Should they stop their social work if “they don't get their way”?
Absolutely not!!!!! Social work is not for “them”. It's Christ's command to do, regardless.
(And I think that was your main point, which I obviously missed)

They are to help members of the Church first, and then everyone else in the community – which includes homosexuals. But you have to remember one thing. If any of their work is done in such a manner that condones or furthers the homosexual cause (as normal acceptable behavior) then they cannot be expected to do it.

Separation of Church and State doesn't only cover the government touting religion – it also covers the government impeding religion.

I think I've given you enough chances to defend the point, and you're neither succeeding nor backing off of it. So I'm going to stop badgering you about it.

If there is a market for health insurance for homosexual couples, then why not start the company yourself? You can serve the needs of homosexuals and become a millionaire. It is perfectly legal for an insurance company to do that right now. Nothing stopping you if you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps George Soros can bankroll it for you. My point….. It can be done now. Homosexuals can make things legally binding through an attorney right now.

As I've said so many times before. This isn't about what homosexuals want or can get legally.
This is about the raising of a sexual fetish to normality. This has been the tactic of the left since, well, forever.

I will show you a Church that follows the Bible – that speaks where it speaks and is silent where it is silent.
They refuse “spousal rights” to those who do not fit the qualifications as laid our in the Bible.
They allow “spousal rights' to those who qualify per the Bible.

They call out all sin, especially from their own members.

It's called the Lord's Church or the Church of Christ.

Actions speak louder than words, and in their actions Catholics as well as Protestants say exactly that.

I have yet to hear a bishop or pope say that gossip is permitted – or lying, or murder, or any other sinful act. If the Catholic church were to come out and say that any of those we're ok, but homosexuality is wrong – then they'd be hyprocrits. But the Bible does have a problem with same-sex marriage, J. It SPECIFICALLY says man-woman, and specifically condemns homosexuality. You want a Church to ok that through employment or contracts. Well, they just can't do that, nor should they be expected to.

And yes, homosexuality IS the same as gossip (backbiting, it's called in the Bible) and all other sin.

…that is, consistently with yourself. No church that I'm aware of takes the hard line against gossip that the Catholics in this story take against homosexuality. They will probably agree in the abstract that all sins are created equal and so forth, but in practice they don't badger gossips like they do gays. Surely they're not all out of step but you.

We all sin. Some continually search themselves in accordance with the Bible, and others do not. If we do that and correct the sinful conditions we find – we are forgiven, and are told to “depart and sin no more”. If we do not, we remain in that sin and rish being lost. A lie is a sin. If you ask for forgiveness with a true heart – you are forgiven. Homosexuality is a sin. If you ask for forgiveness with a true heart – you are forgiven. With both instances, if you return to that state (leave and continue to lie, or leave and continue to live the homosexual lifestyle), you are right back where you started.

I hold that Biblical standard for all sin, J.
This isn't about what Jefferson wants or does not want. This is about what God wants for His people.
Many congregations out there do how THEY feel is right, and worship how THEY feel is right. They even pick and choose the parts of the Bible that fit THEIR lives. They fail to realize that they are being arrogant to think that they know better than God. It's all in there – all anyone has to do is look.

Not at all. I'm saying that MANY tax-exempt organizations lobby Congress. Every example I gave you has lobbied Congress.

(As a side note, I want to clarify that I don't feel strongly that religious organizations should have tax-exempt status in the first place. I don't know that they should be put into the same category as other charities. However, if we do give them tax-exempt status, that status shouldn't be conditioned on them keeping their mouths shut with regards to legislation that they feel affects them.)

EDIT: Sorry, I corrected a minor typo above that probably will contribute to the confusion.

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

I think it would be difficult to argue that a “substantial” part of the activities of the Catholic church is lobbying. Sure, maybe they are supposed to fill out a form to do the lobbying that they do. I have no clue if they do or not, and in my opinion that's a pretty minor detail.

So I think we've established that non-profits can engage in lobbying without losing their tax exempt status. So on to the question of what they *should* be allowed to do:

“Is it your contention that churches and other tax exempt organizations should be allowed to lobby?”

Yes. An organization should have the right to look out for its own interests, which includes arguing for or against legislation. They should be subject to any other rules that apply to lobbying, but shouldn't be forbidden from doing it.

“public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. “

And here is the section on legislation:

“An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”

BTW, a church can do some lobbying if they file a Form 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible IRC Section 501(c)(3) Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation. Do you think any churches have done so? I suppose we could ask the IRS. Is it your contention that churches and other tax exempt organizations should be allowed to lobby?

I took at look at this IRS factsheet: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=15471…

It does appear that there is some gray area in the sense that if a tax-exempt organizations makes a statement, even if it is completely issue-oriented, regarding an issue that separates the two candidates, and if the statement is close to an election, then it could be considered a violation. But none of that is true in this case.

Good luck running on that platform, Leo! Your vote total would make Bob Barr look like a formidable POTUS candidate in comparison. No doubt you'd pick up 13,286 lefty blogger and atheist votes and then come to a screeching halt.

LOL, no lefty blogger would ever vote for me, you overestimate my appeal.

“Political activities and legislative activities (commonly referred to as lobbying) are two different things and are subject to two different sets of rules.”

Here's the rule.

“The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. “

Note how broadly “political activity” is defined.

“”Influencing legislation”

A taxable expenditure includes amounts used to attempt to influence legislation:

1.
By affecting public opinion, or
2.
By communicating with any member or employee of a legislative body, or with any other government official or employee who may participate in formulating the legislation.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council or similar governing body, or the public by way of referendum, constitutional amendment, or the like. The word action includes the introduction, enactment, defeat, or repeal of legislation. Actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies are not legislation. Therefore, expenditures made to influence action by these bodies are not attempts to influence legislation.

School boards, housing authorities, sewer and water districts, zoning boards, and other similar federal, state, ort local special purpose bodies, whether elective or appointive, are considered administrative bodies.

A proposed treaty required to be submitted by the President to the Senate for its advice and consent will be considered legislation being considered by, or to be submitted imminently to, a legislative body at the time the President’s representative begins to negotiation its position with the parties to the proposed treaty.”