Posted on 06/30/2015 10:09:23 AM PDT by xzins
Legal opinions vary widely on what the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate of nationwide same-sex marriage will mean for pastors and government officials authorized to perform weddings.
Some legal experts say government officials charged with performing weddings could lose their jobs for refusing to marry gay couples. But others believe both ministers and government officials likely will have freedom not to perform same-sex marriages that violate their religious convictions.
And some experts believe pastors who refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages could face government repercussions.
The court's majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, states that "religions" and "those who adhere to religious doctrines" may "continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."
The ruling added, however, that the Constitution "does not permit the state to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex." There is no specific statement regarding who would be required by law to perform a same-sex wedding.
Dissents by both Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the majority's apparent disregard for religious liberty, noting that the majority defends religious individuals' right to advocate and teach their views without also protecting the right to live out those beliefs. Thomas, joined by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, said "the majority appears unmoved" by the "inevitability" that "individuals and churches [will be] confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."
Roberts, joined by Scalia and Thomas, wrote, "People of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today."
Scalia's dissent noted that "not a single evangelical Christian" had a say in the court's opinion, as none of the nine justices are evangelicals.
Mike Whitehead, an attorney in Kansas City, Mo., who has served on the staffs of two Southern Baptist Convention entities, told Baptist Press oral arguments in the cases known as Obergefell v. Hodges "made clear that the federal government position would be to require that public officials who are authorized to perform marriages must also perform same-sex marriages, regardless of an individual official's religious conscience. Conscientious objectors could face firing, fines or worse."
By surveying marriage statutes in five states -- Tennessee, Ohio, Texas, Wyoming and Rhode Island -- BP estimated that an average of at least 907 public officials per state are authorized to perform weddings. That figure excludes former public officials authorized by the statutes to perform weddings as well as clergy members, who are also referenced in the statutes.
If BP's estimate reflects the number of government employees authorized to solemnize marriages across all 50 states, tens of thousands of public officials could be compelled to marry gay couples if Whitehead's assessment is correct.
Public officials empowered to perform marriages, Whitehead said, may be able to refuse to perform any weddings, but an official who performs only heterosexual marriages likely will be declared in violation of the Constitution.
Whitehead cited events in North Carolina as a microcosm of what could happen across the nation. Last fall, the state's 670 magistrates received a memo from North Carolina's Administrative Office of the Courts stating that because a federal court had legalized gay marriage in the state, magistrates were required to perform same-sex weddings or face possible criminal prosecution.
At least six magistrates resigned rather than marry homosexual couples. Later, the state legislature passed a bill allowing magistrates to opt out of performing weddings altogether. Gay marriage advocates are challenging the law in court.
Gilbert Breedlove, a former magistrate in Swain County, N.C., who resigned rather than perform gay weddings, told BP other Christian officials should prepare to "respond in faith" to the Supreme Court's ruling even "if it takes resigning your commission."
Breedlove, pastor of an independent Baptist church in Bryson City, N.C., predicted Christian public officials generally will choose to resign rather than defy the law. But he acknowledged that some officials might "feel the Lord leading them to face criminal charges."
The North Carolina legislature's bill protecting magistrates' religious liberty was passed following Breedlove's resignation, and he said it is unlikely a magistrate position will open again.
Whitehead speculated that ministers also could face government pressure to perform same-sex weddings, with those who refuse to solemnize gay marriages losing the power to solemnize any marriage on behalf of the state. Church weddings, he said, could become merely religious ceremonies without meaning in the state's eyes.
"Secularists will try to avoid this constitutional crisis of religious freedom," Whitehead said, by "simply tell[ing] the minister, 'We're not going to force you to perform a marriage ... but we'll not permit you to do any marriages if you refuse to perform marriages between homosexual couples who are lawfully married under our state law.'"
David Smolin, a constitutional law professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law, does not believe pastors will face legal repercussions for performing only heterosexual weddings. He told BP standard interpretations of the Constitution and federal statutes establish a "zone of autonomy" around clergy that should protect their ability to perform state-recognized weddings without compromising their religious convictions.
Government officials with religious convictions against gay marriage, however, could face significant challenges, Smolin said.
If public officials "are in a position of usually solemnizing [marriages for] all takers who come to them that are eligible under state law," Smolin said, then refusing to marry a same-sex couple "might be a violation of their duties and subject them, and the state, to a discrimination lawsuit."
Among those particularly at risk of being forced to violate their religious convictions are Christians who work for government offices that issue marriage licenses, Smolin said. Religious schools and businesses may face penalties for refusing to acknowledge gay marriages in admissions, hiring and student housing, he said.
Christiana Holcomb, litigation counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, told BP it's possible that both clergy and government officials could maintain the right to perform weddings according to their religious convictions, though she stressed that the particulars of the Supreme Court's opinion need to be studied. Protections of religious liberty vary from state to state, she said, and states with Religious Freedom Restoration Acts protect freedom of conscience to a significant degree.
"Government officials do not forfeit all of their religious liberty protections simply by being employed by the state," Holcomb said. "... They have the freedom guaranteed to them by the First Amendment and hopefully state laws" to "only perform weddings that accord with their convictions."
