Bill would let clergy refuse to marry gays (Calif)

[Kadie]

Bill would let clergy refuse to marry gays
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Monday, February 1, 2010

(02-01) 04:00 PST Sacramento --

Clergy members and churches would not face legal consequences for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, under a state bill being pushed by supporters of gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage is illegal in California, but that could change with a court decision or at the ballot box. Supporters of same-sex marriage want to alleviate concerns of those with religious objections. They also want to emphasize the separation between civil and religious recognition of marriages.

"We heard through the Prop. 8 debate great concern from certain clergy that their freedom of religion could be infringed upon and their tax-exempt status revoked," said the bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. "We want to clarify that by putting the constitutional guarantee of the First Amendment, freedom of religion, into statute."

The bill would apply to any religious objection to performing a marriage, not just between same-sex couples, and states that no clergy member would be required to solemnize a marriage that conflicts with his or her faith. The bill states that refusing to do so "shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any entity."

The threat of churches losing their tax-exempt status for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies was prominent in the campaign in favor of Prop. 8, the measure that reinstated the ban on those marriages in California.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BAL11BO179.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0eIoLlvZ5

[Ian David]

1. And they need this for the same reason they need a bill protecting The Catholic Church...

... from being sued for refusing to ordain female priests.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Works for me - love to see them add that advocating the loss of other's

rights would automatically trigger a repeal of their tax exempt status, but this is certainly fair - I don't care what goes on behind their closed doors

[PDJane]

3. In strict separation of Church and State,

All marriages would have to be performed by the state, with the religious marriage being a ceremony meaningful only to the participants. That is a solution that would curb all the fussing, and one which I would like to see instituted here.

[Robb]

8. +1. nt

[LiberalFighter]

16. In some European countries a marriage is not valid without a civil ceremony.

I believe Germany is one. Not sure about others.

[PDJane]

46. spain, too. eom.

[MindandSoul]

48. Absolutely true in most (if not all) European countries

The ONLY legal union is a CIVIL union. . .that can then be complemented with a religious ceremony.

A couple IS legally married after the mandatory civil union, but is NEVER legally married after a religious union that is not preceded (or followed, but it is usually preceded) by a civil union.

I was married in Belgium: November 12, 1971 at City Hall I was officially married in the mandatory civil union.
The next day, November 13, 1971, my husband and I were married in the eyes of the Church in a Catholic Cathedrale.

Often both ceremonies (the civil union ALWAYS takes place at City Hall, and is performed by the mayor of the city whenever possible, by one of his adjuncts when the city is too big for the mayor to deal with all the ceremonies. It is usually a small gathering of only the couple and close family members, including two witnesses who sign the mariage license to certify that the bride and groom are indeed who they say they are.

The Religious ceremony takes place usually in a church, but can also take place on a beach or anywhere one chooses (if the priest/minister agrees!). It is usually attended by a much larger crowd of friends and family.

Both ceremony can take place on the same day if it is time properly, but NOT IN THE SAME LOCATION, as the civil part always takes place at city hall. More often then not, the two ceremonies take place a day apart to allow for the change in location and availability of the mayor!

[GinaMaria]

21. All marriages are state licensed

You can't get married without one. You can get married without clergy. Marriage is a function of state government. Churches can discriminate, but public institutions cannot. You are right this is a separation of CaS issue.

[Dappleganger]

24. 1000% AGREED!

[no_hypocrisy]

4. What if the bill allowed ministers/clergy not to married African-Americans?

This is pure discrimination. And sure to end up in court.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. That would be fine

Why shouldn't clergy discriminate if they feel like it?

There is, and should be, no more legal impediment to a white supremacist church than to a white supremacist newsletter.

Religion is some stuff people say. People can think whatever fucked up shit they want here.

The problem is giving clergy a civil government role.

The courthouse will marry couples of all races because it's the government.

People have a right to get married but nobody has a right to get married in a particular church.

A marriage performed by clergy should have no more standing than if I announce my car is married to my refrigerator.

[donco6]

59. Not if it's a church.

Churches can do whatever they want. They can be all-white. They can refuse to marry divorced persons. They can refuse to marry ANYONE. Always have been able to do that.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. What if the bill allowed ministers/clergy not to married African-Americans?

This is pure discrimination. And sure to end up in court.

[rd_kent]

31. They can choose not to if they want.

Clergy already have the right not to marry anyone they dont want to. I agree with that.


