Posted on 01/12/2007 8:08:46 AM PST by presidio9
Members of the clergy who oppose civil unions for gay couples will not be forced to perform the ceremonies, state Attorney General Stuart Rabner ruled yesterday.
In a formal opinion, Rabner concluded that religious leaders legally may refuse to bless civil unions if doing so would fly in the face of "sincerely held religious beliefs." Under a new law authorizing such unions, same-sex couples can start applying for licenses on Feb. 19.
The ruling comes less than a month after Rabner determined that, under the state's antidiscrimination law, public officials who choose to officiate at weddings must also perform civil unions.
The follow-up opinion yesterday concluded that that same law "does not apply to the administration of religious rites by members of the clergy."
It invited immediate praise from opponents of same-sex unions.
Andrew Walton, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Camden, said the opinion "affirms the obvious."
Requiring priests to perform civil unions, he said, "would violate, in a fundamental way, the First Amendment of the Constitution, which exists to protect religious organizations from the state on these kinds of matters. The state cannot dictate the religious, liturgical or sacramental practices of any religious organization."
Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said the ruling was cause for relief.
"It's a very important clarification on an issue we were very concerned about," he said.
Deo's group had been particularly worried by one line in the October New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that prompted the civil-union bill signed into law last month by Gov. Corzine. The court ruling, which required that the state Legislature grant committed gay couples the same legal rights as their married counterparts, stated that those couples would "be free... to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship."
Lee Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, maintained that Rabner's ruling did not conflict with that language. Same-sex couples, he said, will be free to have their unions solemnized in religious ceremonies - if the religious leader agrees to it.
Same-sex couples, Moore added, were not being treated any differently under the law. Clergy members, he said, could choose not to marry a heterosexual couple if, for example, the couple were of a different religion.
Moore said Rabner issued yesterday's opinion, sent to the state registrar of vital statistics, "to ensure everyone is on the same page, and to the extent possible, to ensure there are standard practices statewide."
Leaders of Garden State Equality, which has been lobbying the Legislature to pass a bill that would authorize gay couples to enter into marriages, not just civil unions, said Rabner's ruling was "of no surprise to us, nor of any upset."
"We've always said that clergy don't have to perform ceremonies against their conscience," said Steven Goldstein, the group's chairman.
Even the gay-marriage bill his group is pushing would not require religious leaders to officiate at ceremonies.
It's mayors and other public officials, Goldstein said, "who cannot have a double standard."
How magnamimous of Swampland to allow people to continue to practice their religion as they see fit.
I suspect the A.G. knows that another authority will overturn his decision, letting him look "reasonable," while achieving the coerced "tolerance" that is the whole point.
When can I force the mayor to marry myself, three wives, the cat and a 9 year old?
It obviously has the right not to bless fake ones.
Give it a couple of months.
What I find disturbing is the language of this article. Since when does the AG make "rulings"? His opinion is just that, an opinion and he is entitled to it. He gets to say whether he will prosecute cases, and he has made it clear that won't prosecute people of the cloth who don't want to perform these deviant, sad ceremonies. It is the job of the Courts to interpret law and issue rulings, not the Executive Branch. Sounds like the author is more than ready for fiat Government.
Interesting qualification here.
The day that any government body starts dictating to my church how it must or must not administer its rites is the day that my loyalty to and support for that government ends.
Well, DUH! Attorney General Stuart Rabner...New Jersey's own Captain Obvious.
If a man's boinking a partner he's had for 6 weeks, that "partner" can be added to his employers health insurance plan. Medical screening? A pass. Expensive AIDS treatments? No problem.
But a man whose elderly dependent father lives with him? Nope, no way - can't be added to any group health insurance...
Is it appropriate to refer to Christian clergy as "clerics". That word seems wrong to me somehow. Can someone enlighten me as to the etiology of that word?
"Clergy" and "cleric" have the same root. The basic English usage is "cleric," singular noun, "clergy," plural noun, and "clerical," adjective.
So the use of "clerics" is appropriate, but not entirely correct ... sort of like saying "persons" instead of "people."
Word History: Cleric, clerk, and clark all come from Latin clçricus, "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders." Cleric appears in Old English about 975 and lasts into the 13th century. Clerc appears in late Old English, around 1129, and was identical in spelling and pronunciation with Old French clerc, "belonging to the (Christian) clergy." In the Middle Ages the clergy were the only literate class and were often employed as scribes, secretaries, or notaries. By about 1200 clerc had acquired the meaning "pupil, scholar," as we see in Chaucer's "clerk of Oxenford" in The Canterbury Tales (around 1386). Clerks were also of necessity employed in keeping accounts and recording business transactions; this is the source of the modern sense of clerk.
"Deo's group had been particularly worried by one line in the October New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that prompted the civil-union bill signed into law last month by Gov. Corzine. The court ruling, which required that the state Legislature grant committed gay couples the same legal rights as their married counterparts, stated that those couples would "be free... to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship."
Lee Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, maintained that Rabner's ruling did not conflict with that language. Same-sex couples, he said, will be free to have their unions solemnized in religious ceremonies - if the religious leader agrees to it."
That isn't how I read it. The bill states homosexuals are free to sanctify their relationships, not, the clergy can refuse.
There's a lot of ambiguity in this bill that just needs a hard shove from the hard left.
The English surname Clark has the same origin--a sound shift changed "er" to "ar" (found in a lot of other words too--compare English starve with German sterben or English harvest with German Herbst).
Just wait a while and the ACLU will be suing to take away tax exempt status from any religious organization which refuses to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Not yet.
>>Can someone enlighten me as to the etiology of that word?<<
Etiology: The causes or origins of DISEASE.
Etymology: The origins or "roots" of WORDS.
Are you implying that it is "sick" to use a word like "clerics?"
I can assure you that's not Anglican -- just read through The Order for The Burial of the Dead in our 1928 Book of Common Prayer (sadly, we conducted that service twice in our church November and December, so it's fresh). To be found therein:
...But you're talking about Trinity NYC, which appears to be about as apostate liberal Episcopal (and unAnglican) as it is possible to get. Your report does not surprise me.
JESUS said, Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.