Jack Graham, pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, and a former SBC president, said at a press conference June 17 in Columbus, Ohio, that a justice of the peace in Dallas had already called him seeking advice on what to do if same-sex marriage was legalized. Graham expressed hope that public officials would be permitted to recuse themselves from performing weddings that violate their religious convictions, but he said Christian government workers must be prepared to stand for Christ regardless of the consequences.
"As a believer, if you are called upon ... you must obey God and not man, if it means giving up your role or facing penalties," said Graham, who, along with the other living SBC presidents elected since 1980, released a statement affirming the biblical definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.
David Roach is chief national correspondent for Baptist Press, the Southern Baptist Convention's news service.
You’re thinking of a small church, perhaps.
And, you forget “Judas” and Jesus’ parable of ‘tares’.
Start educating the flock about what could happen. First, business as usual but letting them know that when the “plant” comes, as you know they will, then the pastor gets out of the state witnessing of the marriage and witnesses before God alone. Tell them in advance that this will mean they have to be “married” twice if they want to be married in the church and that they should marry first in the church. Then dump the legal responsibilities for the state recognized marriage on the state, where it belongs. It may reduce the number of church weddings but the ones who get married in the church will really want to be there.
As of now pastors can refuse heterosexual weddings if they feel the union is un-Biblical. Like a believer with a non-believer, etc. In my church couples must submit to pre-marital counseling if they want a church wedding. Such could be an opportunity to speak the Good News of the Gospel to a while new audience.
Note: repost but relevant IMHO...
http://redneckoblogger.blogspot.com/
You’ll never find a same-sex couple that isn’t living together. That’s an immediate disqualification.
No same-sex couple is going to attend church regularly for a year just to pull a marriage scam.
“some experts believe pastors who refuse to solemnize same-sex marriages could face government repercussions.”
That’s the one right there. IMO that’s the whole end game....destroy Christian churches.
Two of my friends went to their pastor and ask him to perform their marriage and he refused because they were living together.
I have no problem with that plan. This article points out that the authority of pastors to solemnize government marriages could well be revoked.
I would recommend an intake form with statement of principles to be signed, and among those principles would be heterosexual only. Any unwillingness to sign would automatically mean ‘no wedding’.
Hmm...well, I’m technically a state employee myself. I suppose I could offer to officiate and save everyone a lot of trouble. Not sure every detail of the ceremony would be entirely well-received, the blindfolded tightrope walk over the flaming tank of oil, for one thing...
Can they turn a couple down for a ceremony based on skin color? No? Well then, they can't turn down the deviants, either. Both are now a "civil right".
The Federal courts are very diligent about protecting their decisions and their implementation. Any government official who has taken an oath to uphold and defend will be forced to perform these marriages or resign. Kennedy has made it clear that at this time, he will not entertain efforts by individuals or the government to coerce religious institutions or clergy. Why overplay a winning hand. However it will be interesting to see how the courts deal with ordinary individuals who based on their conscience refuse to take an oath to uphold and defend or perform civic duties such as jury duty. If the US Constitution is really the basis for the widespread carnage of abortion on demand and the implementation of the decadent and hedonistic homosexual agenda, then people of conscience like the 2nd and 3rd century Christians may as a form of civil disobedience refuse service. “Your honor with all due respect to your court, I would prefer not to be a juror or take this oath. In my heart I am have a deep antipathy for the institution that made the widespread killing of human life possible. If you force me to serve it is doubtful I will be able to concentrate and perform this service.” In the 1960s Mohammed Ali based on his religious convictions and conscience was excused from his civic duties. Will people of conscience be afforded the same courtesy today?
That is discriminatory and a lawsuit would ensue. .
someone said earlier ... if they're not of your congregation and haven't sttended classes, etc ....
I don't know if that will wash, but it sounds good
Just trying to “play chess” with it. Gays who are not following religion won’t be a problem. Gays who enjoy religion and wish to be married in a church or synagogue will naturally gravitate to the church in town that wants to marry them. Which there will be. I see those churches having more people and more money. Straight people will say to each other, Church X wouldn’t even marry Tom and Steve! And some of those people will be cowed to go to the more “accepting” church Y. That could be a problem, though for a generation there might be a goodly portion of people who prefer Church Y and support it. But for how long?
It seems to me that this is the prudent way forward.
Even if it were a 6-mo wait, it's hard to believe there are "rabble-rouser's" who will wait that long.
And who knows? If they were forced to submit to marriage classes and "pre-marriage" counseling, one or both might have a come-to-Jesus moment...
I’m talking about a church, not a county clerk. That’s not discriminatory. They’re told at the outset the church’s beliefs and principles, and they sign on to them, or they go elsewhere.
Churches are not required to marry just any couple who asks now. Pastors have the right to refuse to marry couples they believe will divorce later and they do so all the time.
To demand that every church begin to marry just anybody who asks will be a violation of current law and religious freedom.
Good for him; more pastors should do likewise.
They are coming after the church.
In that case, it doesn’t matter what you do, but you might as well be legally protected.
What about the sharks with frikkin laser beams? :)
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.