Gay Marriage Ban as Religious Discrimination?

[Victorian Gray]

North Carolina, The United Church of Christ has filed suit in federal district court "arguing that North Carolina is unconstitutionally restricting religious freedom by barring clergy members from blessing gay and lesbian couples."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/u...h-carolina-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1

Also from the article:

"“We didn’t bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices,” said Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”"

The church has been joined in the suit by "a Lutheran priest, a rabbi, two Unitarian Universalist ministers, a Baptist pastor and several same-sex couples. They said the state’s marriage law “represents an unlawful government intervention into the internal structure and practices of plaintiffs’ religions.”"




I find this an interesting approach but knowing little about American law I have no idea how likely it is that they can win. I wish them luck though.

I will note that it seems a rather clever turning of one of the arguments that more 'conservative' religious spokespeople have made over the years.

Have fun with this one.

 

[Paratus]

North Carolina, The United Church of Christ has filed suit in federal district court "arguing that North Carolina is unconstitutionally restricting religious freedom by barring clergy members from blessing gay and lesbian couples."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/u...h-carolina-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1

Also from the article:

"“We didn’t bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices,” said Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”"

The church has been joined in the suit by "a Lutheran priest, a rabbi, two Unitarian Universalist ministers, a Baptist pastor and several same-sex couples. They said the state’s marriage law “represents an unlawful government intervention into the internal structure and practices of plaintiffs’ religions.”"




I find this an interesting approach but knowing little about American law I have no idea how likely it is that they can win. I wish them luck though.

I will note that it seems a rather clever turning of one of the arguments that more 'conservative' religious spokespeople have made over the years.

Have fun with this one.

This is basically as an egregious a violation of the first amendment as you can get from a religious stand point. This law will be overturned by any court that hears this case.

 

[nehalem256]

It would appear that the liberal church in question is trying to twist what the law says.

Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

This law isn’t talking about ministers celebrating marriages in churches for solely religious purposes, but about ministers who are acting as agents of the state to celebrate a state-recognized marriage. But, again, there’s no religious liberty right to have the relationship of your choice recognized as a marriage by the state. And there’s no law preventing churches from celebrating marriage however they see fit.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/29...ge-union-man-woman-violate-religious-liberty/

What the NYT article says:

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment.

So religious solemnization is allowed. A minister performing a legal solemnization without a marriage license is not allowed. Big difference.

I have to say I find it interesting that liberals are now apparently arguing that there is a right to have your religious ceremonies recognized by the government in order to argue for same-sex marriage :hmm:

 

[Anarchist420]

why dont they lobby the NC legislature instead? if the supreme court legalizes it, then it wont go so well. in order for it to be popular and for gays to gain acceptance, they need it legalized by direct democracy at a local level.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

More stupid. Solemnization means performing the ceremony. NYC requires registration. I suppose NYC hates gays.

 

[Paratus]

It would appear that the liberal church in question is trying to twist what the law says.


http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/29...ge-union-man-woman-violate-religious-liberty/

What the NYT article says:


So religious solemnization is allowed. A minister performing a legal solemnization without a marriage license is not allowed. Big difference.

I have to say I find it interesting that liberals are now apparently arguing that there is a right to have your religious ceremonies recognized by the government in order to argue for same-sex marriage :hmm:

LOL heritage

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/28/religious_liberty_hypocrisy_in_north_carolina_which_forbids_gay_marriage.html

On Monday, the United Church of Christ brought a federal lawsuit against North Carolina’s marriage laws, which were amended in 2012 to ban gay unions. What interest does the United Church of Christ have in toppling the state’s homophobic ban? Under North Carolina law, a minister who officiates a marriage ceremony between a couple with no valid marriage license is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and can be thrown in jail for 45 days. And since gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, that means any minister who dares celebrate a gay union in his church may face jail time..........



Gail Berenson greets couples gathering to receive marriage licenses at the City Hall in Portland, Maine, as same-sex couples gained the right to marry in that state in December 2012.
On Monday, the United Church of Christ brought a federal lawsuit against North Carolina’s marriage laws, which were amended in 2012 to ban gay unions. What interest does the United Church of Christ have in toppling the state’s homophobic ban? Under North Carolina law, a minister who officiates a marriage ceremony between a couple with no valid marriage license is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and can be thrown in jail for 45 days. And since gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, that means any minister who dares celebrate a gay union in his church may face jail time.

I’m not certain why Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, Mollie Hemingway, and other vociferous conservative defenders of religious liberty aren’t vocally outraged about this fact. Nor am I certain why, if religious freedom is truly one of the most cherished values of American conservatism, the religious right wasn’t incensed when Unitarian ministers in New York had to risk arrest while performing commitment ceremonies under a similar statute in 2004. Surely a vision of religious liberty that would allow a storeowner to turn away gays at the door would encompass the basic principle of allowing houses of worship to honor lifelong commitments they deem worthy of solemnization in the eyes of God.

Advertisement

Actually, there’s an obvious reasons why conservatives aren’t clamoring to endorse the UCC’s lawsuit: The battle cry of “religious liberty” is only valuable to the American right insofar as it protects the right's own values—like animus toward gay people or rejection of reproductive rights. Just as, for many conservatives, corporate freedom extends to bosses who deny birth control but not to companies that support progressive causes, religious freedom in the hands of the right is really a term of art, or perhaps a dog whistle. So long as a religion dictates that, say, you refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, your religious liberty gets a hearty cheer of approval from conservatives. But when your religion leads you to perform a commitment ceremony for a gay couple that is part of your congregation, the right’s howls for liberty fall deafeningly silent.

Anyone legitimately concerned about the rights of believers to practice their faith as they wish should be appalled by North Carolina’s marriage laws. The threat of a minister going to jail simply for celebrating a gay marriage is a real, and terrifying, affront to the very premise of “free exercise” of religion. Given how irrationally concerned conservatives are that ministers may soon be arrested in America for refusing to conduct gay weddings, I would hope they would be equally horrified by the specter of a minister being arrested for agreeing to perform one. But, of course, they won’t be. The right has settled on a stunningly specious new narrative of victimization and religious oppression; to observe that some Americans are facing religious oppression for their pro-gay views just doesn’t fit the storyline. Consistency and morality would command conservatives to enthusiastically join the United Church of Christ’s lawsuit. Hypocrisy will prevent them from saying a word.

 

[nehalem256]

LOL heritage

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/28/religious_liberty_hypocrisy_in_north_carolina_which_forbids_gay_marriage.html

It was the first site that I found that quoted the actual law. And reading the actual law it is pretty clear that the left is BSing. See this quote from the NYT article:

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”and civil judgments.”

But when your religion leads you to perform a commitment ceremony for a gay couple that is part of your congregation, the right’s howls for liberty fall deafeningly silent.

It in no why bars religious blessing ceremonies or commitment ceremonies. That is a straight up lie.

The law is clearly talking about legal marriage, not religious marriage, as legally the state can in no way interfere with religious rites.

But hey lets follow the obviously retarded logic being presented here. Seems that by the logic presented if an ordained minister was to marry someone to a toaster the state would be forced to recognize that marriage as well :sneaky:

No of course your obvious retort will be to say that "you can't marry a toaster". But according to the NC constitution you can't marry someone of the same-sex. So by the laws of NC there is absolutely no difference.

 

[bradly1101]

The way religion and state intertwine in marriage registration/licensing and ceremony seems to complicate this. Regulation of the church by the state. Hmmm.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Getting in/by a church not required. Get a marriage license and get married by a judge or justice of the peace. My guess this how atheist get married. So who gives a rat's ass what a church does or doesn't do?

 

[werepossum]

LOL heritage

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/28/religious_liberty_hypocrisy_in_north_carolina_which_forbids_gay_marriage.html

lol I was about to say of course it's not religious discrimination, but if that's the law then it seems incontrovertible religious discrimination.

Just goes to show that both parties are in love with using the armed might of the State to enforce their will on others.

 

[Paratus]

It was the first site that I found that quoted the actual law. And reading the actual law it is pretty clear that the left is BSing. See this quote from the NYT article:





It in no why bars religious blessing ceremonies or commitment ceremonies. That is a straight up lie.

The law is clearly talking about legal marriage, not religious marriage, as legally the state can in no way interfere with religious rites.

But hey lets follow the obviously retarded logic being presented here. Seems that by the logic presented if an ordained minister was to marry someone to a toaster the state would be forced to recognize that marriage as well :sneaky:

No of course your obvious retort will be to say that "you can't marry a toaster". But according to the NC constitution you can't marry someone of the same-sex. So by the laws of NC there is absolutely no difference.

It bars clergy from blessing religious weddings. What part of

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Do you not understand. Oh and by the way, the first amendment is incorporated. Here's your war on religion courtesy of conservative bigots.

Of course if this stands, there will be nothing to stop blue states from forcing the church to marry gays. :twisted)

 

[MongGrel]

Next thing you know some science fiction writer will make a try making a real religion.

Oh, wait a minute.

 

[sandorski]

Next thing you know some science fiction writer will make a try making a real religion.

Oh, wait a minute.

I'm waiting for the one made by a Penthouse Writer....

 

[piasabird]

I think what is really going on is that clergy consider marriage to be both a business and a religious ceremony. They sell their time to perform a marriage and they also sell their church or buildings or facilities to be rented out to provide secular people a place to get married. Many people have this vision of the bride and groom coming down the aisle in a white dress and tuxedo, the ladies in waiting and the ring-bearer. Then the groom's family and friends are on one side and the bride's family and friends on the other side.

I work at a community college and when the church across the street was going to be torn down the college moved the church onto the community college property. The Chapel is reserved all the time for weddings. People like the idea of getting married at a chapel. It has become an American Tradition whether you belong to a specific religion or not.

Remember that marriage is a business. Churches and ministers want their cut of the pie.

 

[nehalem256]

It bars clergy from blessing religious weddings. What part of

No it doesn't. Actual text of the law:

Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

It is clearly talking about performing legal marriages. Not religious ceremonies that happen to share the same name.

The issue here is really an imprecision of the English language. There are 2 different things(civil marriage and religious marriage) that are both commonly referred to as just plain marriage.

Also note that even the NYT article does not say what you just said:

and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”

They are very clearly wording it in a way that avoids using the term marriage to refer to the religious blessing ceremony. Gee, I wonder why?:hmm:

Do you not understand. Oh and by the way, the first amendment is incorporated. Here's your war on religion courtesy of conservative bigots.

Of course if this stands, there will be nothing to stop blue states from forcing the church to marry gays. :twisted)

And if your interpretation stands there is nothing to keep people from marrying toasters. Because apparently your interpretation is that if any religion calls anything a marriage the state must accept it as legal marriage.

I look forward to when North Carolina becomes the new home of fundamentalist Mormon church and old men are legally able to marry four 16 year old girls

 

[nehalem256]

lol I was about to say of course it's not religious discrimination, but if that's the law then it seems incontrovertible religious discrimination.

Just goes to show that both parties are in love with using the armed might of the State to enforce their will on others.

Except it isn't religious discrimination. And in fact the first paragraph of the article is essentially a bold face lie.

Under North Carolina law, a minister who officiates a marriage ceremony between a couple with no valid marriage license is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and can be thrown in jail for 45 days. And since gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, that means any minister who dares celebrate a gay union in his church may face jail time.

They certainly can celebrate a gay union in their church.

They only thing that they might possibly be prevented from doing is calling it a "marriage".

 

[piasabird]

I have never seen the marriage of a non-member in any Mormon Chapel. Mormons consider that to be Priestcraft, which is preaching for money. We don't pay local ministers money to preach. They are called to serve. Most of the time two worthy members have a religious ceremony in the Temple. Only when one person is not a temple recommend holder, do we have a wedding in a chapel. That would be considered a civil ceremony.

 

[Paratus]

No it doesn't. Actual text of the law:


It is clearly talking about performing legal marriages. Not religious ceremonies that happen to share the same name.

The issue here is really an imprecision of the English language. There are 2 different things(civil marriage and religious marriage) that are both commonly referred to as just plain marriage.

Also note that even the NYT article does not say what you just said:


They are very clearly wording it in a way that avoids using the term marriage to refer to the religious blessing ceremony. Gee, I wonder why?:hmm:

They only thing that they might possibly be prevented from doing is calling it a "marriage".

Oh so I get it, they can have a marriage ceremony and call it one and the law doesn't effect the church. But if they call it a marriage ceremony then the law effects the church.:hmm:

Today's word kiddies is "Cognitive Dissonance".

As for the law, if I'm a pastor who performs marriages and I'm certified by the state then I can be charged under that law if I perform a religious only marriage ceremony for a gay couple.

Nehelam you spin faster than a dropped cat with buttered toast tapped to its back.

 

[nehalem256]

Oh so I get it, they can have a marriage ceremony and call it one and the law doesn't effect the church. But if they call it a marriage ceremony then the law effects the church.:hmm:

Today's word kiddies is "Cognitive Dissonance".

Except the claim of YOUR ARTICLE goes far beyond that.

Under North Carolina law, a minister who officiates a marriage ceremony between a couple with no valid marriage license is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and can be thrown in jail for 45 days. And since gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina, that means any minister who dares celebrate a gay union in his church may face jail time.

This is a verifiably false claim. So why did they go to all the trouble to use a more awkward wording that is untrue?

As for the law, if I'm a pastor who performs marriages and I'm certified by the state then I can be charged under that law if I perform a religious only marriage ceremony for a gay couple.

Nehelam you spin faster than a dropped cat with buttered toast tapped to its back.

Simple solution. Don't get certified by the state. Don't want the government interfering with your religion then don't demand they become involved with your religion.

 

[Paratus]

Except the claim of YOUR ARTICLE goes far beyond that.



