Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clergy Members Say NC Gay Marriage Ban Violates Their Religious Freedom
Blue Ridge Times-News ^ | 4-29-14 | Mitch Weiss

Posted on 04/30/2014 8:13:57 AM PDT by Flame Retardant

A coalition of clergy members is challenging North Carolina's constitutional ban on gay marriage with an unusual approach in a federal lawsuit: They say it violates their religious freedom.

The clergy members said in the lawsuit filed Monday that they'd like to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in their congregations, but they can't because of the "unjust law."...

"North Carolina's marriage laws are a direct affront to freedom of religion," said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, executive minister with the Cleveland-based United Church of Christ, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We feel that it is important that any person that comes into community life of a United Church of Christ congregation be afforded equal pastoral care and equal opportunity to religious services that clergy provide."

But in North Carolina, clergy are often faced with a troubling decision — "whether to provide those services or break the law," Guess said. "That's something no clergy member should be faced with."...

(Excerpt) Read more at blueridgenow.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: freedom; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; liberty; religiousfreedom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: longtermmemmory

Maybe if the Wiccans and Satanists have some historic religious precedence to show that homosexual marriage is a part of their religion.


21 posted on 04/30/2014 8:47:35 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

moral of the story:
if you have fags, fag friendly, progressives, or any flaming liberals in your organization...

1. do everything you can to oust them from the organization.
2. if they are interviewing, fail them.
3. if you discover your supplier is on the left, take your business elsewhere.

any interaction with these people will only lead to more drama and problems.


22 posted on 04/30/2014 8:56:40 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

Another idiot.


23 posted on 04/30/2014 9:06:37 AM PDT by mulligan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

$ x 30


24 posted on 04/30/2014 9:17:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

NO.


25 posted on 04/30/2014 9:21:21 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Defeat Hagan, elect a Constutional Conservative: Dr. Greg Brannon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

Up is down.
Right is wrong.
Abnormal is normal.
Good is evil.


26 posted on 04/30/2014 9:25:16 AM PDT by polymuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

the law does stop them from conducting ceremonies


27 posted on 04/30/2014 9:44:04 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

I saw that same law with different wording yesterday.


28 posted on 04/30/2014 9:55:29 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

How was it worded differently?

Freegards


29 posted on 04/30/2014 10:03:13 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

51-6 “No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage ** under the laws of this State **


30 posted on 04/30/2014 10:20:58 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I lost you. I must be missing something, they look the same, unless ‘under the laws of this State’ was missing in the one you saw yesterday? Sorry if I am being dense.

Freegards


31 posted on 04/30/2014 10:28:50 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

That’s what is missing. It implies that there is a difference between performing a wedding and performing a wedding under the laws of the state.


32 posted on 04/30/2014 10:36:13 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
They can do the wedding ceremony, it just isn’t legally binding. What’s the problem? Religions which recognize polygamy perform their ceremonies, they just aren’t legally binding. This is bogus, because nobody is preventing them from performing a homosexual ceremony, if their religion allows for that.

The basis for the lawsuit is a North Carolina statute which makes it a crime for a clergy member to perform a wedding ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.

The correct resolution of the lawsuit would be a ruling that it is unconstitutional to apply that statute to clergy who perform a religious wedding ceremony so long as no one is claiming that the marriage is legal. The correct resolution is not to say that the State must recognize as legal any marriage that any clergyman wants to perform.

33 posted on 04/30/2014 11:02:29 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I took it to mean if you are allowed to act as a representative of the state in legal marriage, you aren’t allowed to perform a wedding ceremony and leave the license out. So if a person isn’t qualified in the eyes of the state they can perform all the ceremonies they want, but if a pastor is qualified in the eyes of the state they then can’t have a ceremony without state involvement.

I don’t even know if it is enforced on the state’s end or what. I do know that sometimes pastors refuse to have a ceremony for people who don’t want the state involved for the reason that the state considers it illegal to so.

Freegards


34 posted on 04/30/2014 11:06:10 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant
The key point on which all else rests.

No it's not. The key point is why are these so-called 'clergy' protesting God's creation and His sacrament of marriage.

But in North Carolina, clergy are often faced with a troubling decision — "whether to provide those services or break the law," Guess said. "That's something no clergy member should be faced with.".

The troubling decision for these 'clergy' should be “Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you [the world] rather than to God ...

It would appear that they don't consider or mention God at all.

35 posted on 04/30/2014 12:40:00 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

Of course the Constitution says nothing that can resolve this conflict. That’s why John Adams (IIRC) said somthing like: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

The Constitution is not a blueprint for our society—which the Left has always pretended it is.


36 posted on 04/30/2014 1:29:55 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
I took it to mean if you are allowed to act as a representative of the state in legal marriage, you aren’t allowed to perform a wedding ceremony and leave the license out. So if a person isn’t qualified in the eyes of the state they can perform all the ceremonies they want, but if a pastor is qualified in the eyes of the state they then can’t have a ceremony without state involvement.

This is an example of why the only way to really solve the problem is to effect a separation of marriage and state.

37 posted on 05/01/2014 6:49:34 AM PDT by Flame Retardant (If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism: Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
What changed is United States v. Windsor. I do note that most judges would likely hold this case in abeyance pending the Fourth Circuit deciding the Bostic v. Rainey appeal.
38 posted on 05/02/2014 6:54:24 AM PDT by Michael1977
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Flame Retardant

“This is an example of why the only way to really solve the problem is to effect a separation of marriage and state.”

Essentially ending marriage as a social construct except for attacking the church for discrimination.


39 posted on 05/02/2014 7:01:09 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
That's precisely the point -- it's properly a social construct, not a political construct. Blurring the line between the two is the root of totalitarianism.
40 posted on 05/02/2014 7:11:59 AM PDT by Flame Retardant (If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism: Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson