

I'm for removing tax exempt status from religious institutions. Just not based on this (even partially).

we might upset some bigots.

If you keep upping the stakes too soon this battle really does affect their lives and there's no time for the non-bigots to step back and see the results. Many people don't care about gays but do care about their religion.

Most bigots will always be upset. But it's possible to take away their argument that this decision affects the lives of religious people who aren't bigots (or who just don't think it's an issue). And if you let them stop fighting for a while even some bigots will see that their life is not affected.

and I'll keep my government out of your church.


as seen on a bumper sticker

All that "yelling". That issue predictably went nowhere. Oh wait.

By the way what exactly about that article constitutes "yelling"? Is it the use of all caps?

required approval by the House?

I thought we'd moved on to the merits of "yelling".

Usually mean it's well past time.

It's that kind of direct involvement that skewers their tax exempt arguments. They blend charitable (501(c)3 eligible activity) with political activism. The onus is on the IRS as much as the religious institutions.

It's just always been that way due to the assumption that a church is a net benefit to society (which I don't agree with).

All it would take is a simple change to the tax code.