The Church is a tad bit regressive.

And polygamy has also been taken out of consideration. But I have heard both of these on RW radio already.

No one HAS to perform any marriage. A rabbi can refuse to officiate for two Catholics, a Catholic priest can refuse to officiate for two protestants getting married.

All this means is that the civil law of marriage now includes EVERYONE, just as it should

.

If anybody thought that SCOTUS making their ruling the other day would decisively stop all of the right-wing/Republican nonsense about marriage equality, they were sorely mistaken. SCOTUS threw down the gauntlet and told us that what the Constitution says about marriage equality but we need to brace for the wave of right-wing stupidity/hypocrisy/craziness that is just beginning, unfortunately. *sigh*

just a stunt to get viewers because news is so competitive. But I do think refusing ministers should be sued. It's really no different that the cake bakers. If they want to push their religion, then push the law (now stronger) into their face. They now have no excuse.

nor should it. Ministers are free to decline performing a marriage ceremony, as they have always been (thus you probably won't be getting married in the Catholic Church if you're divorced, or by a Rabbi if you're not Jewish.) The reason cake bakers, etc. can be sued is because they serve no ministerial function.

The church refusal is just a loophole. People get married in churches. Refusal amounts to discrimination based on some fairy tale book that has no relevance today.

Not going down that road. People need to wake up and get away from religion anyway. Why would someone want to get married in a church "based on a fairy tale book" if they don't believe in it?????

So if a baker decides to insult me for what I am, then I should go somewhere else? I'm supposed to waste my time, not to mention blatant discrimination couched in the exact same religious mumbo jumbo?

What about the boy scouts? The people who challenged that should have not challenged it? I guess they should have went crawling home with their tail between their legs when gays were denied admittance.

I am now replying to your edit. Some people DO want to marry in a church. If they are part of a church or like a church, then why should they be denied? Should somebody go all over town to find a baker? I guess everyone else can join the scouts as long as you're born the right way.

Most churches you can't get married in unless you belong to the congregation and the religion. So you kinda have to believe what said religion teaches. Really don't get what you are going on about or if you are trying to stir shit up and take that next step towards state interference in religion. Not sure why anyone would be a member of a religion that doesn't accept them. "Hey, I'm a Jew but I want to get married in this beautiful Mosque!"

being a member of a church that does not accept them? People are members of churches. Many eventually get married after they become members. Why should the gay member be denied a service while the straight member is given a service?

And it's not state interference when you are enforcing laws that prohibit discrimination. People go into a bakery that is part of their community. Maybe they've visited that bakery for years. Maybe became friends with the workers. They obviously like the product since they are a repeat customer. Suddenly, things should change because now they just order a friggin cake and the nut case owner cites some nonsense when that gay person's money was good for years? No different than supporting a church for years and then the pastor turning on you because he likes to discriminate.

Hell, maybe they just shop at that bakery because the next one is too far out of the way. It makes no difference. I don't need to justify it. I don't need to test for my beliefs. YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE! Stop defending these people.

Don't know why I'm arguing with someone who wants an institution based on a "fairy tale book" to be forced to legitimize something. Because that makes sense.

The courts will never force a religion to marry people they don't want to. Sorry. Whether I find that odious or not is irrelevant. Religions will off shoot to accommodate those who have modified their beliefs.

A kid is in the cub scouts. He's--in your words--accepted. He grows to become a boy scout and maybe an eagle scout. He and his parents believe in scouts. They like everything about them, except when they discriminated. What to do? Throw out the baby with the bathwater? Leave the organization? NO! You call them on discrimination.

There are people who belong to churches. They don't necessarily believe in Leviticus. Not everybody in a church will agree on doctrine or interpretation. You grow up and/or grow in that church, and all the sudden you get shafted because of discrimination. Again, NO! Churches have tax exempt status. That means they are part of society. They can't conveniently exempt themselves from the law of the land.

And you're right. Courts will never make churches marry people. Not, of course, until people demand it. Plessy v Ferguson meant people of color would never sit next to whites in class. UNTIL PEOPLE DEMANDED BETTER. That's what this week's court decision was about. Nothing happened until a majority demanded it. Democracy in action, I say.

and that baking cakes is not, right?

That changes the legal analysis. The government many not (as a general rule) interfere with the free exercise of religion, under the first amendment. For purposes of the First Amendment analysis, it is completely irrelevant whether you believe some fairy tale book is valid or not. What matters is whether those whose rights you want to trample on believe it. Any attorney who took a case attempting to force a church to marry a same gender couple should be disbarred.

In contrast, a business you open to the public is not protected by the constitution - and you have to abide by the civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination. Whether a baker would be forced to bake a cake for a marriage he didn't believe in is not yet clear. Homosexuality is still not a protected class. What the court found was a constitutional right to marry - not necessarily a constitutional right to ancillary services. Gays can still be fired just for being gay in most states - I'm not sure it is clear that a baked goods would give LGBT individuals more protection than they have for employment. It is a much closer case because of the absence of a constitutional right to the free exercise of cake baking.

The constitution is the law of the land.

And starting your post with "you do realize" is often indicative of someone whose makes such blatantly erroneous statements, but just pretends to know things because it's the internet.

Teaching, among other things, constitutional law.

Religion is an enumerated right in the constitution. Baking cakes is not. Imposing governmental restrictions on cake baking is far easier, from a constitutional perspective, than imposing governmental restrictions on the free exercise of religion.

I would listen to you; however, you used the term "far easier." So now it seems that it's just a matter of expediency?

Now, that cake business that does not want to bake cakes for "the gays" could re-create itself as a private club, and charge a "membership fee" in addition to baking a cake. That would let them choose to not make cakes for "the gays".

But when you say you are open to the public, that means you are open to all of the public.

It applies to everyone. All laws must conform to it.

As a result, churches and private clubs can discriminate.

not someone pretending to know things.

You do not have to like the law, but what the poster wrote IS THE LAW, and it is the law because the same group (SC) that said states may not withhold marriage licenses from same-sex couples says it is - and the reason they say it is derives from the First Amendment:

I think I will just listen to Ms. Toad because of their qualifications. I'm sure that user is quite capable of taking my "rude" behavior in stride.

And just because something is the law, does not mean people will like it. Riding on the back of the bus was once the law. People changed that law because they spoke up. They protested. They got enough people to get involved. I'm guessing that is what it will take for gays to have full rights and equality.

It's your right to advocate your positions, but I don't see any chance of success. It's hard to change the Constitution, as it should be.

I have included some legal stuff below, but common sense should tell you that your position contradicts itself. When states wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, various churches were still "marrying" them. The religious RITE is not the civil RIGHT. What makes the marriage civilly valid is the state's issue of the marriage license, and what makes the religious marriage a civil one is not the rite, but some form of subscription and witness by the officiator (A SEPARATE STEP) testifying that the persons involved went through with it.

It would have been a profound violation of the First Amendment for state governments to tell religious bodies that they couldn't perform these marriages before when they weren't civilly legal, and thus it would be a profound violation of the First Amendment for a government to tell religious bodies that they had to perform them now.

Nor is this just a holdover - remember that religious rights were expanded under Clinton after the Scalia-written law which abridged the constitutional scope of religious freedoms. RRFA basically overruled the SC:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1

The case in question was the denial of unemployment benefits due to a peyote-use firing contested on the grounds that it was religious exercise.

Denying a religious rite or ceremony due to non-qualification under the religious standards is so fundamental a religious act that, were it to be abrogated, it is hard to see how the First Amendment "free exercise" provision or Establishment clause could retain any meaning whatsoever. In essence, the government WOULD be establishing a religion.

You don't want that, even if you think that you do.

I don't write this to be rude, please understand. You may know that the First Amendment exists, but you do not understand it at all.

Consider, for example, Hosanna-Tabor v EEOC, decided 9-0 in 2012:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-553

but I don't think you understand constitutional history. Plessy v Ferguson was the law of the land for a relatively short time in our history, but it was changed due to people speaking up for their civil rights. Slavery was the law of the land for decades. There are many other cases like this, most, of course, not as well-known.

The constitution does change when people speak up. You can't tell me that you favored slavery or separate but equal just because it was upheld. There is a reason why it's said that the constitution is a living and breathing document. The document is just words, and has no meaning without the interpretation behind it. That interpretation is from the people and when they speak. Just like the 14th amendment.

And I fully support that decision and will work to protect it. At the same time, I will work to protect the First Amendment and defend churches that do not want to be forced to perform a religious ceremony that clashes with their beliefs, regardless of how much I disapprove of those beliefs. No church, pastor, priest, etc. should be forced to perform any sort of ceremony that is against their beliefs, including a same-sex marriage.

Baking a cake is not a religious ceremony.

Performing a religious ceremony is not simply an offering of goods or services, and can certainly be limited to members of the applicable faith.

You can't just show up at a synagogue with your 13 year old and say, "I'd like a bar mitzvah", nor can you just show up at a Christian denominated church and say "Hey, I feel like getting baptized today."

If you are not a temple-recommended Mormon, you aren't even getting inside one of their temples.

They are free to practice their religion according to their rules. Running a bakery is not a religion.

is talking about "just showing up." I'm talking about someone who has been in a church for awhile.

Yes, churches do offer services in the broadest sense of the word.

a church can kick out a long time member when ever they want if they feel that member has violated the tenets of their religion. It is a two way street.

because someone is gay, then that is discrimination.

the government is never going to referee who can and cannot be members of a particular religion or church.

is not the game they are refereeing. Government is overseeing the broader societal institution of marriage. Makes no difference where it takes place. Gays are gays, whether in a church or in front of a magistrate. Government needs to vigorously enforce this in any institution.

Churches are under no obligation to violate their religious views to accommodate anyone's desire to be married. Their First Amendment rights will (and have) prevail.

That is just your opinion and what you value. I value treating people equally. The decision last week affirmed that.

A church "violating" their religious views is nothing but thinly veiled discrimination. That is slowly changing and will change in the church. Gays can now marry. A church can't discriminate and hide behind what they call their "views."

settled by the Supreme Court. Churches and their leaders have wide latitude when it comes to religion - that is why Muslims and Jews can segregate by sex. Why only men can be Catholic priests. Why divorced Catholics can't have another church wedding. Why infant babies can be circumcised. They can set the limits and requirements of participation within their organization with few limits when it comes to discrimination.

They offer it to thousands of their members over the years without a hitch. A gay couple comes along and the church refuses to marry them. The couple abides by everything in the church. The only thing that separates them is the way they were born. That is discrimination.

You are free to protest against this discrimination on public property.

Also, that couple isn't abiding by everything in the church. That church is against "gay marriage" and they want one.

No thanks. I will just be active and change the law. Just like last week. You can be passive, OR, you can demand your rights. I'll do the latter.

Unless you want to remove religious freedom from the Constitution.

Religious freedom also means freedom to be an asshole during the practice of your religion. So the government can not stop a whites-only church. Or a men-only church. Or a no-gay-marriage church.

No, the constitution is not going to cover that.

Churches can use whatever criteria they like for membership in that church. If they want to make their church "whites only", there is nothing the government can do to stop them.

Note that the people are not the government. The people can use their rights to make life difficult for a whites-only church. But the government can't stop them.

if the church limits a marriage to mixed gender couples based on its religious beliefs. Just like many currently require one, or both, to be members of the church, or impose counseling requirements, or prohibit marriage if you have had a divorce because - in their eyes - you are still married.

All of those fall under the very broad first amendment protection for the free exercise of religion. The government does not get to tell people the fundamental tenets of their religion.

what the individual members to believe.

We're talking about tax exempt institutions here. They became tax exempt, but now want to have different rules. You can't have it both ways.

The "minimal and remote involvement between church and state" has grown significantly since that time. The most visible is the evangelicals and the Moral Majority, but it's growth is also insidious among all tax exempt churches.

If churches want the benefits of tax exemption, then they need to play by the rules.

Supreme Court cases don't just stop being valid because they were decided years ago. They become invalid when either the constitution changes, or they are overruled. And the principle of the law doesn't become invalid because some churches are not in compliance.

The solution for churches not playing by the rules is to remove the tax-exempt status of those churches who aren't. Feel free to bring those churches to the attention of the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf

At least when it was decided. It overruled a decades long decision. The arguments for that Plessy decision were slowly and legally recognized as not being valid even before the 1950s. The arguments for that 1970 decision have become invalid. The landscape is changing with last week's decision. It's actually the same separate but equal mentality.

It is a constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion AND on government interference with the free exercise of religion. That little thing called the first amendment - which is the constitutional basis for making churches tax exempt.

You're right on the Brown year - I don't memorize dates. But 2 years' difference doesn't change the point. Supreme Court decisions don't have an expiration dates. Decisions based in the constitution are invalidated only by a constitutional amendment or by being overruled later in a different case. Neither has happened with respect to taxes.

If a church is misbehaving, go after them. I gave you the link.

nitpicked you on Brown. I'm sure you're well aware of that as an attorney (maybe the case even started in 52).

Anyway, the separate but equal is what some were trying to push. They were saying for years that gays had the same equality, but defined it differently when two people were united in matrimony.

And I still see too many parallels between a church that can discriminate and a business (bakery) that can't. Both offer a good or service. Both are open to the public. Yes, a church is open to the public, despite some seeing it as a closed institution. You can pretty much anonymously walk in any church on Sunday, listen (and maybe benefit) from a sermon (at no cost), learn something else, etc. Yes, people might start to interact with you, but you can avoid that by going to a large church or a historic church and standing in the back. I've actually known people who have done that.

Yes, you can go to a church and ask to have a ritual performed without being a member. I actually did that when a family member died and they had no church. Rules and etiquette vary, from a minister expecting/accepting a stipend, to the church more formally asking for a fee. This is a paid service that is really not different from a baker, at least in terms of money exchanged for good/service.

I see things more in terms of nuance. Yes, a bakery is obviously different from a church; however, in the grand scheme of things, both provide a good/service with some compensation expected in return. The church refusing gays on doctrine are really not that much different than a baker declining based on the same doctrine.

Really?

If it is among the beliefs of the church that people of the same sex ought not be married, then it is not true that they "abide by everything the church teaches."

It seems you believe differently. Quite a number of others in this thread have attempted various approaches to explaining how your belief is at odds with the general exception of religious institutions in this area of law.

No, a devout Catholic woman who wants to be a priest, or a lifetime Catholic man who wants to be a nun, will be denied those occupations by their own church. No court will find in their favor.

A number of others? What are their legal qualifications? What are your qualifications?

Then I would also listen to you. Thanks.

I think your last point could change. The law changed from Plessy to Brown because people spoke up. Separate but equal has parallels in last week's decision. Most churches have tax exempt status. That would make their activities more than just religious rituals. Churches have become more involved in politics and government matters. They need to be held to the same standards. Yes, I believe that compulsion will one day come about.

I'd fall to my knees... and then lick the chocolate off my fingers.

Its called the First Amendment.

There is a whole lot more to it.

The government can't force a church to do things that violate its beliefs.

As in court cases, legislation, regulation, interpretation, etc.?

Everybody is for freedom of religion, at least in theory. No one will say otherwise, at least to your face. Dig further, and you will see where churches are doing something else.

They will take a donation for themselves -- though many won't accept, as the minister who presided over my late aunt's funeral did -- and there is often a charge for the use of the facilities, which can also be on a donation basis.

When I was hanging around on the ULC boards, it was the subject of some debate, with many not charging a set fee but rather preferring donations if the couple chose. My sister an I had set fees for weddings and other ministrations, mainly just enough to cover expenses and give us some pocket change.

Ministers have never been required to marry anyone. They could even refuse a m/f marriage just because they felt the couple wasn't strong enough in their faith.

Unlike a business, a church is considered a private group and may choose its members. It can exclude people without repercussions. Also, a minister may perform a wedding ceremony, but it means nothing without the state license.

The state license was what was won here Friday.

if I was talking about physical churches or religion. There is no distinction. North Carolina magistrates, for example, can legally refuse to perform gay marriages based on their religious beliefs. Seven magistrates in the state have done that so far.
So, the refusal has spread from formal church institutions to government institutions. I say baloney! Magistrates work for the people. Their refusal of gays is loophole discrimination.

As a government agent, they must either perform their job or be fired. The same goes for any business - serve everybody equally or be closed. Now some religious nuts are using faith to justify a new era of massive resistance, and that has to be stopped. But a church is neither a government entity nor a business. It's the same status as a private group, and may chose the qualifications of it's members, and inherently, the services it provides to them, like wedding ceremonies. The key here is "within the church".

You are conflating the religious ceremony for weddings that means nothing to the government with the marriage license that bestows all of the benefits of marriage. The ceremony provided by a minster/rabbi/cleric/etc is just for show as far as the government is concerned.

then they are obligated. If they don't like it, get rid of the status. You can't have it both ways.

That's not how it works. A group/church gets tax exempt status because it is non-profit and non-political. What you suggest is also unconstitutional, as the government would be forcing a religion to take certain actions or be penalized. This would be the classic case where the first Amendment applies.

they have standing to refuse to perform a marriage. Does it suck? Yes, but it's a side effect of religious freedom.

County clerks and businesses, on the other hand, are not religious institutions, so they and their employees have no right to do the same.

They are in the business of performing marriages. North Carolina magistrates can refuse to marry gays. Seven of them have so far declined.

And that law will not survive constitutional challenge.

as a church, they are.

A church is a religious entity. A magistrate is a government functionary. It is an entirely different job.

Also, the employer is vital in the distinction. If you work for the government (a magistrate) then you can not discriminate. If you work for a church (a priest/pastor/rabbi/imam/etc) then you can.

The Constitution blocks a magistrate from discriminating. The Constitution also blocks the government from stopping a church's discrimination.

The courts have long given wide latitude to ministers and churches when it comes to determining who they will marry. For instance, the Catholic Church refuses to marry someone who is divorced unless the previous marriage is annulled by the Church. Some ministers of various denominations also refuse to perform weddings for couples who cohabitate before marriage. There also have been scattered cases in recent years of churches that have refused to perform an interracial marriage, citing their religious beliefs.

After the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, there was never the suggestion that private religious groups that wouldn’t perform interracial marriages would be shut down, or lose their tax-exempt status.

Of course you want to argue... but if you are also sincere in your questions, there is a plethora of relevant information located on the web, and to that your own time, and vioa, you've done research.

Editorials here for a primer:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/26/how-a-supreme-court-decision-for-gay-marriage-would-affect-religious-institutions/

try case precedent studies too avilable in all you finer law libraries and internet sites.

I would just like to say Todd Starnes is an idiot. No one is going to jail just because they are a closed minded fool.

My personal criteria for officiating weddings is 1. The two people love each other and 2. well, I guess #1 is sufficient.

http://www.ulc.org/

and that was NC. NC banned ministers from marrying gays. No really, in NC it was illegal for someone who could perform marriages to perform one for gays (in addition to the gays not being legally married the clergy person was committing an illegal act). It was a lawsuit against that law filled by the UCC that was the case which legalized marriage equality here.

In NC, we are not allowed to marry anyone who could not legally obtain a marriage license. Didn't matter what the reason was , under-aged, already married or a same sex couple. We couldn't perform a covenant marriage, nor a polygamous marriage, or a marriage if one of the couple was mentally unable to enter into a binding contract, either.

It was and is illegal to knowingly break the law. Duh. Since same-sex marriage wasn't legal, then no, we couldn't perform them.

We could do commitment ceremonies, which are not legally recognized. There was no license to file, thus no marriage (although I guess if the couple wanted to call it "marriage", they could, but there was no legal basis for it).

But in at least one of the Southern states it was (I couldn't have told you which one - but I would have guessed either South or North Carolina). It generated significant discussion among Quakers who have long married people whose marriages were not recognized by the state (both because our practices don't match the officiant performing the ceremony structure & because many Friends meetings married interracial - and later same gender - couples when the law did not recognize those marriages).

But there was at least one southern state which interpreted its laws to prohibit a faith group from creating a marriage, whether or not it was recognized by the state. It was the act of performing the marriage that was actually illegal - not merely the attempt to/refusal to obtain legal recognition.

They should be more worried about lost revenue instead.

recall him being the younger brother of a guy who graduated a year before me... his wikipedia bio didn't provide much info, so I might have to a little deeper digging... hmmm, curiosity is my own worst enemy sometimes... I *need* to sleep tonight, so I am going to have to keep my mind distracted from this for now or I'll be up all night wondering/researching!

Peace,

Ghost

....because I'm not Jewish? Or Roman Catholic priests? That's been going on forever. It has always been the Constitutional right of any clergy to decide who they will and will not perform sacred rites for.

I'm so bloody sick and tired of the hateful ignorance of folks who willfully misunderstand how separation of church and state protects them. I think it's past time for the U.S. to make the issuance of marriage licenses and wedding certificates an entirely secular matter the way it's done in other countries, and take that part of it out of the hands of religion. Marriage is a legal contract, so do it at City Hall. If you want a religious blessing and a big ceremony, wonderful -- go to a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, priestess, or whatever and do that as well. But don't let them be the arbiters of who gets to have that legal contract in the first place, because that is not their job.

That's what I heard.
That's when Obama comes along and takes all your guns away.

Didn't you get the memo? Don't connect the dots on the marriage decision right on time for Jade Helm 15.

the FEMA camps are for detainees. Darn it, I am a useless undercover operative.

Were charged with hate crimes after Loving v. Virginia!

But - no, they were NOT charged with hate crimes. Who would want a minister to perform their ceremony under duress and with hate in his heart?

These people are idiots - paranoid, disturbed idiots.

why don't they just go for a side line in writing fiction? or sci-fi?