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

Hicup said:

I'm sorry but if a religious group no longer supports the religious tenants of said group, aren't they just another religion? I'm not sure what these clowns are asking for? If they don't want to be tied to the religious guidelines of their parent religion, then don't? You can branch out brothers and sisters. Make up your own religion.. What's so difficult to understand here? We believe in Jesus, and the United Church of Jesus, but we also believe in gay marriage, so would you like to join us, or are you going to leave us on religious grounds?

Freaking joke.. Why is this even news and why and to whom are they suing? The NC ban doesn't prevent ANY religion from performing gay marriages. It only states that they are not recognized by the state.

Tim-

Click to expand...

If that were the least bit true, there would have been no Reformation, and we would all be Catholic.

roguenuke said:

You are twisting the argument by ignoring key words/phrases within it. You ignore this part "up to the point where the state can show that an actual state interest is being furthered or it violates religious freedom". It is right there in what you quoted.

They need to adopt it not because the UCC wishes them too, but because they have no legitimate interest being furthered by not allowing two people of the same sex from getting married and not allowing two people of the same sex from getting married can be shown to discriminate against some people. This violates the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause.

Click to expand...

I think it is you that is twisting the argument. This case claims a violation of the First Amendment; it's not a simple regurgitation of arguments made elsewhere.

Taylor said:

I think it is you that is twisting the argument. This case claims a violation of the First Amendment; it's not a simple regurgitation of arguments made elsewhere.

Click to expand...

This case claims a violation of several Amendments. The difference here is that they are including a violation of the First Amendment as well.

The specific law though that is violating the First Amendment though in this case isn't technically the law that says that same sex couples cannot get married, but rather the law that says that clergymen can be punished by the government for performing a wedding ceremony for them or anyone else without the couple/people having a marriage license issued by the state.

roguenuke said:

This case claims a violation of several Amendments. The difference here is that they are including a violation of the First Amendment as well.

The specific law though that is violating the First Amendment though in this case isn't technically the law that says that same sex couples cannot get married, but rather the law that says that clergymen can be punished by the government for performing a wedding ceremony for them or anyone else without the couple/people having a marriage license issued by the state.

Click to expand...

The comment of mine that you seemed to take issue with specifically addressed the 1st Amendment claim regarding religious freedom (which is what has garnered all the interest and press). A due process claim is wholly different matter, even if they appear in the same lawsuit.

The section of the law that the plaintiffs claim make it a misdemeanor for clergy to perform wholly religious ceremonies does no such thing. Nobody has ever or will ever be found guilty of such a thing. The law regards the intent to perform a state-recognized marriage without a licence. It is similar to laws found in many other states.

Taylor said:

The comment of mine that you seemed to take issue with specifically addressed the 1st Amendment claim regarding religious freedom (which is what has garnered all the interest and press). A due process claim is wholly different matter, even if they appear in the same lawsuit.

The section of the law that the plaintiffs claim make it a misdemeanor for clergy to perform wholly religious ceremonies does no such thing. Nobody has ever or will ever be found guilty of such a thing. The law regards the intent to perform a state-recognized marriage without a licence. It is similar to laws found in many other states.

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing their whole point of including that into their challenge. It is to correctly point out that the only people having their First Amendment rights violated by laws regarding same sex marriage are those who support it or wish to enter into it and when laws against same sex marriage exist. It aids in the overall argument that those bringing the suit are making, that same sex marriage restrictions violate the Constitution in many ways.

You cannot prove that no one can ever or will ever be found guilty of the law in question or punished under the law in question and the simple fear of having the law in question used against someone is enough to warrant challenging that law when no clear ruling has every been made on that particular law or really even similar laws. There are in fact several states that have similar laws in place, although many are actually aimed against polygamists. But this isn't true for all. I have even seen it argued on here a couple of years ago how the laws in one state (I believe it was South Dakota) said pretty much the same thing and I believe something about how that proves that personal marriages were in fact tied to legal marriages.

roguenuke said:

You seem to be missing their whole point of including that into their challenge. It is to correctly point out that the only people having their First Amendment rights violated by laws regarding same sex marriage are those who support it or wish to enter into it and when laws against same sex marriage exist. It aids in the overall argument that those bringing the suit are making, that same sex marriage restrictions violate the Constitution in many ways.

Click to expand...

I doubt there are any laws in NC regarding same sex marriage, much less laws "against" same sex marriage. The law does define what constitutes a marriage as it applies to the law in the state . Anything outside that definition is not recognized, which would include same sex marriages and any other type of marriage one might be able to think up.

