• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Amandi said:
No, telling a church they cant do something that is purely religious inside their church is against the First Ammendment.
Click to expand...


Then the lawsuit brought by the Church should have made a claim about being able to perform a man-woman Religious Marriage without a Civil License being issues. That would be a valid claim that the law is infringing on their ability to perform a religious ceremony without government intervention.

However the law does not prevent them from performing a Religious Marriage for a same-sex couple so the law in fact does not limit their ability to perform that ceremony.



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

Jerry said:
A fantastic argument, I completely missed it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. Someone will have to explain why the penalty of $200 and/or a Class 1 misdemeanor isn't appropriate for a SSM ceremony. They can't get a license, as required, and can't perform any ceremony without a license. If they do they're subject to fine and charged with a crime.

§ 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.)
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
Even when it involves marrying children? That is what I linked to, which you are now agreeing with.
Click to expand...


It's legal for "children" to get married now, in New Hampshire I believe it's as young as 13 - in North Carolina I think it's as young as 14. That for current different-sex marriages. Now that usually takes (a) parents permission or (b) an affirmative response from a Judge, but they can still get married.



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

rocket88 said:
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?



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?
Click to expand...

Moral evil can only be constituted by an act of free will. Save the last one, the cases you mention involve people physically unable to procreate.

The point was to correct a false statement by another poster.

danarhea said:
No they wouldn't
Click to expand...

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

JasperL said:
I'm not sure about that. Someone will have to explain why the penalty of $200 and/or a Class 1 misdemeanor isn't appropriate for a SSM ceremony. They can't get a license, as required, and can't perform any ceremony without a license. If they do they're subject to fine and charged with a crime.
Click to expand...


Already did. 51-6 is the section of the law that defines the illegal action. 51-7 is the penalty for violating 51-6. To violate 51-6 it must be a minister marrying a man and a woman.

If they perform a Religious Marriage without a Civil License for a man and a man or a woman and a woman, they haven't violated 51-6 so the penalty described under 51-7 does not apply.


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

WorldWatcher said:
Then the lawsuit brought by the Church should have made a claim about being able to perform a man-woman Religious Marriage without a Civil License being issues. That would be a valid claim that the law is infringing on their ability to perform a religious ceremony without government intervention.

However the law does not prevent them from performing a Religious Marriage for a same-sex couple so the law in fact does not limit their ability to perform that ceremony.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that in the law. Where does it say they can perform "Religious marriages?" It says religious officials can confirm non-binding confirmation ceremonies, but the rules are clear these are only OK if the license was already issued by a civil authority. SSM licenses can't be obtained in NC, so even these symbolic ceremonies are illegal for SS couples.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

JasperL said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that in the law. Where does it say they can perform "Religious marriages?" It says religious officials can confirm non-binding confirmation ceremonies, but the rules are clear these are only OK if the license was already issued by a civil authority. SSM licenses can't be obtained in NC, so even these symbolic ceremonies are illegal for SS couples.
Click to expand...


§ 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.​


Since same-sex ceremonies involve a man and a man or a woman and a woman, such ceremonies are not in violation of the law because they are not man and a woman ceremonies.



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

WorldWatcher said:
Already did. 51-6 is the section of the law that defines the illegal action. 51-7 is the penalty for violating 51-6. To violate 51-6 it must be a minister marrying a man and a woman.

If they perform a Religious Marriage without a Civil License for a man and a man or a woman and a woman, they haven't violated 51-6 so the penalty described under 51-7 does not apply.
Click to expand...

But 51-7 says, "any couple." A man and a man is a "couple."

You might be right, but it's far from clear to me that the argument you're making is a slam dunk, the parties suing have spent more than 10 minutes reviewing the law and its history. But if you're right, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs missing something this easy, then the courts will have an easy time with it. We'll see I guess.

BTW, are you capitalizing "Religious Marriage" as a term of art that I'm not aware of, or just to highlight what kind of ceremony you're referring to? If it's a term of art, where are "Religious Marriages" addressed in the NC code?
 
Last edited:
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

JasperL said:
But 51-7 says, "any couple." A man and a man is a "couple."
Click to expand...

51-7 is the penalty for violating 51-6. If intended to stand alone, then 51-6 is redundant. If you look at other common statutes you will find one section of the law defines what is illegal and another provision defines the penalty.

JasperL said:
You might be right, but it's far from clear to me that the argument you're making is a slam dunk, the parties suing have spent more than 10 minutes reviewing the law and its history. But if you're right, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs missing something this easy, then the courts will have an easy time with it. We'll see I guess.
Click to expand...

I'm just noting the plan language of the law.

JasperL said:
BTW, are you capitalizing "Religious Marriage" as a term of art that I'm not aware of, or just to highlight what kind of ceremony you're referring to? If it's a term of art, where are "Religious Marriages" addressed in the NC code?
Click to expand...


I specifically use "Civil Marriage" and "Religious Marriage" to distinguish two completely different things. Religious Marriage is a ceremony conducted by a house of worship or a member of the clergy for such a house. A couple can have a Religious Marriage without a civil component and it is valid in the eyes of the couple and in the eyes of that religious organization. Civil Marriage on the other hand is that entered into as a function of secular law. A couple can have a Civil Marriage without a religious component and it is valid in the eyes of the law but may no comport with religious doctrine of various religious institutions.

Since we are talking about North Carolina law, there is need to discriminate between religious ceremony and secular law.


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

Amandi said:
No, telling a church they cant do something that is purely religious inside their church is against the First Ammendment.
Click to expand...
They're not telling the church they can't do it. They're telling everyone who officiates marriages they can't do it. The church isn't being singled out. If an atheist group so authorized to officiate weddings wanted to give a ceremony to a gay couple, that atheist group couldn't do it either, and for the same reasons under the same law.

All a person or group has to do is drop their authority to officiate a marriage and then they can do whatever they want.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

WorldWatcher said:
51-7 is the penalty for violating 51-6. If intended to stand alone, then 51-6 is redundant. If you look at other common statutes you will find one section of the law defines what is illegal and another provision defines the penalty.
Click to expand...

Right, I read tax law all the time. The thing is a mess IMO, which is why I'm not convinced the answer is clear cut. I read an article (unrelated it turns out) that points out the statute that describes the requirements for a valid marriage doesn't list a requirement for a license. That's in another section, and only made a requirement because it's illegal to have the ceremony without a license.

51-6 refers to the "man and woman" "husband and wife" "man and woman," says when it's OK to do a non-binding ceremony (after the couple gets a civil license). And 51-7 refers to a fine for anyone who "marries" "any couple" but fails to get a license. So is a non-binding church/religious ceremony a 'marriage?" Seems like it would be for a traditional couple, but NOT a SS couple, even though the statute says "any couple?"

I guess it doesn't matter much - this is obviously a suit to make a point, not to clarify or change any significant point of law. I'm all for churches standing up and saying that not ALL of them oppose SSM. If this makes that happen, OK - wouldn't even be the dumbest Federal lawsuit filed this week.
 
danarhea said:
Very interesting lawsuit. So the question is this? If the United Church of Christ, which supports gay marriage, is not allowed to perform gay marriages, then are their first amendment religious freedoms being violated? They have certainly opened up a can of worms with this lawsuit.

Discussion?

Article is here - United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage.

Note to mods - Title would not fit, so I had to take a couple of words out to make it fit.

Second note to mods. The source changed the title, so now it doesn't match at all. LOL.
Click to expand...

The state has the right to control the issuances of marriage licenses.

The ceremonies themselves are entirely up to the church. If the state really is threatening the priests with a misdemeanor strictly for performing the ceremonies, then it has indeed stepped way outside its' bounds.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Jerry said:
They're not telling the church they can't do it. They're telling everyone who officiates marriages they can't do it. The church isn't being singled out. If an atheist group so authorized to officiate weddings wanted to give a ceremony to a gay couple, that atheist group couldn't do it either, and for the same reasons under the same law.

All a person or group has to do is drop their authority to officiate a marriage and then they can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Bad precedent. Flip it, for example.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
If a person presides over a marriage which is plainly invalid by law, they should be punished. UCC ministers (who aren't priests, BTW) are not above the law.
Click to expand...

so you would be comfortable with outlawing full-immersion baptisms? Children have drowned in the Baptismal pools.....public health issue. Join me in banning it.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Sababa said:
so you would be comfortable with outlawing full-immersion baptisms? Children have drowned in the Baptismal pools.....public health issue. Join me in banning it.
Click to expand...

The dangers of the practice in general are minimal. Now if a specific minister acts with objective negligence, then he should be charged accordingly.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
The dangers of the practice in general are minimal. Now if a specific minister acts with objective negligence, then he should be charged accordingly.
Click to expand...

so you say the government can stop gay marriages which hurt no one.....but you won't ban baptism pools that is known to have killed people why?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Evil is a privation of good. Procreation is the natural good result of sex, therefore contraception is evil.

I didn't say they weren't.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion not fact. You attributed something being bad simply because it is different. Let me ask you, do you think black people are evil because they are the opposite color of white people?

When you learn facts, instead of spouting off rhetoric that a 4 year old would, let me know. Let the grown-ups discuss things and you go thump your bible elsewhere.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Sababa said:
so you say the government can stop gay marriages which hurt no one.....but you won't ban baptism pools that is known to have killed people why?
Click to expand...

Gay marriages are harmful to society.

Cars also are known to kill people, but the individual risk is so minimal that they should not be banned.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

TheNextEra said:
That is your opinion not fact. You attributed something being bad simply because it is different. Let me ask you, do you think black people are evil because they are the opposite color of white people?

When you learn facts, instead of spouting off rhetoric that a 4 year old would, let me know. Let the grown-ups discuss things and you go thump your bible elsewhere.
Click to expand...

None of what I said was opinion. And no, there's nothing better about light skin color.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Easter services are not legally recognized in the first place, so the analogy does not hold.



There's no such thing as invalid Church attendance, so the analogy does not hold.
Click to expand...

Precisely. A same-sex wedding ceremony is not legally recognized in the first place in NC. Therefore there is no such thing as an invalid attendance of such a ceremony.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Deuce said:
Precisely. A same-sex wedding ceremony is not legally recognized in the first place in NC. Therefore there is no such thing as an invalid attendance of such a ceremony.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal institution, so it can be invalid.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Gay marriages are harmful to society.

Cars also are known to kill people, but the individual risk is so minimal that they should not be banned.
Click to expand...

Interesting how no conservative has ever managed to establish a tangible, measurable harm to society caused by same-sex marriage. Even the people hired to defend your side of the argument before the Supreme Court of the United States failed to actually identify such harm.

Care to try?
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Paleocon said:
Marriage is a legal institution, so it can be invalid.
Click to expand...

If there is no legal marriage certificate signed, it is not a legal institution.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Deuce said:
Interesting how no conservative has ever managed to establish a tangible, measurable harm to society caused by same-sex marriage. Even the people hired to defend your side of the argument before the Supreme Court of the United States failed to actually identify such harm.

Care to try?
Click to expand...

Gay marriage harms the moral fabric of society because it promotes sodomy.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Deuce said:
If there is no legal marriage certificate signed, it is not a legal institution.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom