Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

United Church of Christ sues over NC ban on same-sex marriage
Charlotte Observer ^ | 04/28/2014 | Michael Gordon

Posted on 04/28/2014 10:29:12 AM PDT by GIdget2004

A group of Charlotte-area ministers have helped launch the country’s first faith-based challenge to same-sex marriage, claiming in a lawsuit filed Monday that North Carolina’s laws block them from practicing their religion.

The local religious leaders, who include a rabbi, are joined by colleagues from Asheville and Raleigh along with a national denomination, the United Church of Christ. All of them support the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

They say state prohibitions, including a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2012, violate their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

“The core protection of the First Amendment is that government may not regulate religious beliefs or take sides in religious controversies,” says Jonathan Martel, a Washington, D.C., attorney helping with the case.

“Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.”

The lawsuit was expected to be formally announced in 10:30 a.m. Monday press conference at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ. Church pastor Nancy Allison is one of the persons suing Attorney General Roy Cooper and other state officials, asking that the federal courts in the Western District of North Carolina strike the laws down.

It becomes the 66th legal challenge to marriage bans now in the courts, three of them in North Carolina. But it is the first to attack same-sex marriage bans on religious grounds, said Charlotte attorney Jake Sussman, lead counsel for the group.

(Excerpt) Read more at charlotteobserver.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 04/28/2014 10:29:12 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Can’t the clergy still perform these marriages?

It’s the civil marriage that is banned,isn’t it?

.


2 posted on 04/28/2014 10:31:38 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

BS they can perform “marriages” all they want, they just can’t make them legal.


3 posted on 04/28/2014 10:32:25 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Exactly.


4 posted on 04/28/2014 10:33:05 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

"BRAVO!"


5 posted on 04/28/2014 10:33:18 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

But government forcing people to act AGAINST their religious faith is somehow constitutional?


6 posted on 04/28/2014 10:33:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Servants of Satan


7 posted on 04/28/2014 10:34:29 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

These so-called pastors no doubt preside over failing churches and congregations of nearly zero.

They have put themselves out there for propaganda purposes only.


8 posted on 04/28/2014 10:35:33 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
Find me a religion - other than some fringe, wacko "Church of Bob" type-thing - that defines marriage as anything BUT being between one man and one woman, and I'll listen.

Until then, someone should tell these clowns to read up on their theology.

9 posted on 04/28/2014 10:35:38 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"But government forcing people to act AGAINST their religious faith is somehow constitutional?"

Good point. If this case has merit, then it would logically follow that no one could be prosecuted for - out of religious conviction - refusing to service a gay wedding or - on another issue - for refusing to provide birth control or abortifacient (sp?) drugs under a health plan. But I doubt that the participants in this lawsuit would sign on to those implications.
10 posted on 04/28/2014 10:39:01 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Spot on. There is no “ban”, but rather a legal definition of marriage that does not include homosexual pairings.


11 posted on 04/28/2014 10:40:09 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wbill
"Church of Bob"

LOL Thanks, I needed that.
12 posted on 04/28/2014 10:40:12 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Or “normal”. The real and only goal here.


13 posted on 04/28/2014 10:41:36 AM PDT by epluribus_2 (he had the best mom - ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

An amicus brief in support of the so called “ban” by avowedly Christian and Jewish churches should be filed to act as a separator from those no-longer-Christian churches that support the union of Bob and Gary.


14 posted on 04/28/2014 10:43:51 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

This should be immediately thrown out of court based on lack of standing. If this “church” wants to play house, there is nothing stopping them.


15 posted on 04/28/2014 10:45:13 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Nothing is stopping them from marrying whoever they deem suitable for marriage. But there would be no way to punish those who disagree with them. So the state needs to be involved to provide a way to punish those who disagree with them about it. I mean, they won’t even marry members of their own faith unless the state gives them permission, so the actual marriages in question must not actually be too important to them.

Freegards


16 posted on 04/28/2014 10:47:55 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Even if what they pretend is a religion permits gay “marriages”, state prohibitions on imitation marriages do not infringe. It’s the same as Mormon polygamy - FedGov prohibited polygamy, which LDS permitted Polygamy, with the result that Mormons could not have more than one wife at a time. I’m a very big fan of freedom of religion, but no religion has ever required gay “marriage” and only recognizing real marriages does not affect freedom of religion.


17 posted on 04/28/2014 10:49:28 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

It should be if the judge follows the law. But I doubt it.


18 posted on 04/28/2014 10:49:30 AM PDT by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Someone just took their lamp and tossed it into the abyss.


19 posted on 04/28/2014 10:51:52 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Bingo.


20 posted on 04/28/2014 10:52:18 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
;-)

Bob would not be pleased at our mirth, at his expense.

21 posted on 04/28/2014 10:53:28 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wbill

Hey! Why is it always “Bob”? C’mon, there are lots of us and we get no respect at all. How come there’s never been a President Bob? We’ve had a Millard, a Zachary, a Ulysses, a Woodrow, and for pity’s sake, even a Barack, but a Bob? Noooo....


22 posted on 04/28/2014 10:54:33 AM PDT by beelzepug (You can't fix a broken washing machine by washing more expensive clothes in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

the authentic Church.....of God....in Christ...thinks these people are sleazy moral-morons!


23 posted on 04/28/2014 10:54:43 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
“Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.

How about this "compelling interest"... Refer to the Federal Government's very own Centers for Disease Control website! When a Sodomite "wedding" is consumated there is a documented HEALTH RISK! Why do people ignore this elephant in the room?

24 posted on 04/28/2014 10:57:06 AM PDT by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>> “Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.”

Exactly.

While there are certain practical benefits to having the state recognize marriage, I prefer it not be involved in the affairs of marriage given the states’ affinity to sodomy.


25 posted on 04/28/2014 10:58:28 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beelzepug

Bob is pleased by your deference. :-)

And “President Bob” would be an EXCELLENT FReeper Name. Too bad I’ve been here too long to bother changing.


26 posted on 04/28/2014 10:59:18 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Servants of Satan"

"Many will be deceived."

27 posted on 04/28/2014 11:00:44 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

How vile!


28 posted on 04/28/2014 11:01:57 AM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
State and federal laws against homosexual “marriage” don't affect religious practice whatsoever...nor should they.Religious denominations are free,and should be free (in the eyes of the law),to declare any number of creatures of any gender or species to be “married” in the eyes of their “God”.
29 posted on 04/28/2014 11:03:41 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

This is Rev. Wright’s denomination. As another FReeper so eloquently put it: “Socialism with a steeple.” Another formerly mainstream denomination that has been thoroughly corrupted from within, and lost well over half their membership.


30 posted on 04/28/2014 11:05:28 AM PDT by henkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

This is a copy of the complaint. It’s actually filed by several from United Church of Christ, a few Unitarians, a Lutheran or two, and a Rabbi.

http://www.amendmentonelawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Complaint-filed-on-April-28.pdf


31 posted on 04/28/2014 11:11:01 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Sure don’t sound like any Church of Christ I’ve ever been to. Sure ain’t the Pottsville,KY CoC.


32 posted on 04/28/2014 11:12:20 AM PDT by john316 (JOSHUA 24:15 ...choose you this day whom ye will serve...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Obviously these supposed clergymen have never read a Bible!!


33 posted on 04/28/2014 11:12:49 AM PDT by Blackhawk45 (Fleas can be taught nearly anything a Congressman can. -- Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears

There is nothing that prohibits them from performing the ceremony. It just won’t be recognized as legal in the eyes of the law.


34 posted on 04/28/2014 11:13:25 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

The definition of marriage is one man, one woman, at its core. Not merely “any two people who love each other”.

Never been that. Never will be that. One man. One woman. Joined in holy matrimony.

Words mean things and definitions of terms are what they are. Legally words mean exactly what they mean as well. Contracts are specific. Laws are worded explicitly.