You cannot prove that no one can ever or will ever be found guilty of the law in question or punished under the law in question and the simple fear of having the law in question used against someone is enough to warrant challenging that law when no clear ruling has every been made on that particular law or really even similar laws.

Click to expand...

No, you can't prove anything when it comes to the law, but interpreting the law in the manner the plaintiffs suggest serves no purpose and benefits no-one, regardless of sexual orientation. The probability of this occurring is extremely unlikely, and the probability of a reversal near certain, so all this seems to do is drum up unwarranted fear.

Taylor said:

I doubt there are any laws in NC regarding same sex marriage, much less laws "against" same sex marriage. The law does define what constitutes a marriage as it applies to the law in the state . Anything outside that definition is not recognized, which would include same sex marriages and any other type of marriage one might be able to think up.

No, you can't prove anything when it comes to the law, but interpreting the law in the manner the plaintiffs suggest serves no purpose and benefits no-one, regardless of sexual orientation. The probability of this occurring is extremely unlikely, and the probability of a reversal near certain, so all this seems to do is drum up unwarranted fear.

Click to expand...

The fact that NC does not recognize same sex marriages is a law against same sex marriages, just as not recognizing interracial marriages would be a law against interracial marriages. They cannot get married. That violates the US Constitution because they are not being treated the same by the government (state government) due to their relative genders. If one of them were a different gender, they would be able to marry. That violates equal protection because the government cannot show a legitimate state interest being furthered by such a restriction based on gender.

And laws that violate a clergy's right to perform a ceremony, as the law included in this suit does, are unconstitutional and need to be addressed. In addition, it forces the states to actually look at these laws and determine why they are in place.

roguenuke said:

The fact that NC does not recognize same sex marriages is a law against same sex marriages, just as not recognizing interracial marriages would be a law against interracial marriages.

Click to expand...

Laws against interracial marriages were just that... they made it a criminal offense to join in or conduct an interracial marriage. Absence of a law is not the same thing as a law against.

They cannot get married. That violates the US Constitution because they are not being treated the same by the government (state government) due to their relative genders. If one of them were a different gender, they would be able to marry. That violates equal protection because the government cannot show a legitimate state interest being furthered by such a restriction based on gender.

Click to expand...

They can get married, I'd say it's more a question of state recognition.

And laws that violate a clergy's right to perform a ceremony, as the law included in this suit does, are unconstitutional and need to be addressed. In addition, it forces the states to actually look at these laws and determine why they are in place.

Click to expand...

Pretty much everybody would be against such a law if one existed. The law in question has been in place since before same-sex marriage was an issue, so it's kind of hard to claim that it was enacted for some nefarious purpose. The law was put into place for the same reason that we penalize people for driving without a licence. Why bother to license if there's no consequence for not obtaining one?

Taylor said:

Laws against interracial marriages were just that... they made it a criminal offense to join in or conduct an interracial marriage. Absence of a law is not the same thing as a law against.

Click to expand...

Uh what the hell do you call michigan's voter ban on SSM or NC's prop 1 or texas' ban etc, all struck down by fed courts as unconstitutional?

Taylor said:

They can get married, I'd say it's more a question of state recognition.

Click to expand...

Which prevents the 1000+ rights from taking effect, and certainly any state rights

Taylor said:

Pretty much everybody would be against such a law if one existed. The law in question has been in place since before same-sex marriage was an issue, so it's kind of hard to claim that it was enacted for some nefarious purpose. The law was put into place for the same reason that we penalize people for driving without a licence. Why bother to license if there's no consequence for not obtaining one?

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't and no it wasn't. The proposition was put on the ballot in 2010s (not bothering to look up exactly when just to respond to bs like this, you look it up) entirely as part of the anti gay pandemic that swept over the nation that some in this thread still need to recover from apparently

chromium said:

Uh what the hell do you call michigan's voter ban on SSM or NC's prop 1 or texas' ban etc, all struck down by fed courts as unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

I would call them exactly what they are: laws that define marriage as it pertains to law.

No they wouldn't and no it wasn't. The proposition was put on the ballot in 2010s (not bothering to look up exactly when just to respond to bs like this, you look it up) entirely as part of the anti gay pandemic that swept over the nation that some in this thread still need to recover from apparently

Click to expand...

Don't know what you're blathering about. We were discussing the law that pertains to marriages performed without a license, which has nothing to do with a ballot proposition.

Taylor said:

Don't know what you're blathering about. We were discussing the law that pertains to marriages performed without a license, which has nothing to do with a ballot proposition.

