Church charges Calif. minister over gay weddings

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

SANTA ROSA, Calif. -- A retired Presbyterian minister in Northern California is again facing charges she violated church law when she officiated at the weddings of gay couples.

The Rev. Jane Spahr was acquitted two years ago of similar charges when the church's Supreme Judicial Council found that she did not violate denominational law because they were not real marriages.

This time, the same-sex marriages at issues were legal in California. Spahr's lawyer says it's unprecedented that the church is trying to sanction a minister for performing legal marriages.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/29/2641598/church-charges-calif-minister.html

[tularetom]

1. Let me get this straight

When gay marriage was illegal, she was acquitted of charges of performing same sex marriage.

But when she performed the same ceremonies at a time when same sex marriage was legal, they charge her again.

OK, that makes sense to me!? :wtf:

[SkyDaddy7]

3. Thats religion for ya!!!

It all makes sense if you truly believe it does!!

[Ian David]

4. She was acquitted the first time BECAUSE the marriages weren't legal.

So they didn't count as marriages.

See, she can't be punished for performing a marriage unrecognized by the church if it isn't a real marriage.

[tularetom]

7. No, no, I understand, really I do, it's just that...

Well maybe I don't understand. Or, better yet, I understand but it makes no fuckin sense.

What? Church law supersedes civil law?

If they wanted to nail her, they could have done it when she was performing illegal marriages. Now they just look like sore losers.

But hey, it's organized religion (an oxymoron if there ever was one). Guess they aren't bound by concepts such as fairness or justice.

I hope she sticks it to them good.

[Hekate]

10. Church law does not supersede civil law, but the church is entitled to its own rules, such as...

... who gets to perform their sacred rites and who is entitled to participate in them.

If the Reverend wants to perform marriages solely as someone licensed to do so in the State of California, she's cool with the State as long as it's not man-on-turtle or something (fondly recalling Santorum here).

But if she wants to perform Presbyterian weddings as a Presbyterian minister she has to follow their internal rules or risk being defrocked by THEM. That is not compassionate on their part, but it's not the business of the State.

Separation of Church and State -- no problem.

Unitarians, btw, have no problems marrying same sex couples in church. The couple could have chosen to go the UU route, but it's possible the UUs were all booked solid during the window of time the marriages were legal here, or possibly the couples she dealt with had all been raised as Presbyterians and wanted familiarity.

Hekate

[No Elephants]

15. OP article says her ministry was to gays. She was probably the pastor of the couples.

[No Elephants]

14. If the "marriage" ceremony you purport to be performing does not

result in an actual marriage, then you are not guilty of marrying anyone. At most, you are guilty of making believe you are marrying two people to each other; and the Church apparently does not ban make believe ceremonies.

The ban on marrying people of the same gender may not make sense. But, if you accept that the First Amendmentt allows a church to ban its ministers from performing those marriages, then the rest does make sense.

[glinda]

6. The idea is to scream "we don't approve no matter what"

[AlbertCat]

2. she violated church law ... the church's Supreme Judicial Council

Talk about a shadow government!

This is why I keep saying, religion is just ancient (defunct) government. Government for a huge ignorant mass of people before science. It's obsolete government.

[Proletariatprincess]

5. She is retired. What can they do to her?

Burn her at the stake?
Way too much to do about nothing....lol. But that is religion for ya.

[Hekate]

11. She's retired from parish duties & a paycheck, but she'll always be a minister unless defrocked

[No Elephants]

13. Maybe the Church gives retirement benefits to retired ministers?

[No Elephants]

16. Pension......

http://www.pensions.org/portal/server.pt

[alp227]

8. Oh, religion, with its own set of courts and all.

I very much prefer the secular world, thankyouverymuch.

But at least this is the US, where the cops can't tear a gay wedding up.

[Soylent Brice]

9. ridiculous.

[PSPS]

12. "Charges?"

What is this, a theocracy? Do they send in the vestment-adorned goon squad to perp-walk the cuffed minister on the way to the "judgement chamber" where "God" is the sole juror?

What a load.