This is a verifiably false claim. So why did they go to all the trouble to use a more awkward wording that is untrue?



Simple solution. Don't get certified by the state. Don't want the government interfering with your religion then don't demand they become involved with your religion.

Even simpler solution don't violate the constitution.

 

[nageov3t]

wouldn't the ban stand on the same pretexts that ban Rastafarians from legally smoking pot, prevent Mormons from engaging in polygamy, etc?

 

[werepossum]

Except it isn't religious discrimination. And in fact the first paragraph of the article is essentially a bold face lie.

They certainly can celebrate a gay union in their church.

They only thing that they might possibly be prevented from doing is calling it a "marriage".

Therein is the religious discrimination. The State is free to regulate which relationships it chooses to recognize as legal marriages, but when the State attempts to criminalize which relationships the church chooses to recognize as sanctified marriages, the State is interfering with religious liberty. The proper tack would be to ignore clergy performing gay marriages, not to threaten them with jail if they don't march in lockstep with the State.

Well - the PROPER tack would be to recognize gay marriage on the same basis as normal marriage. The State should never be allowed to restrict anyone's freedom without a compelling societal need that can only be addressed with that infringement.

wouldn't the ban stand on the same pretexts that ban Rastafarians from legally smoking pot, prevent Mormons from engaging in polygamy, etc?

Maybe, especially the Mormon thing. Although the mainstream Mormons reject polygamy anyway. It would get pretty complicated. The Rastafarian thing is simple, one is not allowed to break the law in the name of religion. The Mormon thing would admittedly be more difficult, as the law is intrinsic to the religious activity rather than being inherently external.

 

[nehalem256]

Therein is the religious discrimination. The State is free to regulate which relationships it chooses to recognize as legal marriages, but when the State attempts to criminalize which relationships the church chooses to recognize as sanctified marriages, the State is interfering with religious liberty. The proper tack would be to ignore clergy performing gay marriages, not to threaten them with jail if they don't march in lockstep with the State.

The law in question does not deal specifically deal with same-sex marriage at all.

It simply says that an officer empowered by the state to solemnize marriages cannot do so without a marriage license, and that they then have to mail back the completed license within 10 days. The reason for such a law is obvious. To tell someone they are legally married(as an officer of the state) but then fail to properly register the marriage would seem to create massive problems.

So, so long as the minister made it clear he was not performing an official marriage it isn't really clear that the statue would necessarily apply.

And he would certainly be allowed to perform gay unionings. Which is something the people suing is banned. The fact that they feel the need to so obviously lie, tells me even they think they are full of shit.

Well - the PROPER tack would be to recognize gay marriage on the same basis as normal marriage. The State should never be allowed to restrict anyone's freedom without a compelling societal need that can only be addressed with that infringement.

Failing to recognize someone's relationship isn't in anyway restricting their freedom.

Maybe, especially the Mormon thing. Although the mainstream Mormons reject polygamy anyway. It would get pretty complicated. The Rastafarian thing is simple, one is not allowed to break the law in the name of religion. The Mormon thing would admittedly be more difficult, as the law is intrinsic to the religious activity rather than being inherently external.

The Mormon thing is 100% analagous. If a Mormon minister performs a polygamous marriage the state has to recognize it.

Hell, if a Druid Priest marries someone to a tree the state would be forced to recognize it under the left's interpretation of the law.

 

[nehalem256]

wouldn't the ban stand on the same pretexts that ban Rastafarians from legally smoking pot, prevent Mormons from engaging in polygamy, etc?

If a Rastafarian priest started calling smoking point "marrying a joint" according to leftists they couldn't prevent it :sneaky:

 

[schmuckley]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nehalem256
It was the first site that I found that quoted the actual law. And reading the actual law it is pretty clear that the left is BSing. See this quote from the NYT article:





It in no why bars religious blessing ceremonies or commitment ceremonies. That is a straight up lie.

The law is clearly talking about legal marriage, not religious marriage, as legally the state can in no way interfere with religious rites.

But hey lets follow the obviously retarded logic being presented here. Seems that by the logic presented if an ordained minister was to marry someone to a toaster the state would be forced to recognize that marriage as well :sneaky:

No of course your obvious retort will be to say that "you can't marry a toaster". But according to the NC constitution you can't marry someone of the same-sex. So by the laws of NC there is absolutely no difference.

It bars clergy from blessing religious weddings. What part of

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Do you not understand. Oh and by the way, the first amendment is incorporated. Here's your war on religion courtesy of conservative bigots.

Of course if this stands, there will be nothing to stop blue states from forcing the church to marry gays. :twisted)[/quote]

That is correct.The 1st amendment was designed to designate the rights directly to the states.In which case,whatever that particular state says,goes.