Homosexual Marriage, The US Constitution and The Bill Of Rights

[alan1]

The US Constitution included the original 10 ammendments also known as The Bill of rights.
Here is Amendment I,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For the purpose of this discussion, I have put the pertinent part in blue with an emphasis in bold.
So, that being pointed out, read this,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/u...h-carolina-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
Here are a couple snips,

In a novel legal attack on a state’s same-sex marriage ban, a liberal Protestant denomination on Monday filed a lawsuit arguing that North Carolina is unconstitutionally restricting religious freedom by barring clergy members from blessing gay and lesbian couples.

“We didn’t bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices,” said Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.

I find this interesting. Of all the legal challenges and discussion concerning homosexual marriage that are usually decided state by state, this may be the one that really forces a national, or Supreme Court, decision.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That would depend on whether other states have similar provisions concerning marriage as religious dogma.

Of course, one may not marry absent a marriage license issued by the state, whether the marriage is performed by a secular authority such as a judge or justice of the peace or a member of the clergy authorized by the state:

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”

This raises the question as to what constitutes ‘religious solemnization.’

If a member of the clergy ‘solemnizes’ the union of a same-sex couple in accordance with his faith’s religious marriage dogma, would that member of the clergy be subject to ‘prosecution and civil judgments’? The same-sex couple in question would not be married in accordance with North Carolina marriage law, of course, because there’d be no marriage license issued by the state, but the marriage would be valid in the eyes of the church; for the state to seek to disallow such a recognition is arguably an Establishment Clause violation.

But it is quite likely the issue is moot, given the fact such laws as those enacted in North Carolina are in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

 

[elektra]

The government shall dictate what is a relationship, for a modest fee.

The Government has no business being in the marriage business in the first place, let alone dictating what the definition of words are.

 

[DGS49]

The institution of marriage as recognized by state law and the institution of marriage as recognized by any "church" are two completely different things. To illustrate, if I get married by a JP, my church does not recognize that marriage. Moreover if married in the Church, if I get divorced by the State, my church doesn't recognize that divorce.

The perverse thing is that RELIGIOUS officials are given the power to sanction CIVIL marriages. This should stop. Couples should be forced to decide which "marriage" they want to enter into (or both of them), and do so separately.

Problem solved. Then we won't have ministers and priests getting hysterical about the state's fucking around with the "institution of marriage." It would be none of their business.

 

[FuelRod]

This is an interesting thread. Many churches would choose to perform Homosexual marriages. I am sure some under the Christian umbrella. The Unity Church without a doubt. Scientology, etc.
Ultimately the issue here is votes and money.

 

[DGS49]

Actually, the issue here is terrorism and extortion by the Gay Lobby. Can you imagine any other issue that get so much publicity yet affects less than one percent of the population (those who would want to enter into a "gay marriage")?

 

[alan1]

The government shall dictate what is a relationship, for a modest fee.

The Government has no business being in the marriage business in the first place, let alone dictating what the definition of words are.

That has long been a stance I agree with.
Marriage, as a religious act, has been around much longer than the US government.
Federal and state governments in the US have kind of inserted themselves into a religious act. But under what authority? Certainly not under a government establishment of religion (which our founding fathers opposed), but still under government control (which our founding fathers also opposed).
At this point, they've written so many tax codes involving marriage and children, it may be almost impossible to extract government out of marriage and family.

 

[alan1]

That would depend on whether other states have similar provisions concerning marriage as religious dogma.

Of course, one may not marry absent a marriage license issued by the state, whether the marriage is performed by a secular authority such as a judge or justice of the peace or a member of the clergy authorized by the state:

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”

This raises the question as to what constitutes ‘religious solemnization.’

If a member of the clergy ‘solemnizes’ the union of a same-sex couple in accordance with his faith’s religious marriage dogma, would that member of the clergy be subject to ‘prosecution and civil judgments’? The same-sex couple in question would not be married in accordance with North Carolina marriage law, of course, because there’d be no marriage license issued by the state, but the marriage would be valid in the eyes of the church; for the state to seek to disallow such a recognition is arguably an Establishment Clause violation.

But it is quite likely the issue is moot, given the fact such laws as those enacted in North Carolina are in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

At what point did the government decide that it was within their authority to issue a marriage license? Marriage primarily being a religious ceremony based upon historical context.