Click to expand...

The law bans the obtaining of those licenses specifically for homosexuals...try to comprehend this at least

chromium said:

The law bans the obtaining of those licenses specifically for homosexuals...try to comprehend this at least

Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is not recognized in NC, so no, you cannot obtain a licence to marry someone of the same sex, no matter your sexual orientation.

Taylor said:

The comment of mine that you seemed to take issue with specifically addressed the 1st Amendment claim regarding religious freedom (which is what has garnered all the interest and press). A due process claim is wholly different matter, even if they appear in the same lawsuit.

The section of the law that the plaintiffs claim make it a misdemeanor for clergy to perform wholly religious ceremonies does no such thing. Nobody has ever or will ever be found guilty of such a thing. The law regards the intent to perform a state-recognized marriage without a licence. It is similar to laws found in many other states.

Click to expand...

Which part of this wording supports what you are saying:

“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 and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.”

Taylor said:

Same sex marriage is not recognized in NC, so no, you cannot obtain a licence to marry someone of the same sex, no matter your sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

Haha, that's like saying interracial marriage bans weren't racist cause you couldn't get a mixed race marriage, even if both people were white. Tell me why 2 heterosexual men would ever marry? *Of course* the law targets homosexuals. Violates equal protection and we've been thru this all before with Loving v Virginia, same exact thing.

That's why the individual voters who are responsible should be sued, frankly, not just the state/fed

Taylor said:

Laws against interracial marriages were just that... they made it a criminal offense to join in or conduct an interracial marriage. Absence of a law is not the same thing as a law against.

They can get married, I'd say it's more a question of state recognition.

Pretty much everybody would be against such a law if one existed. The law in question has been in place since before same-sex marriage was an issue, so it's kind of hard to claim that it was enacted for some nefarious purpose. The law was put into place for the same reason that we penalize people for driving without a licence. Why bother to license if there's no consequence for not obtaining one?

Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong. Some laws against interracial marriage made it a criminal offense to be in an interracial marriage. Others simply act as the same sex marriage bans do now, and not allow people to enter into interracial marriages.

The same is true for two other types of marriage laws that have been struck down by the SCOTUS, those that restricted people from getting married if they were behind in their child support (Zablocki v Redhail) and those that restricted prison inmates from getting married without the permission of the warden (which was normally only given if there was a child involved) (Turner v Safley).

Plus, the SCOTUS in Loving v VA could have ruled just on the constitutionality of criminal laws against interracial couples living together if their intent was to hold the view that the only reason that interracial marriage bans were wrong was because they criminalized interracial couples being together at all. They did not have to strike down laws that merely did not recognize interracial couples.

And state recognition cannot be withheld when it comes to contracts, marriage without the state being able to show that a state interest is furthered by not recognizing such unions/relationships/marriages.

And yet those laws do exist, as is evident by this law being cited in a lawsuit.

The license was originally designed to ensure that only couples that the state approved of did get married. Since that time however, the license has morphed into a contract and a declaration of kinship document (similar to adoption papers or a birth certificate in its base purpose).

Taylor said:

Same sex marriage is not recognized in NC, so no, you cannot obtain a licence to marry someone of the same sex, no matter your sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

Which is why the bans are unconstitutional not based on sexuality being discriminated against, but rather sex/gender. I, as a woman (and assuming I was single rather than currently married), cannot marry a woman in the state I am currently living in. Why? Solely because I am a woman. No other reason. That is gender discrimination. A condition is being put onto a government recognized contract that prevents people from doing something based solely on their gender/sex.

Amandi said:

Which part of this wording supports what you are saying:

“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 and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class I misdemeanor.”

Click to expand...

The law attempts to ensure that the proper licensing laws are followed when performing what the state considers a valid marriage. If you are not attempting to solemnize a marriage under the laws of the state, it does not apply.

chromium said:

Haha, that's like saying interracial marriage bans weren't racist cause you couldn't get a mixed race marriage, even if both people were white. Tell me why 2 heterosexual men would ever marry? *Of course* the law targets homosexuals. Violates equal protection and we've been thru this all before with Loving v Virginia, same exact thing.

That's why the individual voters who are responsible should be sued, frankly, not just the state/fed

Click to expand...

Same exact thing. Just like blood and mercury are the same exact thing because they're both liquids.

Taylor said:

The law attempts to ensure that the proper licensing laws are followed when performing what the state considers a valid marriage. If you are not attempting to solemnize a marriage under the laws of the state, it does not apply.

Click to expand...

