Ministers Threatened with Jail/Fines For Refusing to Officiate at Gay Weddings

[Jenny A]

---

So let me get this straight, is this a religious establishment such as a church? If it is then NO they should not be forced to marry these folks, that is setting a precedent I rather not set here in this country. Now if this is a business entity founded by religious people, then possibly an argument can be made and we should let the courts decide here. I honestly am failing to see the zealous nature behind forcing religious establishments to perform rituals against their will. It is like forcing Satanists to perform traditional communion. So can someone link me to the full story here, because I keep getting separate sides that are 100% bias.

---

Whether they are a business or not is irrelevant. The key factor is whether the want the product of tgeir services to be recognized as being equivalent to those provided by the state.

If it is a religious establishment offering a marriage service whose results has no civil validity, then they can do whatever they want whether they are a business or not.

But if the product of their marriage service is to have civil validity, then that validity mandates whom they must provide the service to (the same as civil marriage) even if there is no business aspects to it or not.

emphasis mine

You position is that if ministers, priests, rabbis, or any other sort of clergy preform marriages with legal validity, that they must marry anyone who has a marriage license? I strongly disagree.

Who can get married for civil (i.e. legal) purposes is regulated entirely by the state government. The legal gateway is the marriage license. The requirements to obtain one vary from state to state, but they include such things as prior blood tests, that the parties not be related to each other, be over a certain age, and often, a residency requirement.

In the United States, marriage ceremonies come in two types, civil and religious. Both are followed by signing a state prepared marriage license which is then filed with the state.

There is no shortage of officials to preform the civil type ceremony, as certain government officials (usually the county clerk) are required to preform them for anyone with a marriage license and various other officials (usually judges) can preform them.

Preforming marriage services (considered a sacrament in many denominations including the Catholics) has been a religious role of clergy for centuries. And for centuries, the clergy has accepted payment individually, rather than through the church for those services. And the clergy has similarly decided for whom to preform such services. Discrimination based upon whether the clergy thought the couple was sufficiently committed to each other, and whether the marriage would comport church law including: whether the couple has been previously divorced; how closely related they are, whether they are a member of the church in good standing, etc. have long been part of the clergy's role This is because marriage is held by most religions to have a religious as well as a civil component.

If there is to be religious freedom at all (and I think there should be religious freedom) how and for whom a religious practitioner preforms a religious ceremony which is what a religious wedding is, should not be regulated by government.

There is also a free speech component. Included in the the First Amendment's right to free speech is the right not to be compelled to speak. This gives students and teachers the right not to say the pledge of allegiance, and drivers the right to tape over the state motto on their auto plates. The right not to preform a ceremony in a situation to performer would consider blasphemous would violate the right not to speak.

The Knapps religious views on the matter of who should be married are ugly. However, they are not views that injure anyone else. Nor frankly, can I imagine anyone wanting to be married by a person who doesn't think they should be married.

Of course we could deprive religious marriage ceremonies of all legal effect. There are countries where legal marriage requires a civil marriage first and any religious ceremony has no legal effect. In those countries the civil ceremony is a short oath followed by signing a marriage certificate. That would, I gather satisfy your objects to the Knapps' establishment as their services would have no legal effect? Yes? But I don't think it would satisfy any gay couple who wanted something other than a civil service.