• 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

And so there we have it. Paleocon has officially declared himself in opposition to the 1st Amendment.

I didn't say that actually.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

To revisit:
Go back to you posting the law, it is illegal for anybody who happens to be authorized to conduct a legal marriage ceremony to conduct a non-legal marriage. The tax exempt status doesnt matter. If that happens to be a minister in his own church, that is violating the 1st Ammendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
It's only a violation of the 1st Amendment if the minister has a right to legally solemnize marriage licenses.

No one has that right. Everywhere that authority exists, it's a privilege subject to the pleasure of the judge authorizing a given person.

Also, it's not that only churches are prevented from performing illegal unions, it's everyone with authority to officiate. Captains of ships registered to this state in international water can't do it either.
 
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.

As a UCCer myself, I've wondered that. I'm glad that they've done it. I think before we just didn't want to devote the resources. I thought about it myself, getting one of those "Universal Life Church" ordinations and performing gay weddings because it would be my religious freedom to do so.

(My friend Anita is a married, gay, UCC minister.)
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

However, this law doesnt affect legal marriages only. It affects purely religous ones as well.
And purely non-religious ones as well.
 
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.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

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.

UCC ministers are, in fact, ministers. Same as Lutherans or Baptists. The UCC isn't one of those "back of the Rolling Stone get ordained classified ad" deals. In fact one of the spiritual progenitors, and one of the churches that "United" into the UCC, was the Congregational Church of the Plymouth Pilgrims (you know, the Thanksgiving ones). The church that I've been a member of reflects this in it's name - Mayflower. (Though I think my wife got them in the divorce).
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

UCC ministers are, in fact, ministers. Same as Lutherans or Baptists. The UCC isn't one of those "back of the Rolling Stone get ordained classified ad" deals. In fact, one of the spiritual progenitors, and one of the churches that "United" into the UCC was the Congregational Church of the Plymouth Pilgrims. The church that I've been a member of reflects this in it's name - Mayflower. (Though I think my wife got them in the divorce).

I didn't say they weren't.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

I didn't say they weren't.

You said they "weren't priests." Which is technically true, but neither is Joel Osteen or Billy Graham.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

You said they "weren't priests." Which is technically true, but neither is Joel Osteen or Billy Graham.

I didn't claim they were.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

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 never seen that presentation before, that a criteria to be found a legitimate religious entity was that it seek and receive eleemosynary status
would you please share with us where that is a legal requirement
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

It's not about my opinion, it's about objective facts.

No it is not FACT that it is evil that is YOUR opinion.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

No it is not FACT that it is evil that is YOUR opinion.

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

I didn't claim they were.

The point is that UCC ministers are every bit as legit as those guys.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

Please show where it is fact.

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

The point is that UCC ministers are every bit as legit as those guys.

I didn't say they weren't.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

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.
 
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:
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.

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

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

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

I take it you believe paleoconservatism to be simply an extreme version of neoconservativism. Paleoconservatism involves a rejection of classical liberalism.

Tell me, do you really think that any medieval government would tolerate a same-sex marriage?

No they wouldn't, which is why Republicans are being hardheaded in their medieval ways. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

To revisit:

It's only a violation of the 1st Amendment if the minister has a right to legally solemnize marriage licenses.

No one has that right. Everywhere that authority exists, it's a privilege subject to the pleasure of the judge authorizing a given person.

Also, it's not that only churches are prevented from performing illegal unions, it's everyone with authority to officiate. Captains of ships registered to this state in international water can't do it either.

No, telling a church they cant do something that is purely religious inside their church is against the First Ammendment.
 
Re: Religious Group Files a Lawsuit Against North Carolina's Gay Marriage Ban

A fantastic argument, I completely missed it.


I got lucky, something smelled not right about the amendments claim so I read the amendment. Didn't do what people claimed it did, so then I dug into the statutes to find where the criminal penalty came from.



>>>>
 
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.

I have no problem with polygamy and think it should be legal.
 
I have no problem with polygamy and think it should be legal.
Even when it involves marrying children? That is what I linked to, which you are now agreeing with.
 
Back
Top Bottom