What I DON't agree with is having ANY clergy having the power to legally marry anyone. I think everyone should have to have a state official do it.

[KittyWampus]

36. Why should a "state official have to do it"? Since when did any civil contract require a ceremony?

Any two adults should be able to sign a civil marriage contract.

[rd_kent]

38. I think that was my point.

The legal part if it needs to be done at the courthouse. the ceremony is just that, a ceremony and should have no legal standing at all.

[jberryhill]

42. The "solemnification" requirement in some jurisdictions....

Any discussion of what is required for a marriage depends on which state one is talking about in the first place.

The typical requirement is a license from the state, and a "solemnification" of some kind. That can be satisfied by a chat with the Justice of the Peace, or a full-blown extravaganza at a church, aboard a boat with the captain, etc.

No particular "ceremony" or "vows" are required to meet the "solemnification" requirement. The point is merely that the persons in question engaged in some sort of formality reinforcing that this is something more than a contract to get your bathroom remodeled or your fence painted. It does not require any "religious" component, but is merely a step of "being serious about it for a moment" - even if that moment occurs while skydiving over Las Vegas with an Elvis impersonator.

I was married in Vegas, and my wife only had one rule - no Elvis.

That was unfortunate, because Liberace cost $50 more!

[KittyWampus]

53. Oooooo! THANK YOU! I had no idea about the "somnification requirement". Great Info.

I guess that seem anachronistic in this day and age- can you imagine if corporations also required a somnification requirement before merging? :D

[csziggy]

55. Yep - no ceremony required

That is how Mr. csziggy and I wanted it and how we did it. No crap about a ceremony or a rite. Just the bare minimum needed to make it legal. We woke up a friend who was a justice of the peace, had him notarize the license, hunted up a couple of witnesses and then turned the license into the clerk at the courthouse.

It has been in effect for 32 and a half year, so I guess it served its purpose.

[frazzled]

6. Why would (or even should) a bill be necessary for that?

Clergy can marry or not marry whomever they want. Catholic priests can refuse to marry divorced people, I believe; Rabbis very often refuse to marry interfaith couples unless there's been a conversion (even though some of these same rabbis will indeed marry or perform commitment ceremonies for gay couples). I would imagine that there are a lot of fundamentalist clergy who won't do interacial marriages. None of these groups seem to have lost their tax-exempt status.

A justice of the peace must marry anyone who is legally marriageable under state laws and the constitution. But private religious groups? I'm not so sure this is a great precedent. I understand the positive impact it's trying to achieve, but I think it actually confuses the separation of church and state. It is already protected under the constitution.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. You are correct

There is nothing stopping clergy from doing as they wish, now or after marriage equality. This is redundant law, restating the already beyond well established.

[Orsino]

10. And therefore might dull the edge of the homophobia...

...so that marriage equality can be established?

[frazzled]

13. No, it would say being homophobic is okay ...

and your own choice. Homophobia will exist with or without this law.

The point is about separation of church and state.

[Orsino]

14. Wouldn't this law, though, help rob the homophobes...

...of their precious shoved-down-our-throats excuse?

[frazzled]

25. The Constitution will do nicely for that /nt

[frazzled]

11. Well, I actually think it could have a negative impact

Because it could end up sending the (erroneous) message to people that churches' practices actually do come under the purview of the law, and that an exception would be carved out for gay marriage. I don't think we want to lead people into believing even more wrong stuff than they already do.

[LiberalFighter]

15. They need to do video interviews of clergy from different faiths.

And ask them, "Have you ever been forced by the government to marry a couple?"

If they answer yes. They should be forced to provide the legal requirement they believe that requires it.

Ask them, "Are you allowed to refuse to marry a couple and if so what examples are considered?"

Ask them, "Are you prohibited from marrying anyone for specific reasons under state law?"

Do this for Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Methodist, and others. Put all the ones that respond with the correct answers in one segment. The ones if any that respond incorrectly provide why their answer is incorrect by referencing the state law if any that pertains to it. And point out at the time of the interview why they are wrong.

I would think that all of them know the truth.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

26. It's meant to defuse opposition to gay marriage....

The wingnuts claim that recognizing gay marriage legally means they will be forced to conduct gay ceremonies in their church.

It's a painfully stupid argument, of course, but I think this bill is meant to mute that claim.

I agree that this bill is pointless (and maybe shouldn't pass at all), but if it paves the way for gays to have legal rights, I'm good with that.

[KittyWampus]

37. Public Relations, that's why.

[frazzled]

47. But it's not particularly good precedent to pass (unnecessary) laws just for PR

I'm having trouble explaining this. The best I can do is to say that it is feeding into the very stereotypes and prejudices we seek to eradicate. It's giving people license to think they had reason to be afraid the government would interfere with their religious practices, even though the Constitution says that is absolutely prohibited. I don't find this helpful, because they will just bring it up the next time they think something will infringe upon their "beliefs," and need another carve-out. The Constitution already protects them. That is enough. And we need to stop giving the impression that the Constitution is something that might be skirted and that they need protection from.

I wish I could think of a counterexample of a kind of purely PR law that the right might try to get passed, in order to qualm our fears about something ... and what blowback that might entail. But my mind is too feeble today.

[Retrograde]

44. agreed - they aready can and do apply limits

The Roman Catholic church in most locations insists people it's about to marry not only be Catholics in good standing, but complete an approved counseling course. Since marriage is one of their sacraments they can apply their own rules for applying it.

I like the French system: a civil marriage for legality, a religious marriage to make all the relatives happy.

[guitar man]

54. It shouldn't be

But I believe it is being put forth to help quell the "my gawd they're going to force us to marry gays in our church!!1!1!" kind of hyperbole that has been so prevalent among the anti marriage equality crowd.

[donco6]

60. It's all phoney crap.

There is no need for it. No one can force a church to marry anyone, never have been able to.

[ourbluenation]

9. If it's good enough for the bill's author, Mark Leno, it's good enough for me.

I actually think the churches should not have to marry gays if they don't want to. Not because I don't think gays should marry, I do, 100%. I could care less what churches do, I want the legal recognition of these unions, as married couples, in the eyes of the law. Could care less about god.

[donco6]

62. They already have the right not to marry ANYONE if they don't want to.

Churches have ALWAYS had this right. No church has EVER been forced to marry anyone. EVER. It's a law that has no purpose.

[Captain Hilts]

12. They're not required to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone that I'm aware of. nt

[MineralMan]

17. The clergy is already free to refuse to marry anyone they wish.

No law is needed. And no clergy is needed to get married in California, anyhow. Or, you can become a Universal Life Church minister, believe whatever you want, or nothing, and marry whomever you wish to marry.

This is a silly proposal, and completely unnecessary.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Exactly!

[Courtesy Flush]

18. What's your objection?

I remember when my brother got married in 1977, to his pregnant girlfriend. It was understood that our minister was not an option for the ceremony, because he would not condone the union.

The only ministers who would exercise the right to refuse to marry gays are minsters who fundamentally oppose the union. So why on earth would you choose them to perform such an important ceremony? A wedding is a celebration of a couple's commitment to each other, and should not be performed by someone who refuses to celebrate it. What a dark cloud would be hanging over a wedding which the minister was coerced into performing.

tl;dr this law would only apply to a minister you wouldn't choose anyway.

[DeadEyeDyck]

33. excellent point

if sonmeone hates you, what do you gain in making them say they love you?

[cbdo2007]

19. This is how it should be - "marriage" is a religious issue rather than a political one.

If a church doesn't agree with same-sex marriage then they don't have to do them.

The political issue is what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of the state/law. Currently, you don't have to get married in a church by a religion to be recognized as being married (correct? i.e. justice of the peace?) so this should be fine.

[xchrom]

20. I adore mark leno -- but this redundant, isn't it?

Churches can refuse a 'gay ' marriage and they
would not lose their tax exempt status -- i.e.
The catholic church.

[Sultana]

23. Damn, Cali is fucked up

[LeftyMom]

27. That's already the case.

So if we're passing laws to assert what's already true about marriage, I want one affirming my right to not bring you a small appliance if you barely know me and just invited me to get a gift, and another reminding Californians that that damned chicken dance song is annoying, and only assholes play it at their reception.

[tabbycat31]

28. NJ had that in their marriage equality bill

unfortunately it did not pass. Grr at Chris Christie

[anonymous171]

29. This is a good idea. nt

[rd_kent]

30. Why do we allow clergy to marry ANYONE?

[AlienGirl]

32. Clergy can already refuse to marry anyone, for any reason--this is an unnecessary law

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Churches have every right to perform religious ceremonies as they see fit

They do NOT have the right to rewrite state laws to fit their agenda.

