Do you have adblock enabled?
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 not allowing me to officiate at same-sex weddings." Bonus: North Carolina pastor. UltraFark Bonus: Supported by Baptist ministers   ( divider line
    More: Spiffy, North Carolina, opponents of same-sex marriage, religious freedom, United Church of Christ, Unitarians  
•       •       •

6399 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 3:52 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-28 05:10:31 PM  
2 votes:
2014-04-28 04:19:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:28:43 PM  
2 votes:

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

2014-04-28 03:19:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:45:54 PM  
2 votes:
That's the fun part of religion.  It is whatever you say it is.
2014-04-28 02:39:53 PM  
2 votes:

Unintended consequences are a biatch.
2014-04-28 02:33:08 PM  
2 votes:
Paging Team shiat wizard: Please bring your bleating to thread 28393333 for us all to laugh at. Paging Team shiat wizard
2014-04-28 02:30:04 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:55:51 PM  
1 vote:

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.

I would also like to replace government sanctioned marriage with civil unions, which would be open to any combination of consenting adults.
2014-04-28 05:39:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 way

Out of curiosity, does NC have the right to refuse to recognize the marriage of a white woman to a blah man as well?

Sorry to break this to you, but many white women are married to blah men.  What you propose would effectively nullify most WASP unions.
2014-04-28 05:04:43 PM  
1 vote:

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.

Walter Whitford, Bishop of Brechin actually did train pistols on his congregation to make them accept a new prayer book, so the idea of a pulpit-mounted M-2 would warm his dear Anglican heart.
2014-04-28 04:57:54 PM  
1 vote:

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.

You have to look at the rest of the statutes.  You cannot limit your look to Amendment One.  Particularly since N.C.G.S. § 51-1.2 states:  "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."

Take that in conjunction with, 51-1 which states:  "A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry..."

The definition of marriage in the state is limited and a marriage between same-sex couples is not a marriage by definition in North Carolin and therefore the sanctions found in 51-7 do not apply.

It is open and shut.
2014-04-28 03:06:10 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:02:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:02:20 PM  
1 vote:
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."
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.