Page 7 of 39 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 390

Thread: United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    It's not about my opinion, it's about objective facts.
    No it is not FACT that it is evil that is YOUR opinion.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    No it is not FACT that it is evil that is YOUR opinion.
    It is fact.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    It is fact.
    Please show where it is fact.

  4. #64
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    I didn't claim they were.
    The point is that UCC ministers are every bit as legit as those guys.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Please show where it is fact.
    Evil is a privation of good. Procreation is the natural good result of sex, therefore contraception is evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    The point is that UCC ministers are every bit as legit as those guys.
    I didn't say they weren't.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,807

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't personally agree with their SSM ban, imo any relationship which is not otherwise harmful should be allowed, but the state has the right to withdraw support from institutions who engage in undesired behavior of any kind. The state cannot stop you, but they can remove their support.

    It's not the performance of the wedding itself which is the crime, it's braking the terms of the 501c3 which is the crime. If the church drops it's tax exempt status, which means it would no longer be legally recognized as a church, which means it's clergy would no longer be legally seen as 'ministers', they can do whatever they want.

    The church can do as it pleases, but not while being tax-exempt. That's what this is about, doing what it wants while not paying taxes, and they're willing to establish a religious right to legalize marriage in order to keep their money.

    This is just another way for the Church to snake it's way into our government.
    IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) is very clear about what is and is not a violation of the rules for tax exempt orgs, and what acts would threaten their tax exempt status. A church conducting marriage ceremonies is unlikely to violate any rule related to exempt status - that's what churches do. If you have a particular provision of the IRC or Regs that the ceremonies might violate, you'll need to be specific. And the 'state' in this case is the Feds, more particularly the IRS, and there is no Federal prohibition against churches performing SSM ceremonies - they've been doing them for many years, well before such ceremonies carried with them legal status in some states. I've been to several of those ceremonies.

  7. #67
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    >

    The Amendment, which is highly cited in news articles, doesn't say anything about making a same-sex Religious Marriage illegal, the State Constitutional amendment declares what constitutes a Civil Marriage.

    Now, actually look at the law...

    51-6 is the operative section of the law making it illegal for a minister to solemnize a marriage without a license, however that statute specifies that it applies to marriages between a man and a woman. 51-7 is the penalty component applied when 51-6 is violated. 51-6 must be operative before 51-7 can be invoked. Since same-sex marriages do not comport with 51-6 I don't see how 51-7 can be applied. A ceremony between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would not violate 51-6.


    51-6. Solemnization without license unlawful.

    No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant. There must be at least two witnesses to the marriage ceremony.

    Whenever a man and woman have been lawfully married in accordance with the laws of the state in which the marriage ceremony took place, and said marriage was performed by a magistrate or some other civil official duly authorized to perform such ceremony, and the parties thereafter wish to confirm their marriage vows before an ordained minister or minister authorized by a church, or in a ceremony recognized by any religious denomination, federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe, nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit such confirmation ceremony; provided, however, that such confirmation ceremony shall not be deemed in law to be a marriage ceremony, such confirmation ceremony shall in no way affect the validity or invalidity of the prior marriage ceremony performed by a civil official, no license for such confirmation ceremony shall be issued by a register of deeds, and no record of such confirmation ceremony may be kept by a register of deeds. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 4; Code, s. 1813; Rev., s. 2086; C.S., s. 2498; 1957, c. 1261; 1959, c. 338; 1967, c. 957, ss. 6, 9; 1977, c. 592, s. 2; 2001-62, s. 6.)

    51-7. Penalty for solemnizing without license.

    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. (R.C., c. 68, ss. 6, 13; 1871-2, c. 193, s. 8; Code, s. 1817; Rev., ss. 2087, 3372; C.S., s. 2499; 1953, c. 638, s. 1; 1967, c. 957, s. 5; 1993, c. 539, s. 415; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001-62, s. 7.)



    The lawsuits claim that ministers are subject to criminal penalties if they perform a Religious Marriage between members of the same-sex appears on it's face to be false. Personally I think the suit should be dismissed on the basis of an untrue claim about the operation of the law.


    GS_51-6
    GS_51-7


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 04-30-14 at 05:19 PM.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    >

    The Amendment, which is highly cited in news articles, doesn't say anything about making a same-sex Religious Marriage illegal, the State Constitutional amendment declares what constitutes a Civil Marriage.

    No, actually look at the law...

    51-6 is the operative section of the law making it illegal for a minister to solemnize a marriage without a license, however that statute specifies that it applies to marriages between a man and a woman. 51-7 is the penalty component applied when 51-6 is violated. 51-6 must be operative before 51-7 can be invoked. Since same-sex marriages do not comport with 51-6 I don't see how 51-7 can be applied. A ceremony between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would not violate 51-6.

    51-6. Solemnization without license unlawful.

    No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant. There must be at least two witnesses to the marriage ceremony.

    Whenever a man and woman have been lawfully married in accordance with the laws of the state in which the marriage ceremony took place, and said marriage was performed by a magistrate or some other civil official duly authorized to perform such ceremony, and the parties thereafter wish to confirm their marriage vows before an ordained minister or minister authorized by a church, or in a ceremony recognized by any religious denomination, federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe, nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit such confirmation ceremony; provided, however, that such confirmation ceremony shall not be deemed in law to be a marriage ceremony, such confirmation ceremony shall in no way affect the validity or invalidity of the prior marriage ceremony performed by a civil official, no license for such confirmation ceremony shall be issued by a register of deeds, and no record of such confirmation ceremony may be kept by a register of deeds. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 4; Code, s. 1813; Rev., s. 2086; C.S., s. 2498; 1957, c. 1261; 1959, c. 338; 1967, c. 957, ss. 6, 9; 1977, c. 592, s. 2; 2001-62, s. 6.)

    51-7. Penalty for solemnizing without license.

    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. (R.C., c. 68, ss. 6, 13; 1871-2, c. 193, s. 8; Code, s. 1817; Rev., ss. 2087, 3372; C.S., s. 2499; 1953, c. 638, s. 1; 1967, c. 957, s. 5; 1993, c. 539, s. 415; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2001-62, s. 7.)



    The lawsuits claim that ministers are subject to criminal penalties if they perform a Religious Marriage between members of the same-sex appears on it's face to be false. Personally I think the suit should be dismissed on the basis of an untrue claim about the operation of the law.


    GS_51-6
    GS_51-7


    >>>>
    A fantastic argument, I completely missed it.

  9. #69
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Evil is a privation of good. Procreation is the natural good result of sex, therefore contraception is evil.
    It can be, but the implication is that sex without procreation is bad. For instance, I am unable to procreate. It's fine, I don't see that as making me less of a person. I also don't think it means I shouldn't be able to have sex. Old people that get married usually can't procreate either, and straight women who give blow jobs won't procreate from doing that. Are those things bad?

    I didn't say they weren't.
    You implied that, and now you're trying to weasel out of it. What was your purpose in pointing out that they "aren't priests," if not to denigrate their status as a minister?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  10. #70
    Educator Amandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Last Seen
    06-19-15 @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    905
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    In the eyes of the law, it's the tax exemption status which makes them a church in the first place. Remember, we're talking about the law, not logic, not common sense.

    If you aren't tax exempt, you aren't a church, even if you look like a church, have people you call 'clergy', have regular worship services, and operate under the authority of a Biship, you are still not a church in so far as the law is concerned. If you aren't tax-exempt, you are a business.

    They way I would handle this in JerryLand is reserve all solemnization authority over all marriage licenses to the Justice of the Peace.
    I have proposed that we do something similar myself.

Page 7 of 39 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •