Why Beto O'Rourke's gay marriage ia llaps unr scty

Beto uld tip the balance of the Senate to the Dems, killg Tmp's drive to takeover the feral urts wh anti-gay nservativ. * gay beto *

* gay beto *

Any relig group that do not support gay marriage should not be tax exempt, Democratic printial ndidate Beto O'Rourke argued Thursday night. "There n be no reward, no benef, no tax break for anyone, or any stutn, any anizatn Ameri that ni the full human rights and the full civil rights of every sgle one of ," he said. "As print, we're gog to make that a prry, and we are gog to stop those who are gg upon the human rights of our fellow Amerins."> Beto O'Rourke on relig stutns losg tax-exempt stat for opposg same-sex marriage: "There n be no reward, no benef, no tax break for anyone ... that ni the full human rights and the full civil rights of every sgle one of " EqualyTownHall ; > -- CNN (@CNN) October 11, 2019The le got applse at CNN's Equaly Town Hall, as O'Rourke uld have anticipated. But the broar poly, simply don't hold up to scty. Whatever one thks about gay marriage -- and tax exemptns for relig stutns, for that matter -- this is a bad ia. It's flagrantly unnstutnal ntent discrimatn. It's a shortsighted polil strategy that will not play so well the general electn. And, realistilly, uld do ser harm to vulnerable people beg served by the relig stutns whose fanc O'Rourke would nstutnal problem is simple: The feral ernment nnot mete out benefs or punishments on theologil grounds. As Cato Instute legal scholar Walter Olson explas at Overlawyered, "a long le of urt opns has ma clear that ... 'tax exemptns n't be nied based on the viewpot that a group munit.'" The law n make distctns based on group behavr or "for liberately engagg speech that falls wh one of the few narrow exceptns to the First Amendment, such as te threats of crimal attack, or cement tend to and likely to e imment crimal nduct," but not for simple belief, even of very offensive Supreme Court has e down hard on feral efforts to manipulate relig stutns' ternal cisn-makg procs; 2012, for example, the jtic unanimoly stck down an Obama admistratn attempt to terfere church hirg for misterial rol. This means that whatever O'Rourke says about makg his proposed change "a prry," he would face a steep uphill legal battle. That legal realy isn't batable, and turns O'Rourke's posn to empty grandstandg. It's also a safeguard that works both ways: If a Print O'Rourke n strip nonprofs of tax exemptns based on their beliefs, so n a Print there are the polil ramifitns. Obvly, O'Rourke's proposal has s nstuency, but nsir how this will play among Amerin voters more broadly. It is tailored for Republin attack ads appealg to pennts. As wh gun ntrol, O'Rourke says aloud exactly what the GOP has warned Democrats secretly want to the tax exemptns would affect a much larger spread of relig stutns than we might immediately realize. O'Rourke may be picturg endg the tax exemptns of speful cults like Wtboro Baptist Church or even more n-of-the-l nservative, whe evangelils who probably voted for Tmp. But those would hardly be his only marriage still has mory support among black Prottants, meang many historic black church -- to say nothg of religly-affiliated HBCUs -- uld lose their tax exemptn unr O'Rourke's plan. The same is te of Amerin Mlims, who O'Rourke's scenar would fd themselv bet by feral discrimatn om the polil right and left alike. (Ined, the relig ntent discrimatn O'Rourke wants is arguably nstutnally siar to the discrimatn of Tmp's origal "Mlim ban.") Also affected would be relig social service anizatns, such as the Catholic hospals which serve one six patients the U.S. and many areas offer the only hospal re available.A slight majory of Amerin Catholics -- like O'Rourke himself -- support same-sex marriage, rejectg their church's formal stance, and so do substantial mori of other relig groups wh official doctral opposn. But that difference of opn do not mean the voters want to see their church, mosqu, or other relig stutns losg their tax exemptns. And a ntent-ntral aboln of the tax exemptns, while likely easier to get past the Supreme Court, would only mean more angry relig voters, as even LGBTQ-affirmg relig stutns would fd themselv signifint fancial fancial nsequenc would not be limed to ngregants of the targeted church O'Rourke's visn. "Do we really want to shut down an entire part of the tn sector or social servic sector?" asked Michael Wear, who directed outreach to relig voters for former Print Barack Obama's 2012 mpaign, an terview on the CNN town hall wh Deret News. "I would hope the answer would be no."I would hope so too, bee Wear isn't exaggeratg. Those Catholic hospals are jt one part of an extensive relig social service astcture that serv lns of Amerins of all fahs every day. You may thk this isn't how should be -- perhaps you want all social servic to be nonsectarian or handled by the state -- but that don't change the current realy, nor do reflect the sir of many other Amerins who support and benef om the anizatns. If all the relig nonprofs wh doctral opposn to gay marriage lose their tax exemptns, vulnerable people will suffer as a rult. The effects would not be limed to whe, Republin Prottants. In fact, would almost certaly do tangible harm to some of the very gay Amerins whom O'Rourke purports to protect. * gay beto *