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

Amandi · May 1, 2014

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

I believe in making laws that cover the situation and not making blanket laws. If an act isnt herantly wrong then there should not be a law and the laws should focus on the abuse of the act.

DA60 · May 1, 2014

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

Oh Jeez...more religious and LGBT stuff.

My solution?

1) End tax free status for ALL religions...which hopefully leads to a severe weakening of these dinosaur institutions. You want to believe in a 'god'...go ahead. But please stop trying to ram your ideas down everyone's throats.

2) Make it federally legal for any two sane adults to be able to marry each other. Where this utter nonsense about the government being able to dictate who people can marry is beyond me...but probably major religions played/play a big part in it.

Enough of these silly religious/gay marriage debates and let's please just get on with fixing the mess that is becoming America.

(And yeah, yeah...I realize this religious group in this thread are for gay marriage. My point still stands)

Amandi · May 1, 2014

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.

>>>>

It does prevent them from performing a religous marriage. It is illegal for them to perform purely religious marriages. I have been looking for wording of the actual lawsuit but we only get what people are reporting.

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

Jerry said:
You know there's more than one polygamist compound secretly praying for this lawsuit to win....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/04/08/abuse-investigated-at-polygamist-compound-after-400-removed/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/erinlarosa/19-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-flds-polygamists

...and I bet a few Indian reservations would be happy as well.

There should be no laws limiting or punishing religious ceremonies from being performed unless those ceremonies themselves can be shown to be harmful (such as a ceremony requiring a person or animal to be sacrificed or harmed).

I actually am against fully equal legalization of polygamy at this time (there are a lot of bugs to work out with the logistics of multiple spouses in a marriage, if they even could be worked out), but they should still be allowed to have a religious ceremony if they wish. That does not require that any person not be held accountable for not obeying/following age of consent laws (or any laws that prohibit some intimate relationship between people when those laws are constitutionally valid). And this is one reason I think that marriages should only be allowed for those 18 and older in any state, because it would ensure that marriage does not conflict with age of consent laws, because all marriages would happen above the age of consent for all states anyway.

In fact, I feel that any law like this should be challenged on the very fact that it violates the 1st Amendment/Freedom of religion and Freedom of speech laws and that it does so for everyone, gays and straights, couples and those in poly relationships, and others, even some who simply do not wish to get legally married but do wish to be married in the eyes of their god.

Amandi · May 1, 2014

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.

Telling a minister they cant perform a ceremony in their own church is also a violation. Everyone else covered by the law is irrevelant because a violation of Freedom of Religion is what the lawsuit is about.

Zyphlin · May 1, 2014

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

Do I think it's constitutional for a law to require a priest give up their ability to solemnize a marriage if they refused to conduct private marriage ceremonies between two homosexuals? Absolutely not.

Similarly, it's not constitutional to require a priest give up their ability to solemnize a marriage if they did conduct a privaet marriage ceremony between two homosexuals.

There shouldn't be a law concerning what private religious ceremonies a priest does or does not do as long as such ceremonies are not somehow a violation of another law.

I support this constitutional challenge. If a church wishes to privately marry two people of the same sex in a religious ceremony they should absolutely have the ability to do so without having negative reprucussions from the state.

Amandi · May 1, 2014

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

WorldWatcher said:
§ 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.

>>>>

OK, what you have been saying has finally sunk into my slow thinking head. Now I will have to find out the actual wording of the lawsuit to see if it does cover opposite sex weddings as well. However, I still disagree about it being thrown out. I think the judge should make NC change 51-7 to mirror the wording in 51-6.

WorldWatcher · May 1, 2014

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

Amandi said:
It does prevent them from performing a religous marriage. It is illegal for them to perform purely religious marriages. I have been looking for wording of the actual lawsuit but we only get what people are reporting.

It's only illegal (based on actually reading the law) for them to perform a purely religious ceremony for different-sex couples. Still potentially a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it doesn't apply to same-sex couples and therefore isn't a logical basis to attempt to overturn a ban on Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Amandi said:
Telling a minister they cant perform a ceremony in their own church is also a violation. Everyone else covered by the law is irrevelant because a violation of Freedom of Religion is what the lawsuit is about.

Supposedly the law is about attempting to overturn the NC Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex Civil Marriage because it prevents ministers from conducting religious ceremonies for same-sex couples. The problem is...

