If a Church wants to marry a gay couple, and the State won't recognize it...

[rucky]

Isn't that an issue of religious freedom, and a Constitutional matter?

Wouldn't this be a good legal tack to take in challenging these horrible ballot measures?



on edit: Could someone please PM my mother and tell her I would make a lousy Lawyer?

edit edit: Subject line edited "state says no" changed to "state won't recognize"

[MichaelHarris]

1. It's not a marraige issue

it's a "legality of the marriage" issue. The church doesn't get involved in the legality part, the state does. Well, the Mormons and Catholics get involved in the legality part but we know how that turns out.

[HereSince1628]

4. Actually, Mormons do "sealings" that don't require a license

if you've already had what they call a "civil marriage."

[123infinity]

2. No, that's a moral argument (and a pretty good one) but not a legal one.

Some churches have performed same-gender 'weddings' for years but they have no official/secular standing. Whatever Jebus thinks about them isn't yet known. :D

[Lex]

3. Churchs have been marrying gay couples for years (with no legal effect whatsoever).

nt

[yodoobo]

5. The Churches are free to marry whoever they want

even now.

There is absolutely nothing stopping any church in any state from marrying homosexuals. The actual marriage ceremony is simply that, a religious ceremony. For that matter there is also nothing forcing churches to perform any marriage ceremony in any state, including Massachusetts and formerly California. I know of at least one regular couple that could not get married in the Catholic Church because one of the spouses was previously married.

The problem, is the recognition of the ceremony by the state. California had it, but Prop 8 revoked that recognition. California churches are still free to perform the ceremony though.

[Orsino]

31. Not true.

Some Michigan law, for example, as of 1991:
http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/book012.htm

The law provides penalties for the following persons, who are guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail or by a fine, or by both a fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court (up to the maximums noted):

(a) A person who solemnizes a marriage, or attempts to solemnize a marriage, knowing that he or she is not lawfully authorized to do so or that there is a legal impediment to the marriage. MCL 551.15; MSA 25.11.

(b) A person who solemnizes contrary to the provisions of the law (e.g., a prohibited marriage). MCL 551.14; MSA 25.10.

(c) A clergyman or magistrate who solemnizes a marriage without first obtaining a properly issued license from the parties to the marriage. MCL 551.106; MSA 25.37.

(l) A person of sound mind who knowingly marries a person who is insane, an idiot, or who has been confined as a feeble-minded, imbecile, or insane patient, or who has been adjudged insane, feeble-minded, or an imbecile; or a person who advises, aids, abets, causes, procures, or assists in procuring such a marriage. MCL 551.6; MSA 25.6.

The power church to solemnization is recognized, feared and often regulated.

[surrealAmerican]

34. That is one seriously flawed law.

It sounds unconstitutional, and is hard to imagine standing up if challenged.

[Orsino]

35. I'm not aware of any challenges...

...but I agree that some of those referenced laws feel very wrong.

It goes to show the power of religion in America, I guess, in that we feel that churches can't be allowed to marry anyone they want. While this can prevent Waco-type abuses of children and such, I don't think it should ever be used against consenting adults.

[izzie]

6. I always believed that state had the say on this

You can get married at a church because the state said you could and their laws must fall under the state. It is like a state . They can not make laws that over take the the fed. govt.It goes back to pre-constitutional days and under the 'articles' the country just would not work..

[Critters2]

15. Under the 1st Amendment, the state can't interfere with the sacraments and rites of a church.

Churches can marry anyone they want. But there's no guarantee the state will recognize the marriage, though the church will.

[yardwork]

22. And this is exactly what many churches have done throughout the country.

Many churches have married gay couples. Unfortunately, their states won't recognize the legal contract.

The problem is not with the churches. The problem is with the states.

[RedLetterRev]

24. WELLLLLLLLL, it IS a little different in NC and I take exception to the law's

interference in my work. "Solemnization without license" carries a fine, so I must not use the words "marriage" or "matrimony", but I can say "Holy Union" or "Rite of Commitment". I (rather dimly) view it as the state telling me how to practice my religion, although I am wholly Independent, non-denominational, and serve anyone of any (or no) religion at all. I can perform same-sex commitments or unions, but I can actually be fined for using the word "marriage".

Sucks and I thoroughly resent it. There is no amendment to the state constitution in NC, although every session there's a RW buffoon who tries to introduce one to whup-up his "base" of freepcreeps. It never makes it out of committee, or at best dies on the desk of the Speaker. There is, however, a DOMA-like law on the books that "defines" marriage.

For all the wackogelicals' carrying on about the state proposing to tell them how to perform their rituals, they already are defining mine.

[izzie]

36. Right and it is not a legal marriage unless the state gives the OK

That the state does not do the rules is just a thing with some states that is how we get these crazy cults with men having many wives and Social Services paying for the kids. It is one thing to say you have freedom of believe but it can not be against the state which is a circle thing as they can not make any rules etc. It is like Blue laws. When they get to more one sided than the other they will go the way the pop. wants. Most of my life a store was not opened on Sunday until people wanted to shop on Sundays. We will put up paying men with many wives and all these children until we get sick of it and use the laws to stop it as it is not what the state or people want. I am sure the gay thing will be the same. How do you think Jim Crow worked for 100 years when it was against the law?

[endarkenment]

7. welcome to the confusion between license and ceremony

isn't this fun?

How to end the confusion? How to reassure all of the fucked up bigots that their homophobic place of worship will not be forced to conduct any marriage ceremonies they disapprove of?

[rucky]

8. I really do think that they think that.

and nobody from our side is really offering a clarification on the matter.

[lightningandsnow]

9. Totally off-topic, but...

Your sig line totally cracks me up.

:rofl:

[Critters2]

14. Their clergy are telling them this, knowing it's a complete lie.

I can refuse to do a wedding now, for any reason I want, or no reason at all. Yes, even for people who can legally be married. Like the jerks who call on Friday afternoon and want me to do a wedding on Saturday. I turn 'em down, though I could do it legally. No one from the government shows up at my office, telling me I MUST do the wedding.

In the same way, clergy will be free to choose not to marry gay people. They know this. All clergy know this. They're just keeping their followers scared.

[yardwork]

20. All clery know this. All clergy know that the government can never force them to perform weddings.

It's a violation of the Ten Commandments to lie.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Right, I recall when my dad refused to marry a couple because he

thought they were too young and immature, even though they were technically of legal age.

[izzie]

10. I guess it is this, which one thinks is top dog, state or church

When it comes to the legal part of property and children that state laws win the day.I frankly think it is just a contract any how.

[yardwork]

23. See post #14. All clergy already know that the government can't make them marry anybody.

Any clergy person has the right to refuse to marry anybody, for any reason whatsoever. Any church has the right to refuse admission to anyone, for any reason whatsoever.

Nobody in the government is ever going to tell the Catholic Church or the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Southern Baptists or any other church that they have to marry gay people. The government is not allowed to tell churches this and every clergy person knows this already.

If they say differently, they're lying.

[Terran]

11. The states don't regulate who churches can marry

so no, it's not a freedom of religion issue. The Equal Protection Clause of the XIVth Amendment to the US Constitution is really the only thing that will ultimately decide the issue.

[Critters2]

12. I do same-sex weddings now, and I know of at least one other clergy DUer who does.

Those marriages are recognized by the church as legitimate, and are honored. But they are not recognized by the state. I do the weddings EXACTLY as I do straight weddings--in fact, my denomination rewrote our service to remove gender specific language--except that I don't sign a license afterwards.

[yardwork]

19. Thank you for pointing this out.

It's becoming clear that a lot of people genuinely don't understand the difference between a religious ceremony, sometimes called marriage, and the actual legal contract that states call marriage.

Gay people already have access to plenty of religious institutions that will perform a religious ceremony sanctifying our bond with another human being. That's not the problem.

The problem is that gay people aren't allowed to get married in the eyes of the state in almost every part of the United States, and the religious right is actually codifying this barrier into state constitutions all over the country. My state of North Carolina is now the only state in the entire southeast that doesn't have a constitutional amendment specifically outlawing marriage (and civil unions, in case anybody is still confused on that) between same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina, but at least our state constitution hasn't yet been defiled to specify that we'll never be granted that right.

[Bake]

13. What if a religion engages in ritual use of LSD?

Or, say, peyote ... that one has come before SCOTUS in the past.

Bake

[FarCenter]

16. The state marriage license establishes the husband's ownership of the wife and children

And the wife and children's inheiritance of the husband's loot after thy bump him off.

The religious marriage is whatever hot air the reverend clergy and gullible flock believe in.

[mondo joe]

28. The state marriage does not establish anyone's ownership of anyone.

:eyes:

[yardwork]

17. If religious ceremonies equaled legal contracts, we wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage.

Lots of religious institutions marry gay couples. None of these ceremonies count as a legal marriage, however, unless the gay couple happens to live in one of the very few states that allow gay marriages.

I could find a minister to marry me tomorrow, but the state of North Carolina would ignore it.

[RedLetterRev]

25. Tomorrow?

Y'already did, luv, I'm only 45 minutes away. I already promised I would. Alas, alack, as you said, NC wouldn't recognize it. And see my post above :(

[yardwork]

29. I know and I really appreciate it! Thank you for pointing out NC's intereference with religion, too

[dysfunctional press]

18. do states recognize baptism and confirmation...?

:shrug:

just because a church performs an ancient ritual, it doesn't mean that the government is duty bound to abide by it. (see: 1st amendment)

[yardwork]

21. Exactly. Any church can perform a ritual. That doesn't mean it's legally binding.

Likewise, state laws governing marriage don't interfere with anything churches want to do. No law can force any church or minister to marry anybody.

Nobody is trying to make the churches marry gay people.

[dysfunctional press]

26. also- there are people who are legally married- but the catholic church won't recognize it...

same story for a lot of divorces.

[mondo joe]

27. In the US, the marriage *contract* is a purely civil affair, as it should be.

The church has no freedom to make the state enforce or recognize its ceremonies.

[onenote]

30. churches and synogogues perform confirmations, bar and bat mitzvahs, etc.

to mark a young person's passage into "adulthood" for religious purposes. Doesn't mean that they're adults in any legal sense.

[nini]

33. "Could someone please PM my mother and tell her I would make a lousy Lawyer?"

LOL..


Best Edit ever! :D