Clergy Members Say NC Gay Marriage Ban Violates Their Religious Freedom

Blue Ridge Times-News ^ | 4-29-14 | Mitch Weiss

[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."...

[petitfour]

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

[sten]

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.

[mulligan]

Another idiot.

[longtermmemmory]

$ x 30

[JSDude1]

NO.

[polymuser]

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

[GeronL]

the law does stop them from conducting ceremonies

[AppyPappy]

I saw that same law with different wording yesterday.

[Ransomed]

How was it worded differently?

Freegards

[AppyPappy]

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

[Ransomed]

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

[AppyPappy]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[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.

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

[Servant of the Cross]

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.

[Arthur McGowan]

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.

[Flame Retardant]

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.

[Michael1977]

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.

[AppyPappy]

“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.

[Flame Retardant]

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.