If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Pastor: "Yer violating my religious freedom...by not allowing me to officiate at same-sex weddings." Bonus: North Carolina pastor. UltraFark Bonus: Supported by Baptist ministers   (rawstory.com) divider line 270
    More: Spiffy, North Carolina, opponents of same-sex marriage, religious freedom, United Church of Christ, Unitarians  
•       •       •

6327 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 3:52 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 02:30:04 PM
I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

 If I was them I would just call the liberals hypocrites for wanting to defend this religious freedom, but not my bigoted kind. Then the argument would be about them defending themselves.
 
2014-04-28 02:33:08 PM
Paging Team shiat wizard: Please bring your bleating to thread 28393333 for us all to laugh at. Paging Team shiat wizard
 
2014-04-28 02:39:53 PM
Ahhhhhahahahahahahahaha!

Unintended consequences are a biatch.
 
2014-04-28 02:43:38 PM
That's so crazy, it just might work.
 
2014-04-28 02:45:54 PM
That's the fun part of religion.  It is whatever you say it is.
 
2014-04-28 02:48:09 PM

EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.


Easy: marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one. These clergypeople have the right to perform same sex Weddings all they want, just as they have the right to give Communion, baptize people, perform exorcisms, etc. That doesn't mean that the government has to give any special privileges or immunities to people who have been baptized, exorcized, commune'd, or wed.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean the government has a rational reason to deny  marriage rights to a subset of the population, but that's a due process/equal protection argument, not a free exercise argument. This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.
 
2014-04-28 02:49:36 PM
It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.
 
2014-04-28 02:50:11 PM

Theaetetus: This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.


I think you and I are in agreement about 95% of the time.
 
2014-04-28 02:56:48 PM

Rincewind53: Theaetetus: This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.

I think you and I are in agreement about 95% of the time.


The remaining 5% of the time is when you're wrong. ;)

There is one slight wrinkle here - there's another NC law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to perform a marriage ceremony for someone without a marriage license. But I'd argue that  that is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment, just as it would be clearly unconstitutional to make it illegal to perform a baptism, and that that's a separate issue.
 
2014-04-28 02:58:35 PM
Rincewind53:
I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

In a way, this whole article is a hypocrisy trap for liberals: these clergy are advocating for gay marriage, so we should go along with whatever means they use to get there, regardless of the fact that it may be directly opposite to our arguments elsewhere.
 
2014-04-28 03:02:20 PM
Ah, so looking a bit more carefully at the complaint (pdf), the plaintiffs divide themselves into three different categories:
1. "Religious Denomination Plaintiff." - the denomination itself (the The General Synod of the United Church of Christ)
2. "Clergy Plaintiffs" and "Minister Plaintiffs" - A collection of named plaintiffs from a number of different religions, including UCC, UUC, Judaism, Lutheranism, and others.
3. "Couples Plaintiffs" - Actual same-sex couples.

Looking at their actual legal argument, they're doing some contorted legal argumentation to say that they're actually forbidden from performing marriages. The North Carolina marriage statute says that a "valid and sufficient marriage is created" when the couple freely consent to the union "n the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate" and "[w]ith the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife."

They then take this definition and apply it to North Carolina Gen. Stat. §51-7, which says that ""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 [is guilty of a misdemeanor]."

Therefore, they are arguing (and it does seem like it's not as bad an argument as first seemed) that if they perform a same sex marriage, they cannot legally give that couple a marriage license, and therefore would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

They're basing their entire First Amendment claim on this aspect; that by their reading of the statute, they are barred from even performing religious marriages. They've also tacked on a general  Windsor 14th Amendment attack on behalf of the "Couples Plaintiffs."
 
2014-04-28 03:02:27 PM

EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.


"They aren't real Christians" is my guess
 
2014-04-28 03:04:18 PM

Theaetetus: There is one slight wrinkle here - there's another NC law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to perform a marriage ceremony for someone without a marriage license. But I'd argue that  that is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment, just as it would be clearly unconstitutional to make it illegal to perform a baptism, and that that's a separate issue


Yep, beat me to it. I'm in agreement that that  particular law is facially unconstitutional, which means that if anything gets struck down, it's that law, not the general prohibition of same-sex marriage. But the Couples Plaintiffs might succeed, just as every other post-Windsor attack has succeeded in District Court.

Theaetetus: The remaining 5% of the time is when you're wrong. ;)


I'm sure it's happened... once or twice.
 
2014-04-28 03:06:10 PM
Yeah, this is dumb.  Having the state recognize your marriage and provide benefits is completely separate from attending a ceremony with flowers and cake.  You're still allowed to do that.

/ Or, let's go back to my "don't recognize any marraiges" rant.  The great Agnostico says you're violating my religious freedom by not allowing me to claim myself as my own spouse for tax purposes.
 
2014-04-28 03:15:47 PM

Theaetetus: There is one slight wrinkle here - there's another NC law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to perform a marriage ceremony for someone without a marriage license. But I'd argue that  that is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment, just as it would be clearly unconstitutional to make it illegal to perform a baptism, and that that's a separate issue.


Yes, I thought the lawsuit sounded specious until I read the petition itself and saw the actual law in question (for those of you who haven't looked, it's linked in the article - go to paragraph 91 on page 18 of the lawsuit). I get that you don't want qualified celebrants taking peoples money or ripping them off for performing marriage ceremonies that have no legal effect when the people getting married think everything is okay, but as drafted, this makes the mere performance of the ceremony in even a religious context a crime even if the people getting "married" know it won't have any real legal effect under state law. And that should clearly fail any First Amendment analysis. It's one thing to do a ceremony and tell some unsuspecting couple they are married when they really aren't, but quite another to tell people they can't have a religious ceremony to solemnize their union as long as they know it's not legally binding on the state (even though I think those unions should be legal, but that's another issue altogether).
 
2014-04-28 03:19:59 PM

EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.


Man, when you've lost the North Carolina Baptist ministers, just let it go, because it is long gone.
 
2014-04-28 03:24:46 PM
These guys are my heros!
 
2014-04-28 03:28:43 PM

Pincy: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.


"They aren't real Christians" is my guess


Chinos?
 
2014-04-28 03:32:58 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-28 03:53:12 PM

serial_crusher: Yeah, this is dumb.  Having the state recognize your marriage and provide benefits is completely separate from attending a ceremony with flowers and cake.  You're still allowed to do that.

/ Or, let's go back to my "don't recognize any marraiges" rant.  The great Agnostico says you're violating my religious freedom by not allowing me to claim myself as my own spouse for tax purposes.


You'll certainly get more sex that way.
 
2014-04-28 03:54:03 PM

Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.


Read again. the law makes it a criminal offense to officiate at any wedding for which a valid marriage license has not been obtained.    That is, in effect telling clergy when and how they may bestow religious sacraments .  Certainly NC has rights,(for now anyway) to refuse to civilly enroll any marriage it finds objectionable under its laws.  But to make it a crime to officiate at such a wedding stomps on the Free Exercise, Free speech and freedom of association clauses of Amendment 1 in a very big way
 
2014-04-28 03:58:54 PM

Theaetetus: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

Easy: marriage is a secular institution, not a religious one. These clergypeople have the right to perform same sex Weddings all they want, just as they have the right to give Communion, baptize people, perform exorcisms, etc. That doesn't mean that the government has to give any special privileges or immunities to people who have been baptized, exorcized, commune'd, or wed.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean the government has a rational reason to deny  marriage rights to a subset of the population, but that's a due process/equal protection argument, not a free exercise argument. This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.


But how can it be supportable for the state to forbid under penalty of criminal law, officiating at a ceremony if the state hasn't first issued a license for the secular equivalent of the status that cermony religiously confers?
 
2014-04-28 03:59:21 PM

Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.


If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?
 
2014-04-28 04:00:03 PM

Theaetetus: Rincewind53: Theaetetus: This complaint should accordingly be dismissed.

I think you and I are in agreement about 95% of the time.

The remaining 5% of the time is when you're wrong. ;)

There is one slight wrinkle here - there's another NC law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to perform a marriage ceremony for someone without a marriage license. But I'd argue that  that is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment, just as it would be clearly unconstitutional to make it illegal to perform a baptism, and that that's a separate issue.


That might be the rub. :)
 
2014-04-28 04:00:16 PM
I wondered when this would happen.
 
2014-04-28 04:00:43 PM

EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

 If I was them I would just call the liberals hypocrites for wanting to defend this religious freedom, but not my bigoted kind. Then the argument would be about them defending themselves.


Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of NC Values Coalition, which helped secure the constitutional amendment two years ago, said North Carolina residents overwhlemingly approved the ban on same-sex marriage, and federal judges shouldn't ignore the will of the people.
"It's both ironic and sad that an entire religious denomination and its clergy who purport holding to Christian teachings on marriage would look to the courts to justify their errant beliefs," Fitzgerald said in a statement. "These individuals are simply revisionists that distort the teaching of scripture to justify sexual revolution, not marital sanctity."
 
2014-04-28 04:01:02 PM
I am not surprised the UCC is leading this charge. They tend to be on the right side of things.

/Individual UCC churches have been arguing that homosexuality wasn't a sin since the seventies, which was not exactly a popular sentiment for the time...
 
2014-04-28 04:02:47 PM
Dey terk a derr!
 
2014-04-28 04:03:16 PM

James!: That's the fun part of religion.  It is whatever you say it is.


Kind of like interpreting the Constitution.


/It's scary dangerous to pass any law prohibiting any persons rights, whether you agree with them or not.
 
2014-04-28 04:04:31 PM

Magorn: Read again. the law makes it a criminal offense to officiate at any wedding for which a valid marriage license has not been obtained.    That is, in effect telling clergy when and how they may bestow religious sacraments .  Certainly NC has rights,(for now anyway) to refuse to civilly enroll any marriage it finds objectionable under its laws.  But to make it a crime to officiate at such a wedding stomps on the Free Exercise, Free speech and freedom of association clauses of Amendment 1 in a very big way


Read a little further down, I clarified my position.

king_nacho: If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?


No, why? The state is the one who gets to decide what "marriage" is, not a priest. If a priest holds a marriage ceremony for two dogs, why should the State be forced to recognize that?
 
2014-04-28 04:04:53 PM
Theaetetus:
In a way, this whole article is a hypocrisy trap for liberals: these clergy are advocating for gay marriage, so we should go along with whatever means they use to get there, regardless of the fact that it may be directly opposite to our arguments elsewhere.

It is a strawman to declare that "liberals" are anti-religion or against religious freedom. The majority of liberals in the US still identify as religious.

It is true that most liberals do understand the value of separating church and state and understand that religious-based laws are against the constitution.
 
2014-04-28 04:05:25 PM
For the record, those are probably American Baptist Convention ministers/congregations.

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

Those are the liberal brothers. Then you've got the Southern Baptist Convetion, and then you've got the churches too conservative for the SBC, then you've got the Westboros of the world.
 
2014-04-28 04:06:53 PM
Well, the minister in the picture does look a little bit gay. NTTAWWT. Just sayin'.
 
2014-04-28 04:09:43 PM
Well, where do we limit what we call religious practice? Sacramental drugs, animal sacrifice, ritual rape of virgins, pedophilia? You might wind up banning Catholicism, which I understand is approved by a chunk of the southern preachers.
 
2014-04-28 04:12:09 PM
They get paid to perform weddings

NTTAWWT, and if that's the motivation to take a stand for something right, so be it.
 
2014-04-28 04:13:27 PM

Rincewind53: Magorn: Read again. the law makes it a criminal offense to officiate at any wedding for which a valid marriage license has not been obtained.    That is, in effect telling clergy when and how they may bestow religious sacraments .  Certainly NC has rights,(for now anyway) to refuse to civilly enroll any marriage it finds objectionable under its laws.  But to make it a crime to officiate at such a wedding stomps on the Free Exercise, Free speech and freedom of association clauses of Amendment 1 in a very big way

Read a little further down, I clarified my position.

king_nacho: If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?

No, why? The state is the one who gets to decide what "marriage" is, not a priest. If a priest holds a marriage ceremony for two dogs, why should the State be forced to recognize that?


Because there is an explicit constitutional prohibition on the state infringing on the rights of people to practice their religion.   North Carolina has on it's books a law criminalizing a religious ceremony.

Why do you hate the Constitution?
 
2014-04-28 04:13:49 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: There is one slight wrinkle here - there's another NC law that makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to perform a marriage ceremony for someone without a marriage license. But I'd argue that  that is clearly unconstitutional under the first amendment, just as it would be clearly unconstitutional to make it illegal to perform a baptism, and that that's a separate issue.

Yes, I thought the lawsuit sounded specious until I read the petition itself and saw the actual law in question (for those of you who haven't looked, it's linked in the article - go to paragraph 91 on page 18 of the lawsuit). I get that you don't want qualified celebrants taking peoples money or ripping them off for performing marriage ceremonies that have no legal effect when the people getting married think everything is okay, but as drafted, this makes the mere performance of the ceremony in even a religious context a crime even if the people getting "married" know it won't have any real legal effect under state law. And that should clearly fail any First Amendment analysis. It's one thing to do a ceremony and tell some unsuspecting couple they are married when they really aren't, but quite another to tell people they can't have a religious ceremony to solemnize their union as long as they know it's not legally binding on the state (even though I think those unions should be legal, but that's another issue altogether).


ok, that makes more sense then.  TFA starts off with "The addition to the North Carolina Constitution prohibited the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages or civil unions." which is apparently irrelevant to the case.  Bad reporting.

Yeah, no reason to prevent anybody from performing ceremonies.  Maybe have some kind of truth in advertising law that says somebody performing a "marriage ceremony" has to disclose if/when the ceremony in question doesn't constitute a legally recognized marriage.
 
2014-04-28 04:13:59 PM

king_nacho: Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?


What if some minister wanted to marry two siblings? Or a polygamous marriage? Or an arranged marriage involving young children?
 
2014-04-28 04:15:54 PM

Nabb1: king_nacho: Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?

What if some minister wanted to marry two siblings? Or a polygamous marriage? Or an arranged marriage involving young children?


And, BTW, I am NOT comparing same-sex marriage to those. Just pointing out that the state doesn't have to recognize marriages solely based on the fact there was a religious ceremony.
 
2014-04-28 04:16:40 PM
there is no logical or rational or even legal precedent to have legal marriage for anyone.
It is slavery.
 
2014-04-28 04:16:49 PM

JusticeandIndependence: EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.

 If I was them I would just call the liberals hypocrites for wanting to defend this religious freedom, but not my bigoted kind. Then the argument would be about them defending themselves.

Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of NC Values Coalition, which helped secure the constitutional amendment two years ago, said North Carolina residents overwhlemingly approved the ban on same-sex marriage, and federal judges shouldn't ignore the will of the people.
"It's both ironic and sad that an entire religious denomination and its clergy who purport holding to Christian teachings on marriage would look to the courts to justify their errant beliefs," Fitzgerald said in a statement. "These individuals are simply revisionists that distort the teaching of scripture to justify sexual revolution, not marital sanctity."


So basically, in her opinion, their religion is invalid and doesn't deserve to be protected by the First Amendment. Too bad the government is constitutionally forbidden from determining what religions deserve protection per US v. Ballard.
 
2014-04-28 04:19:05 PM

vudukungfu: there is no logical or rational or even legal precedent to have legal marriage for anyone.
It is slavery.


She raked you over the coals, didn't she?
 
2014-04-28 04:20:20 PM

Rincewind53: Magorn: Read again. the law makes it a criminal offense to officiate at any wedding for which a valid marriage license has not been obtained.    That is, in effect telling clergy when and how they may bestow religious sacraments .  Certainly NC has rights,(for now anyway) to refuse to civilly enroll any marriage it finds objectionable under its laws.  But to make it a crime to officiate at such a wedding stomps on the Free Exercise, Free speech and freedom of association clauses of Amendment 1 in a very big way

Read a little further down, I clarified my position.

king_nacho: If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?

No, why? The state is the one who gets to decide what "marriage" is, not a priest. If a priest holds a marriage ceremony for two dogs, why should the State be forced to recognize that?


Yes, I think the state should recognize the marriage of two male dogs in the same way it recognizes the marriage of a male, and a female dog.

If you rely on clergy to perform marriages, then what allows you to limit what types of marriages those clergy can perform?

It seems that it is illegal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, and it is illegal to perform a marriage without a license, so the clergy are only allowed to perform state sanctioned marriages, which seems to be restricting the religion practicing their beliefs.
 
2014-04-28 04:20:29 PM

Rent Party: Because there is an explicit constitutional prohibition on the state infringing on the rights of people to practice their religion.   North Carolina has on it's books a law criminalizing a religious ceremony.

Why do you hate the Constitution?


See above. Those are two different issues.

We are all in agreement that the law making it a misdemeanor to perform a marriage is likely facially unconstitutional.

However, the question I was responding to was whether there is a First Amendment rightto have the state  recognize a marriage done by a priest (i.e., declare it a legal marriage, with all the attendant rights and benefits). That is an entirely different issue, and you'd be very hard-pressed to find any support for the argument that the State is discriminating on the basis of religion by not automatically recognizing all marriages performed by a priest.

tl;dr version: making performing a religious marriage illegal = unconstitutional, refusing to recognize a religious marriage = constitutional.
 
2014-04-28 04:22:44 PM

wildcardjack: Well, where do we limit what we call religious practice? Sacramental drugs, animal sacrifice, ritual rape of virgins, pedophilia? You might wind up banning Catholicism, which I understand is approved by a chunk of the southern preachers.


Consenting adults, where no harm is brought to the participants for the purpose of the ritual.
 
2014-04-28 04:24:00 PM
Huh.  Christians acting both christian and Christ-like.
 
2014-04-28 04:24:18 PM

king_nacho: Rincewind53: Magorn: Read again. the law makes it a criminal offense to officiate at any wedding for which a valid marriage license has not been obtained.    That is, in effect telling clergy when and how they may bestow religious sacraments .  Certainly NC has rights,(for now anyway) to refuse to civilly enroll any marriage it finds objectionable under its laws.  But to make it a crime to officiate at such a wedding stomps on the Free Exercise, Free speech and freedom of association clauses of Amendment 1 in a very big way

Read a little further down, I clarified my position.

king_nacho: If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?

No, why? The state is the one who gets to decide what "marriage" is, not a priest. If a priest holds a marriage ceremony for two dogs, why should the State be forced to recognize that?

Yes, I think the state should recognize the marriage of two male dogs in the same way it recognizes the marriage of a male, and a female dog.

If you rely on clergy to perform marriages, then what allows you to limit what types of marriages those clergy can perform?

It seems that it is illegal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, and it is illegal to perform a marriage without a license, so the clergy are only allowed to perform state sanctioned marriages, which seems to be restricting the religion practicing their beliefs.


Marriages as recognized by the law have nothing to do with religion. The people have to get a license and the perform the ceremony before a qualified celebrant who can be, but does not have to be, a religious figure. Judges, justices of the peace, and so on, can and do perform civil ceremonies. Basically, the ceremony requires a celebrant, the people getting married, a witness, and some paperwork.
 
2014-04-28 04:24:20 PM

king_nacho: It seems that it is illegal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, and it is illegal to perform a marriage without a license, so the clergy are only allowed to perform state sanctioned marriages, which seems to be restricting the religion practicing their beliefs.


Yes, but that is  entirely different than having a First Amendment right to have the state recognize any religious marriage.

The State is the one that sets the rule about what is, and what isn't, a legal marriage. Religious groups should be free to perform a religious marriage for whomever they want (which is why the statute making it a misdemeanor to perform a marriage without a license is likely unconstitutional), but they don't have a free exercise right to have any of their religious marriages declared legal marriages.

There are religious groups in the United States that perform marriages between 13-year-olds and adults. Do you think that these groups have a First Amendment right to have the State recognize that marriage? No.
 
2014-04-28 04:25:15 PM

Rincewind53: Rent Party: Because there is an explicit constitutional prohibition on the state infringing on the rights of people to practice their religion.   North Carolina has on it's books a law criminalizing a religious ceremony.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

See above. Those are two different issues.


It is the issue under discussion.  Hypothetical situations exist in some other, alternate universe.  TFA is about the state criminalizing a common religious ceremony.


However, the question I was responding to was whether there is a First Amendment rightto have the state  recognize a marriage done by a priest (i.e., declare it a legal marriage, with all the attendant rights and benefits). That is an entirely different issue, and you'd be very hard-pressed to find any support for the argument that the State is discriminating on the basis of religion by not automatically recognizing all marriages performed by a priest.

There are other tests the state can use.  Consent is a big one, and it tosses most of the turtle marriage arguments out the window.  Two dogs can not legally consent to contract.  Neither can a child.    There is no need at all to bring religion into those cases.
 
2014-04-28 04:27:20 PM

Nabb1: king_nacho: Rincewind53: It's a nice idea, but I can't see it working. The North Carolina constitution only bans  state recognitionof gay marriage. I'd have to read the lawsuit, but it's a bit a stretch to say that it would ban a church that wanted to perform a gay marriage from doing so. It just wouldn't recognize that marriage legally.

I honestly don't think there's any good argument to be made that priests have a First Amendment right to have the state recognize marriages they perform.

If the state recognizes some marriages performed by that priest, shouldn't they be forced to recognize all?

What if some minister wanted to marry two siblings? Or a polygamous marriage? Or an arranged marriage involving young children?


Arranged marriage involving young children involves children, so its out.

The others are much harder to deal with, if you had two adult siblings, there is nothing really stopping that today, they don't DNA test, and if you come from out of town, and have changed your name(s) then there really isn't any way to detect it. As for polygamy, I think it is hard to ban that when you have consenting members or group.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report