vudukungfu: there is no logical or rational or even legal precedent to have legal marriage for anyone.It is slavery.
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
EvilEgg: I can't wait to see the logic the derpsters will use to say this isn't religious freedom.
Theaetetus: Hell, look at RyansPrivates here. Even while acknowledging that there's a religious ceremony on the one hand and a civil contract on the other, and at least appearing to be pro-marriage equality, he still insists on interchangeably using the terms "wedding" and "marriage" for the former.
Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Magorn: 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 wayOut of curiosity, does NC have the right to refuse to recognize the marriage of a white woman to a blah man as well?
Firethorn: James!: That's the fun part of religion. It is whatever you say it is.I belong to the Church of Saint John Moses Browning. My religion demands a M-2 be mounted to the pulpit of my church. While historical M-2s are preferred, they are sadly unavailable in the quantities necessary for all the adherents of my church, so we need to be able to legally obtain new-build. ;)/While a good line, I must acknowledge that JMB would probably be upset by the above; he was a devoutly religious person in his life. It's a joke, nothing more.
Rincewind53: sprgrss: N.C.G.S § 51-7 only applies to putatively valid marriages. By the vary nature that same-sex marriages are invalid per se a minister could not be held liable under 51-7 for same sex marriages because those are marriages as contemplated by statute.This is likely what the State is going to argue, but it's definitely not clear-cut. By its language, it makes it a crime for "Any Minister... authorized to solemnize a marriage... who marries any couple... without a license." If Amendment One had redefined the term marriage to exclude same-sex marriage, then the argument for the State is much better. However, it didn't do that. It simply stated that "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." Therefore, because a religious marriage of a same-sex couple involves a minister, authorized to solemnize a marriage, marrying a couple, it likely falls under N.C.G.S. § 51-7.I think North Carolina is going to argue along your lines that, practicing the canon of Constitutional avoidance, the law has an implicit "valid marriage" clause. But it's not open and shut at all.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 26 2017 21:08:24
Runtime: 0.406 sec (406 ms)