And those that do use their congregation's money for blatantly political purposes should damn well pay taxes.

Separation of church and state is a two way street. Some of these fuckers just want to drive on both sides of it.

[undeterred]

35. Why would a gay couple want to be married by a clergyperson

who was not supportive of gay marriage? Clergy can marry whomever they want to and refuse to marry whomever they want to, for whatever reason they want to.

[MindandSoul]

39. I think that's fair! Mariage for all is great. . .but religious mariage is optional anyway!

The important part is getting equal rights for Gay couples. . .equal civil rights are the most important.

Now, if some religious leader refuse to "bless" a gay couple. . .that's his/her loss!

I'm sure that a gay couple can find many religious ministers who will be more than happy to bless their union. . .and, really, why would you want to be married by someone who is so blind and prejudiced against you (or anyone) that he can't see that love and fairness is more important than sex!

I'm certain that, after losing the money that gay couples (and heterosexual couples who support equality for all)would bring to the church for their wedding. . .the religious leaders who refuse to bless their unions today would learn a valuable lesson!

[jberryhill]

40. Well, duh...

...as if Catholic priests were ever "required" to marry Protestants, etc.

I understand the point, but it is just insane that anyone thinks they need something like this for the purpose of mollifying idiots who don't understand marriage in the first place.

[Canuckistanian]

41. This is a red herring issue

Nobody wants to force churches to marry gays. But this issue has been used to scare homophobic churchgoers for decades.

They probably even used it as an argument against interracial marriages.

Well, if it takes away another one of their objections, then I'm fine with it.

[ddeclue]

43. OP title is misleading - it implies that clergy is being forced to marry gays now. It is not.

[donco6]

61. It's not the title that's misleading, it's the bill.

It implies that churches are somehow forced to marry people. They are not, never have been and never will be. The whole thing is a big, fat lie.

[Vidar]

45. Not a bad idea. Might defuse some opposition.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

49. Of course they shouldn't have to. Jeez.

Clergy shouldn't have to marry anyone and they shouldn't be limited in marrying anyone... if someone wants to marry a coffee table in the eyes of some god or another, go for it.

Whatever clergy do is irrelevant to government, or should be.

The logic of the establishment and free exercise clauses is pretty plain... the government has no business getting mixed up in a sacrament.

Since the federal government had no role in marriage and Constitutional rights only applied to federal action it wasn't an issue.

Then when federal rights were incorporated under the 14th amendment nobody was in a mood to invalidate all church marriages.

But in terms of the ideals of the Constitution, civil unions for all and if you want a religious union as well that's your business.

[Swamp Rat]

51. What law or statute forces ministers to marry same-sex couples?

What law or statute states that if a minister does not marry a same-sex couple, then the offending minister/ministry will lose tax-exempt status?

Maybe now is the time to force ALL religious institutions that get involved in politics to pay taxes.

[donco6]

58. None. It doesn't happen. This is just phony bullshit. n/t

[distantearlywarning]

52. Maybe this makes me a bad liberal, but...

I am 100% for the separation of church and state.

One half of that involves being against religion attempting to force its viewpoint on the general public via religiously-themed legislation.

The other half of that involves being against the general public attempting to force its viewpoint on religion via secularly-themed legislation (aside from legal issues involving removal/coercion of the free will of other sentient beings, of course, e.g., forced marriage, human or animal sacrifice, etc).

So in my eyes, any church should automatically have the right to refuse to marry anyone they deem unfit, regardless of whether that seems fair or socially normative to the outside world. Now, of course that refusal should have no bearing on whether the refused people in question should *legally* have the right to the benefits of marriage/civil union. But if the Mormons or the Catholics or the Church of Crazy Fundie Nutjobbery don't want to marry gays, blond haired people, purple aliens, non-English speakers, or whatever, I think they should have that right.

[Toasterlad]

56. They'll Just Lie And Say Clergy Will Have to Marry Same-Sex People If Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal

It's already legal for clergy to refuse to marry gay people, and it will stay legal if same-sex marriage is legalized. That doesn't stop religious fucks from lying about it.

It is NEVER a good idea to try to meet religious fucks half way. They don't want compromise. They want hate.

[donco6]

57. Churches have ALWAYS been able to refuse to marry ANYONE.

And will continue to have that freedom.

Pointless bill that does nothing.

[donheld]

63. No minister should be force to marry any couple

The minister should have the right to refuse for any reason.