1. The Constitutional Amendment doesn't do what is claimed in the news stories.

2. Nor does the statutory law do what is claimed in the news stories.

>>>>

Amandi · May 1, 2014

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

WorldWatcher said:
It's only illegal (based on actually reading the law) for them to perform a purely religious ceremony for different-sex couples. Still potentially a violation of the 1st Amendment, but it doesn't apply to same-sex couples and therefore isn't a logical basis to attempt to overturn a ban on Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Supposedly the law is about attempting to overturn the NC Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex Civil Marriage because it prevents ministers from conducting religious ceremonies for same-sex couples. The problem is...

1. The Constitutional Amendment doesn't do what is claimed in the news stories.

2. Nor does the statutory law do what is claimed in the news stories.

>>>>

Yeah, in an above post, I finally caught on to what you were saying.

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

Amandi said:
OK, what you have been saying has finally sunk into my slow thinking head. Now I will have to find out the actual wording of the lawsuit to see if it does cover opposite sex weddings as well. However, I still disagree about it being thrown out. I think the judge should make NC change 51-7 to mirror the wording in 51-6.

The law is wrong either way, whether it covers same sex couples or not. It needs to be challenged. It is still a constitutional violation. And if it does not cover same sex couples, then it just adds to what makes it a constitutional violation, since it would then punish only clergy members that give opposite sex couples a private religious ceremony based solely on their relative sexes/genders.

Amandi · May 1, 2014

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

roguenuke said:
The law is wrong either way, whether it covers same sex couples or not. It needs to be challenged. It is still a constitutional violation. And if it does not cover same sex couples, then it just adds to what makes it a constitutional violation, since it would then punish only clergy members that give opposite sex couples a private religious ceremony based solely on their relative sexes/genders.

I meant IF the lawsuit is only about same sex marriage as it is being implied in the news, then at least the changes I noted should occur. I do hope the actual lawsuit is about every marriage combination and the law is overturned.

rocket88 · May 1, 2014

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

austrianecon said:
Umm.. UCC is from the Evangelical (and) Reformed Church which was founded in 1747 by German and Swiss immigrants. Where their main driver was the Mercerburg Theology movement (I'll get back to that) and Congregational Christian Church started in 1937 in Seattle. Then there were other CC groups created as well.

And the UCC is very small about 900,000 members. Most of the members actually live in the Northeast and ironically, President Obama is a member.

The Mercerburg movement (accepting some Catholic ideas) gained ground after Franklin college and Marshall college joined together in 1849 and became Franklin and Marshall college.

The E&R Church was one of the churches, yes. In 1957, 3 or 4 small denominations "United" into one - thus the name "United Church of Christ." President Obama is, or at least was a member. As am I. I may have some of the history off slightly, but Congregational was one of them (and there have been a few different churches that have claimed that label). Most old "Congregational" churches were independent, or very, very loosely bound together. Some chose not to join the UCC.

WorldWatcher · May 1, 2014

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

Amandi said:
OK, what you have been saying has finally sunk into my slow thinking head. Now I will have to find out the actual wording of the lawsuit to see if it does cover opposite sex weddings as well. However, I still disagree about it being thrown out. I think the judge should make NC change 51-7 to mirror the wording in 51-6.

http://uccfiles.com/pdf/complaint.pdf

>>>>

Paleocon · May 1, 2014

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

roguenuke said:
Marriage is both a legal contract and private relationship. That is a fact.

Which supports what I said.

Deuce said:
You haven't been forced to approve. If people change their minds, that's their business. "Approval of sodomy" is not measurable harm.

North Carolina isn't treating all religions equally. They are fining ministers for holding a private ceremony if the state doesn't approve of that ceremony. You still don't seem to grasp this, it's not a "fraudulent marriage," it's not a legal marriage as far as the state is concerned. Therefore it's just a private ceremony the state is stepping into.

So don't get married, then. If you don't want to, that's your choice. But you still haven't demonstrated any kind of harm caused by two men signing a legal contract with each other.

I didn't claim an individual was forced to approve.

Does the law in North Carolina differentiate between religions?

What on Earth are you talking about?

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

Amandi said:
I meant IF the lawsuit is only about same sex marriage as it is being implied in the news, then at least the changes I noted should occur. I do hope the actual lawsuit is about every marriage combination and the law is overturned.

If it doesn't cover same sex couples, then it will not likely go far. But then I also think that this at least shakes up the whole (horribly ridiculous, yet often used) premise that allowing same sex marriages violates freedom of religion (because it would force clergy to perform same sex weddings, eventhough it doesn't) but rather the opposite is or at least can be true, that by not allowing same sex marriages, it is more likely to violate freedom of religion. In fact, religious beliefs as part of marriage was even mentioned in at least one SCOTUS decision.

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

Paleocon said:
Which supports what I said.

I didn't claim an individual was forced to approve.

