Church of the Chosen People v. United States
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
548 F. Supp. 1247 (1982)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Demigod Socko Pantheon (Demigod) (plaintiff) was a Minnesota corporation whose claimed primary purpose was preaching a doctrine it called The Gay Imperative. Richard John Baker and J. Michael McConnell were Demigod’s sole Archons, who were divinely appointed church leaders. Baker testified that he and McConnell were married to each other. The Gay Imperative doctrine averred that large numbers of people were persuadable into developing loving gay relationships and that expanding the number of those relationships would help control global overbreeding. Demigod had no published religious texts or established religious oral traditions. Demigod claimed to have 10 members but kept no record of its membership. Demigod adherents achieved Demigod’s primary activity of preaching The Gay Imperative, according to Baker, by attaining an appropriate state of consciousness while engaging in ordinary daily life. Demigod performed one same-sex marriage, contrary to state law. Demigod sued the United States (defendant) for a refund of federal taxes, claiming entitlement to exemption from federal income tax as a religious organization under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (MacLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