Marriage is, what it is. It is not two men. It is not two women. It is one man, one woman joined together by the one True God of the Bible, in wedded bliss.

Marriage is the foundation of the God-blessed, family unit. The root of the family tree for that couple.

This is why definitions are important to defend. You don’t just let your enemies hijack your terms and control the language of the debate.


35 posted on 04/28/2014 11:17:50 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill

“Too bad I’ve been here too long to bother changing.”

Yeah, me, too. But please, here’s a great opportunity to make a lot of really nice people happy. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


36 posted on 04/28/2014 11:19:07 AM PDT by beelzepug (You can't fix a broken washing machine by washing more expensive clothes in it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

I read the complaint. Thanksfor attaching it. Yes, it was nauseating. I would be happy to draft a reply for the State of North Carolina. It would be very simple:

In the complaint, the Plaintiff keps using the word “Christ.” I don’t think that word means what they think it means.


37 posted on 04/28/2014 11:20:25 AM PDT by henkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Can’t wait for the Muslims to sue for polygamy.


38 posted on 04/28/2014 11:25:19 AM PDT by kaehurowing (FIGHT BULLYING, UNINSTALL FIREFOX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill

Is that the Church ZERO CLAIMS to belong to as a Christian?


39 posted on 04/28/2014 11:33:48 AM PDT by Kackikat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kackikat

Couldn’t be. With his ego, he’d only worship at the “Church of Himself”.


40 posted on 04/28/2014 11:35:32 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

If them, why shouldn’t Moslems be able to practice polygamy?


41 posted on 04/28/2014 11:35:50 AM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

NO, no GAY MARRIAGE in NC. (Do not mess with my state), but how cute that they are trying!


42 posted on 04/28/2014 11:44:40 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Defeat Hagan, elect a Constutional Conservative: Dr. Greg Brannon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kackikat

Yes, it is. It is a “church” in name only, but does accurately reflect 0bama’s values.


43 posted on 04/28/2014 11:45:45 AM PDT by henkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

“They say state prohibitions, including a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2012, violate their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.”

These alleged Christian clergy do not understand the First Amendment and Freedom of Religion.

The entire concept of the First Amendment in a Christian nation is to protect their freedom of religion and not have that freedom corrupted by the state by forcing churches to go against the Bible.


44 posted on 04/28/2014 11:48:53 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

There’s nothing at all stopping any of those “churches” from marrying whoever or whatever they want.


45 posted on 04/28/2014 11:54:40 AM PDT by Blackyce (French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce
"There’s nothing at all stopping any of those “churches” from marrying whoever or whatever they want."

The Bible and the First Amendment should be enough to stop them.

46 posted on 04/28/2014 11:58:40 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: john316
There is no relationship whatsoever between the United Church of Christ and the churches of Christ. Most of the latter use a small 'c' as one means of distinguishing between them. The church of Christ has its roots in the Stone-Campbell restoration movement and is very Conservative, both theologically and politically.

As a contrast, some of the better known members of the United Church of Christ include Howard Dean, Julian Bond, Jim Jeffords and Jon Corzine. Compare that to prominent church of Christ members including Ken Starr (recently converted to Baptist as president of Baylor), Ted Poe, Fred Thompson and, surprisingly, Meat Loaf.

47 posted on 04/28/2014 12:08:26 PM PDT by re_nortex (DP - that's what I like about Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

a desecration of the altar which destroys its true purpose. Just so will Antichrist establish an abomination in the sanctuary, a demonic counterfeit worship


48 posted on 04/28/2014 12:10:02 PM PDT by Cats Pajamas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: henkster

I am not a lawyer but I enjoy reading the way judges take apart these garbage arguments. But with the courts the way the are now they’ll probably win.


49 posted on 04/28/2014 12:13:11 PM PDT by darkangel82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Exactly right. All word play with them to get unspoken consent of all.


50 posted on 04/28/2014 12:13:52 PM PDT by Cats Pajamas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson