United Church of Christ Sues North Carolina to Allow Gay Marriage
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 12, 2024, 01:38:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  United Church of Christ Sues North Carolina to Allow Gay Marriage
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: United Church of Christ Sues North Carolina to Allow Gay Marriage  (Read 549 times)
Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,370
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 02, 2014, 11:03:10 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
TIME

Suffice to say, I'm very proud of my church right now.  I couldn't help but shed some tears when I first found out about this.  But I was completely unaware NC was jailing ministers who perform same-sex weddings.

Looks like the 'religious freedom' argument goes both ways, no?
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,925
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2014, 11:56:10 PM »

I'm not for gay marriage, but I can agree that it is a bit ridiculous that ministers can be jailed for performing gay marriage ceremonies in North Carolina.

Hopefully that portion of the state's ban will be struck down. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2014, 01:27:31 AM »

Has anyone actually been prosecuted for this?  The specific statute bans solemnizing a marriage without them having a license, but since North Carolina law doesn't recognize same-sex marriage as being a marriage, I fail to see how that law would apply.  In other words, I think the UCC may end up having their case dismissed due to a lack of standing because of an inability to show how they are being affected here unless there have been some actual prosecutions of ministers performing same-sex ceremonies.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,242
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2014, 09:14:36 AM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2014, 09:26:30 AM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.

The law penalizing performing unlicensed marriages was passed back in the days before SSM was even a topic and back when the concept of there being a distinction between civil and religious marriage was not widely held. It was all marriage.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2014, 09:39:03 AM »

I'm not for gay marriage, but I can agree that it is a bit ridiculous that ministers can be jailed for performing gay marriage ceremonies in North Carolina.

Hopefully that portion of the state's ban will be struck down. 
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,095
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2014, 09:59:47 AM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.
Absolutely.

I've been looking for a new church closer to my home, and the UCC is looking better and better every day (though Scott has warned me that I might not like some of their other political activism).
Logged
Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,370
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2014, 10:11:08 AM »

Has anyone actually been prosecuted for this?  The specific statute bans solemnizing a marriage without them having a license, but since North Carolina law doesn't recognize same-sex marriage as being a marriage, I fail to see how that law would apply.  In other words, I think the UCC may end up having their case dismissed due to a lack of standing because of an inability to show how they are being affected here unless there have been some actual prosecutions of ministers performing same-sex ceremonies.

I can't say.  Whether or not that law is enforced is another question, but I don't see why a court would uphold a law that's clearly unconstitutional regardless of whether it's ever been used against someone or not.  Plus, I don't expect the case to solely be about what ministers are allowed to do in their own churches.  At least, I don't expect such a case to move forward without any regurgitation of arguments used against other state marriage bans and the precedents established by Windsor.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2014, 10:28:15 AM »

Has anyone actually been prosecuted for this?  The specific statute bans solemnizing a marriage without them having a license, but since North Carolina law doesn't recognize same-sex marriage as being a marriage, I fail to see how that law would apply.  In other words, I think the UCC may end up having their case dismissed due to a lack of standing because of an inability to show how they are being affected here unless there have been some actual prosecutions of ministers performing same-sex ceremonies.

I can't say.  Whether or not that law is enforced is another question, but I don't see why a court would uphold a law that's clearly unconstitutional regardless of whether it's ever been used against someone or not.  Plus, I don't expect the case to solely be about what ministers are allowed to do in their own churches.  At least, I don't expect such a case to move forward without any regurgitation of arguments used against other state marriage bans and the precedents established by Windsor.
The law doesn't prohibit ministers from solemnizing same-sex marriages specifically, so it's doubtful that they would be able to apply the same reasoning they did in Windsor.

But yeah, this law is horrible on so many levels.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,242
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2014, 10:32:47 AM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.

The law penalizing performing unlicensed marriages was passed back in the days before SSM was even a topic and back when the concept of there being a distinction between civil and religious marriage was not widely held. It was all marriage.

The point is that this doesn't really matter. This law flies in the face of religious freedom regardless.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2014, 12:34:23 PM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.

The law penalizing performing unlicensed marriages was passed back in the days before SSM was even a topic and back when the concept of there being a distinction between civil and religious marriage was not widely held. It was all marriage.

The point is that this doesn't really matter. This law flies in the face of religious freedom regardless.

Not necessarily.  If the violation would only occur if the preacher were to say as part of the ceremony "By the authority vested in me by the State of North Carolina, I now pronounce you wife and wife." despite there being no marriage license then that wouldn't be a violation of religious freedom.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,242
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 03, 2014, 12:35:27 PM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.

The law penalizing performing unlicensed marriages was passed back in the days before SSM was even a topic and back when the concept of there being a distinction between civil and religious marriage was not widely held. It was all marriage.

The point is that this doesn't really matter. This law flies in the face of religious freedom regardless.

Not necessarily.  If the violation would only occur if the preacher were to say as part of the ceremony "By the authority vested in me by the State of North Carolina, I now pronounce you wife and wife." despite there being no marriage license then that wouldn't be a violation of religious freedom.

That's quite a big "if". Do you have any reason to believe that it is so?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2014, 01:04:02 PM »

How in the flying hell is this law even constitutional? You don't even need to support SSM to realize this is utterly f**ked up.

The law penalizing performing unlicensed marriages was passed back in the days before SSM was even a topic and back when the concept of there being a distinction between civil and religious marriage was not widely held. It was all marriage.

The point is that this doesn't really matter. This law flies in the face of religious freedom regardless.

Not necessarily.  If the violation would only occur if the preacher were to say as part of the ceremony "By the authority vested in me by the State of North Carolina, I now pronounce you wife and wife." despite there being no marriage license then that wouldn't be a violation of religious freedom.

That's quite a big "if". Do you have any reason to believe that it is so?

I have no reason to believe it is not.  I give the relevant statutes below.  51-6 applies only to marrying a man and a woman without a license.  51-7 applies to marrying people who are required to have a license without them having one, but there is no law requiring people of the same gender to have a marriage license in order to wed.  Indeed, as 51-1 and 51-1.2 make clear, the State of North Carolina holds that there is no such thing as same-sex marriage under the laws of that State.

I fail to see how someone could be charged under 51-7 for officiating at a same-sex marriage when other sections of the law make it clear that as far as the law is concerned, there is no such thing as a same sex marriage.  They could get charged under some other section of the law if they fraudulently intimated that the State of North Carolina would be recognizing the same sex marriage when it would not, but that wouldn't prevent a same-sex marriage that was performed without civil solemnization.

§ 51-1.  Requisites of marriage; solemnization.

A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:

(1)       a.         In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and

b.         With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or

(2)        In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.

Marriages solemnized before March 9, 1909, by ministers of the gospel licensed, but not ordained, are validated from their consummation.

§ 51-1.2.  Marriages between persons of the same gender not valid.

Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.

§ 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.

§ 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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 11 queries.