[Lancaster Online]

[Whirlwind]

Taking the tax exemption, makes the church subservient to the taxing entity. A veritable deal with the devil. As our culture continues to be twisted, with the acquiesence of our government, churches will be faced with an increasing amount of similar dilemmas.

[johnq]

Taking the tax exemption, makes the church subservient to the taxing entity. A veritable deal with the devil. As our culture continues to be twisted, with the acquiesence of our government, churches will be faced with an increasing amount of similar dilemmas.

I must agree. To take a church's tax exempt status for simply following it's beliefs is wrong.

[JerseyJane]

I am an Ocean Grove homeowner and active United Methodist in NJ.

Let me explain what tax exemption has been denied. It is not the usual one people think of when they hear "church." The exemption in this case is the NJ "Green Acres" program. To get this exemption, any 501©3 not-for-profit group that owns undeveloped land that would otherwise have to pay the local property tax can apply to the state to be exempt from that tax. This program requires that the property be open to the public on a non-discriminatory basis.

The violation is because although the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has rented the Boardwalk Pavilion out to non-Christian couples for weddings performed by a government official, they denied the request when a resident lesbian couple applied in the same way to have their NJ Civil Union Ceremony performed by the Deputy Mayor, also a resident of the section of Neptune Township known as "Ocean Grove."

The OGCMA understood this requirement when they originally applied for the exemption, and when they signed the renewal application this summer. They chose to make the entire property open to the public, but reneged on the deal when they decided they didn't like a particular portion of the Ocean Grove public. The price of keeping the Pavilion out of public access seems to be $175, hardly an unreasonable sum.

[Whirlwind]

Welcome, JerseyJane.



So the church took the exemption, but now has second thoughts about the stipulations.



Is the property so unique that the lesbian couple had to have their wedding on what is still church property, or was that the reason, it's church property? What I'm wondering is, if the couple took that step as a form of activism.

[hadams]

Hi, Jane--welcome aboard.



Based on your post, it certainly seems the association should have been consistent in its policies. I'm on the board of the Boehm's Chapel Society, a UM historical site, and we get a number of requests to hold weddings in the chapel; we had to draft a new policy a couple of years ago specifying the ceremonies must be Christian, after one wedding turned out to be of, um, uncertain origin.



But I have looked through the UM Book of Discipline, and I find no mention of non-Christian weddings -- whereas same-sex unions are specifically listed. Any other Methodists out there know of anything?



Double standard? Maybe that's something to take up with General Conference next year, when the latest Discipline will be drafted.



My argument is that this case has already become the one that conservative Christians are pointing to, as proof that legalizing same-sex marriages is a step down the slippery slope toward forcing churches to normalize them.



(I also have begun to wonder whether churches ought to just give up our tax-exempt status.)

[mam0412]

Hi JerseyJane - Thanks for clearing up the issue!

This story will definitely be twisted by fundamentalist Christians as "proof" that Christianity is under attack in this country when that simply isn't true in any way shape or form. Sounds to me like the church is not following the law and the state is. The church itself is not being forced to perform same-sex marriages. But under the law for this property, they cannot bar anyone from any type of "marriage" whether they believe in it or not.

[johnq]

I am an Ocean Grove homeowner and active United Methodist in NJ.

Let me explain what tax exemption has been denied. It is not the usual one people think of when they hear "church." The exemption in this case is the NJ "Green Acres" program. To get this exemption, any 501©3 not-for-profit group that owns undeveloped land that would otherwise have to pay the local property tax can apply to the state to be exempt from that tax. This program requires that the property be open to the public on a non-discriminatory basis.

The violation is because although the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has rented the Boardwalk Pavilion out to non-Christian couples for weddings performed by a government official, they denied the request when a resident lesbian couple applied in the same way to have their NJ Civil Union Ceremony performed by the Deputy Mayor, also a resident of the section of Neptune Township known as "Ocean Grove."

The OGCMA understood this requirement when they originally applied for the exemption, and when they signed the renewal application this summer. They chose to make the entire property open to the public, but reneged on the deal when they decided they didn't like a particular portion of the Ocean Grove public. The price of keeping the Pavilion out of public access seems to be $175, hardly an unreasonable sum.

Thanks for the info. I must agree.

[BeingReal]

Sounds to me like the church is not following the law and the state is. The church itself is not being forced to perform same-sex marriages. But under the law for this property, they cannot bar anyone from any type of "marriage" whether they believe in it or not.

This is the key, IMO. It's one thing to state that the church will not conduct or bless same-sex marriages, but it's another to take the position that they cannot be conducted by others on church property. If the church believes it's appropriate to discriminate and the provisions of the tax exemption prohibit discrimination, the church should give up its tax exemption on the property and put its money where its mouth is. Once that's accomplished, the matter should be considered closed because then the boardwalk effectively becomes private property and the church can do basically whatever they want with it. For someone to seek harsher punishment to force the issue seems inappropriate, IMO.