The state has to be able to justify any restrictions it makes within their laws (particularly when challenged) by showing those restrictions further a legitimate state interest. What state interest exactly is being furthered by not allowing same sex couples to marry? (Remember, the reasoning has to be able to apply to same sex couples only, because if any opposite sex couples fit with the reasoning, yet are not excluded also from legal marriage recognition, then the reasoning is not sound legally.)

roguenuke said:

Actually, you are wrong. Some laws against interracial marriage made it a criminal offense to be in an interracial marriage. Others simply act as the same sex marriage bans do now, and not allow people to enter into interracial marriages

Click to expand...

Am I? Can you provide some examples of states in which the latter was true?

Taylor said:

Same exact thing. Just like blood and mercury are the same exact thing because they're both liquids.

Click to expand...

So if it's such an essential counterpoint that technically heterosexuals can't marry same sex either, go out there and marry the same sex and prove it. Oh, you don't want to? Why is that i wonder...

It doesn't matter anyway. Cause either way you look at it, people can marry opposite sex but not same sex. That's equal protection violation. Or heteros can marry but not homosexuals. Again equal protection

Or just look at the ****ing motive which is "screw homos"

Taylor said:

Am I? Can you provide some examples of states in which the latter was true?

Click to expand...

In fact, the laws themselves were not what people were being charged with when it came to interracial marriages. The laws used to charge interracial couples usually were fornication laws or laws against cohabitation, not laws directly saying anything about interracial couples (but they would be violating those laws in any state where they were in that did not recognize interracial marriages). They were caught by those other laws, which weren't even declared themselves as unconstitutional. The fact that the Lovings (interracial couples) could not get married legally was used basically as a defense against why it was wrong to charge them with those laws. But it ended up taking down the interracial marriage bans, allowing them to be able to marry rather than taking down the criminal statutes against fornication or cohabitation.

Actually, I was a little wrong here, but in a way that goes more toward proving my point. The SCOTUS did declare the application at least of certain cohabitation laws unconstitutional when done against interracial couples, however, this was done prior to Loving v Virginia. It was McLaughlin v. Florida.

Interestingly enough, looking at the timelines for interracial marriages and same sex marriages, we are in fact going a little slower when it comes to same sex marriages than they did with interracial marriages (at least to a small degree). Over 90% of whites believed that there should be laws against interracial marriage in 1958. Just ten years later, all laws that banned interracial marriage were struck down by one of the most broad decisions in history (looking at the fact that normally the SCOTUS rules pretty narrowly). The SCOTUS in the case of Loving could have simply chosen to just cover criminal laws regarding interracial marriage, or broadened their ruling from McLaughlin a bit, without actually forcing the states to actually issue marriages licenses to and/or recognize interracial marriages. Instead, they took down interracial marriage bans completely.

Now, however, we have also taken down those bans on private consensual sex (for the most part, although they haven't actually been challenged, the ruling in Lawrence means that very few, if any judges/prosecutors would be willing to charge someone for fornication or even adultery without some other rather serious charges to accompany them). This means that there is no reason left for justifying laws against same sex couples getting married/being legally recognized by the state as married. It is similar to the challenges made with Zablocki and Turner, where no criminal penalty came with the exclusion of certain people from marriage, but the restriction was deemed to not further any legitimate state interest as required per the 14th Amendment. Heck, the biggest difference is in fact that same sex marriage bans affect far more people (mainly due to being in place in more places) than the laws challenged in both Zablocki and Turner.

Taylor said:

The law attempts to ensure that the proper licensing laws are followed when performing what the state considers a valid marriage. If you are not attempting to solemnize a marriage under the laws of the state, it does not apply.

Click to expand...

That is not how it is worded. They should have worded the law that way if it is what they meant.

Taylor said:

The law attempts to ensure that the proper licensing laws are followed when performing what the state considers a valid marriage. If you are not attempting to solemnize a marriage under the laws of the state, it does not apply.

Click to expand...

The problem is in the previous section, the language is clear about 'man and woman' or 'husband and wife' but the penalty section you referenced says "any couple" and "marries." Well, any couple is obviously broad enough to include same sex couples, and 'marries' isn't defined. In the previous section the law says when ceremonial 'marriages' can happen - only after a license is obtained.

The bottom line is the drafting of this whole section is a mess, and it's far from clear that the laws against a non-binding church 'marriage' of SS couples by someone authorized to perform binding marriage ceremonies is legal. It certainly would NOT be legal for man/woman ceremonies, but you're asserting that it would be legal for same sex couples by omission, and despite the term "any couple."