Does the law in North Carolina differentiate between religions?

What on Earth are you talking about?

No, you didn't. You implied it was a legal institution only since you are trying to say that it is okay for government to prevent private marriage ceremonies (that have no legal binding to them) be punished or be illegal because the couples involved do not have a "marriage license". The "marriage license" we have today is a contract, not actual permission from the government to be in an intimate relationship, marriage. It is a method for the government to recognize and track who is legally claiming kinship to another, particularly a person who is not blood related to them and who they wish to maintain a specific relationship type with.

Paleocon · May 1, 2014

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

roguenuke said:
No, you didn't. You implied it was a legal institution only since you are trying to say that it is okay for government to prevent private marriage ceremonies (that have no legal binding to them) be punished or be illegal because the couples involved do not have a "marriage license". The "marriage license" we have today is a contract, not actual permission from the government to be in an intimate relationship, marriage. It is a method for the government to recognize and track who is legally claiming kinship to another, particularly a person who is not blood related to them and who they wish to maintain a specific relationship type with.

I never used the word only.

The license is not a contract, it is permission to enter into a specific contract. The marriage is the contract, so performing a marriage without permission is criminal.

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

WorldWatcher said:
http://uccfiles.com/pdf/complaint.pdf

>>>>

But the second part would still apply.

North Carolina Gener
al Statute § 51
-
7 states: “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.”

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

Paleocon said:
I never used the word only.

The license is not a contract, it is permission to enter into a specific contract. The marriage is the contract, so performing a marriage without permission is criminal.

No. It is a contract. At one time in the past, it was a license. In reality, it a contract. It is unconstitutional to require a license to perform a harmless religious ceremony, and that is the point.

WorldWatcher · May 1, 2014

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

roguenuke said:
But the second part would still apply.

North Carolina Gener
al Statute § 51
-
7 states: “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.”

51-7 is the penalty for violating 51-6.

>>>>

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

WorldWatcher said:
51-7 is the penalty for violating 51-6.

>>>>

It is written as a violation all in itself. It says specifically that a person authorized to solemnize marriages in the state (basically any clergyman that is on the state's records as being able to sign marriage licenses) are not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies for any couple that does not have a license. That is the challenge being made. It specifically states "any couple".

Paleocon · May 1, 2014

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

roguenuke said:
No. It is a contract. At one time in the past, it was a license. In reality, it a contract. It is unconstitutional to require a license to perform a harmless religious ceremony, and that is the point.

You're wrong. Simply having a marriage license doesn't allow the tax benefits allowed to married couples, create presumptive paternity, or confer any other benefits of marriage.

roguenuke · May 1, 2014

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

Paleocon said:
You're wrong. Simply having a marriage license doesn't allow the tax benefits allowed to married couples, create presumptive paternity, or confer any other benefits of marriage.

It does once the signatures are put on it and it is filed with the state, just like any other contract, it has to be signed to be valid. You don't need an actual "ceremony", particularly not a religious one, to be married.

JasperL · May 1, 2014

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

roguenuke said:
It is written as a violation all in itself. It says specifically that a person authorized to solemnize marriages in the state (basically any clergyman that is on the state's records as being able to sign marriage licenses) are not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies for any couple that does not have a license. That is the challenge being made. It specifically states "any couple".

I agree with you. At the very least, the coordination between the two is a mess because 51-6 consistently refers to "man and woman" or "husband and wife" while in 51-7 (which doesn't refer directly to 51-6) that convention is dropped for the far broader "any couple," which obviously could cover SS couples. Further, the statutes clearly prohibit "Religious Marriages" (no license) for opposite sex couples, but the argument is that by being silent, and despite the fact that the penalty section refers to "any couple," such non-binding ceremonies without licenses are clearly LEGAL for SS couples.

That could be the right answer, but getting there isn't straightforward to me at all. It looks like the kind of drafting sloppiness judges are asked to make sense of and clear up every day. Besides, the suit is a much broader challenge against the overall state bans against SSM - this is just one part of the suit.

mak2 · May 1, 2014

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

I am a UCC member. I remember many many years ago our Pastor talking about wanting do the first SSM in Indiana. He is long since retired.

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

Amandi

Well-known member

DA60

Amandi

Well-known member

roguenuke

Amandi

Well-known member

Zyphlin

Amandi

Well-known member

WorldWatcher

Amandi

Well-known member

roguenuke

Amandi

Well-known member

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

WorldWatcher

Paleocon

roguenuke

roguenuke

Paleocon

roguenuke

roguenuke

WorldWatcher

roguenuke

Paleocon

roguenuke

JasperL

mak2