N.Y. Ministers Charged for Marrying Gays

[5stringJeff]

N.Y. Ministers Charged for Marrying Gays
By MICHAEL HILL, Associated Press Writer

KINGSTON, N.Y. - Two ministers were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples — apparently the first time in U.S. history that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies.

District Attorney Donald Williams said gay marriage laws make no distinction between public officials and members of the clergy who preside over wedding ceremonies.

Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national debate over same-sex unions.

Each charge carries a fine of $25 to $500 or up to a year in jail.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=4&u=/ap/20040315/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_ny

 

[eric]

 

[jimnyc]

:clap1: :cof:

 

[Aquarian]

ummm aren't they ministers, performing a religious ceremony? I thought the gov't wasn't supposed to get involved in the practice of religion... I'm looking at this as separate from the gay (civil) marriage debate.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Aquarian
ummm aren't they ministers, performing a religious ceremony? I thought the gov't wasn't supposed to get involved in the practice of religion... I'm looking at this as separate from the gay (civil) marriage debate.

Depends, honestly...Marriage is not just a religious institution...it's a legal one too.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
ummm aren't they ministers, performing a religious ceremony? I thought the gov't wasn't supposed to get involved in the practice of religion... I'm looking at this as separate from the gay (civil) marriage debate.

I don't think ministers are above the law. Illegal is illegal.

"Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams said gay marriage laws make no distinction between public officials and members of the clergy who preside over wedding ceremonies."

 

[Aquarian]

But Jim-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is different than the cases of the various mayors in that they represented the gov't when doing so, the ministers do not. I'm not arguing that churches are not subject to any laws, but since these 'marriages' would not be recognized outside the church they were performed in I can't see how they could justify fining or imprisoning these ministers.

 

[MtnBiker]

They may have been issuing marriage licenses, or signing them at the least.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
But Jim-



This is different than the cases of the various mayors in that they represented the gov't when doing so, the ministers do not. I'm not arguing that churches are not subject to any laws, but since these 'marriages' would not be recognized outside the church they were performed in I can't see how they could justify fining or imprisoning these ministers.

Williams said he decided to press charges because the marriages were "drastically different" from religious ceremonies since Greenleaf and Sangrey publicly said they considered them civil.

Greenleaf, who acknowledged performing the ceremonies in New Paltz knowing the couples did not have licenses, said she signed an affidavit for the couples and considers the ceremonies civil.

It's obvious when 25-30 couples are showing up that they are trying to thumb their noses to the law. Is it coincidental that these gay marriages pop up in the same town that they were forbidden just a few short weeks ago?

 

[Aquarian]

True, and I kind of see the point, but just because the ministers say they have civil import does not mean that they do. I agree also that the location of the church is not coincidental but would classify the actions as civil disobedience (another time honored tradition) rather than a thumbing of the nose.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Aquarian
I agree also that the location of the church is not coincidental but would classify the actions as civil disobedience (another time honored tradition) rather than a thumbing of the nose.

since when is one not the other.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
True, and I kind of see the point, but just because the ministers say they have civil import does not mean that they do. I agree also that the location of the church is not coincidental but would classify the actions as civil disobedience (another time honored tradition) rather than a thumbing of the nose.

And I can also agree with most of that. I guess they can chalk it up to bad timing, now isn't the best time for anyone to be performing these marriages. They should wait until this is resolved in their courts and then everyone will have some direction.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jon_forward
since when is one not the other.

That's why I said I agreed with 'most' of what he said. Civil disobedience is still thumbing your noses to the authorities.

 

[5stringJeff]

I agree Aquarian, there is a very thin line between the legality of the marriages and the rights of people to act on their religious beliefs. However, in this case, I seriously doubt that the people getting married were serious adherents to the religion that attempted to marry them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Aquarian
ummm aren't they ministers, performing a religious ceremony? I thought the gov't wasn't supposed to get involved in the practice of religion... I'm looking at this as separate from the gay (civil) marriage debate.

Courts already wrote an opinion on this when they sustained outlawing of Polygamy. They didnt buy the argument then and they wont now.

If a religion preformed human sacrifice as part of the ceromony, would the government be allowed to prosecute? yes. Because its illegal for everyone to kill another life. Its not a discrimination against that specific religion. Same with marriage. its illegal for gay and plural marriage regardless of religion and as long as there is no violation of the equal protection clause there more than likely will not be seen as a free exercise problem. especially not in life and death matters such as these.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Courts already wrote an opinion on this when they sustained outlawing of Polygamy.

This is true. Utah was denied permission to join the Union until they agreed to stop the practice of polygamy.