The 14th Amendment only binds governments, not private institutions, and it only takes one 'violation' to set up a fight. It common to stage a crime in order to have standing to sue the government (this is what happened in the Lawrence case). The IRS can change the rule to forbid any heretofore tax-exempt institution with a policy contrary to "fundamental national public policy" from continuing to receive its tax exemption. Most conservatives do not see same-sex marriage as a "fundamental national public policy," because it has only actually been approved democratically in 11 states and only approved at all in 17 states. We know that liberals feel otherwise, and pretty emphatically. The IRS is not run by conservatives, and in any case will often not be run by conservatives.
Well, I don't know, I suppose I'm a liberal, but I don't see SSM as a "fundamental national public policy" in the same way that ending racial discrimination was. SSM is an important 14th Amendment liberty issue, but institutionalized racial discrimination was actually preventing black people from fully participating in our democracy. In other words, institutionalized racial discrimination threatened our very identity as a democracy. SSM is not on that level. There are some important parallels, but historically and legally there are important differences too.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of SSM, but it's important to keep things in perspective or you lose credibility, and I think it's more important than ever for liberals to do that in the wake of this decision.
It is true that neither Notre Dame nor other Catholic schools (whether universities or secondary/elementary schools) refuse to admit gay students. They do not refuse to admit students in a same-sex relationship. Many schools (not ND) do refuse to hire teachers engaged in such a relationship or attempt to fire them after learning that they are in such a relationship. They all refuse to allow their chapels to be used for a same-sex wedding. You might think that the Basilica of the Sacred Heart is 'safe,' as a 'church,' but what about the many other chapels on campus, such as in the dorms?
Does ND allow the Basilica or other chapels to be used for any non-Catholic weddings? Same-sex couples should have the right to use our facilities on the same terms as anyone else who wants to have a non-Catholic ceremony.
Whatever precipitates this, there is no question that an IRS action taking away tax-exemptions from any school that formally opposes sodomy or refuses to use some part of its campus for a same-sex wedding is wholly legal given the current law.
Is that true? I'm not well-versed in how the tax exemption works, but if you are basing that conclusion on the Bob Jones case, that case is distinguishable. Holding that states can't offer marriage to hetero couples but not to same-sex couples is a far cry from holding that SSM is a fundamental national public policy that outweighs sincere religious beliefs. We just aren't there.
So what about the politics of the issue? There are so many Catholic schools (and other Christian schools with the same teaching) that it would be hard to imagine the IRS denying them tax-exempt status at present. But remember that the country is rapidly secularizing, and secular people are less likely to support to religious exemptions of any sort. The only ways to avoid it are for Congress to abolish the corporate income tax or change the enabling statute to forbid the IRS from denying tax-exemptions to these groups.
Right, no question that politically it would be impossible to take away tax exemptions for religious schools right now. Hypothetically, could we get there? I guess so. But right now we are nowhere close.
It's an interesting question though. I read this article about it last night:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...f-gay-marriage-ruling-on-tax-status.html?_r=0
Some heavy hitters in the world of constitutional scholarship interviewed in that piece.
RESCOTT v. OKLAHOMA CAPITOL PRESERVATION COMMISSION