In California, at least, anyone can officiate at marriage ceremony–you just have to get a someone (close friend, typically) certified as an official ‘Marriage Commissioner’, which certification is good for one marriage between 2 particular people one one specified day. At least that’s the way we did it. No judges, justice of the peace or minister required, and al perfectly legal and official.
4 Likes
No marriages in KY and OR? No divorces in TN? Conservatives are having one heck of a temper tantrum this time.
Who do they think they are? Greek gods? That would be blasphemy; but what the heck, it’s their loss of Christian salvation not ours. Go for it, you crackpots. Let Independent voters see just where the GOP has let the Far Right take their agenda.
“It’s an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment,” he said.
So the Christian lobby has reinterpreted the first amendment the same way the gun lobby re-wrote the second. Isn’t that special…
1 Like
The real point is that with respect to legal status, ALL marriages in the US are civil. You get a license from the state, not a church, and even the power to perform any marriage ceremony - whether secular or religious is also granted by the states - which is why pastors will often say, “by the power invested in me by the State of X, I now pronounce you…”
1 Like
Unamerican.
A nation cannot be a nation if law is arbitrary.
A judge who does not understand the difference between civil and religious marriage should not be a judge.
3 Likes
And just how is it the “duty” of other judges, yet not his duty as well? Some don’t have enough courage in their convictions to resign their civic positions and find something suitable.
“It’s an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment,” he said.
No, it’s not. Stop saying that.
1 Like
No. The big difference here is that it is not a ministerial duty of the office to perform marriages, whereas it is the clerk’s ministerial duty to issue licenses. If the judge had never performed a single marriage, he would not have violated his oath. We’ll have to wait and see why the judge is under investigation.
When I married my partner, the county clerk who issued us our license then told us, “wait, let me get my robes,” and married us too. Good for her! But I also do see some distinction between this case and the Kim Davis case, at least on the “performing marriage” part of the equation. The article, confusingly, also mentions “issuing licences”. If part of the duties of Oregon judges is to issue marriage licences, than this judge is obliged to issue such licences to all eligible couples, same-sex or not.
Performing marriages is a separate function. Lots of people are qualified to perform marriages, after all: ship captains, clergy of any religion, judges, certain elected officials, and so forth. Heck, I even performed a marriage once for some dear friends, thanks to a one-day appointment as officiator by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But performing marriages is a perquisite, not a duty, of all of those categories of people. If that’s the case here, then this judge is not violating the law by not performing marriages. He’s qualified to do so as a judge, but not obliged.
Moreover, if the judge (in this scenario) stated “I will marry opposite sex couples, but not same-sex couples”, then he would be discriminating, and it seems under Oregon law that would be a violation of anti-discrimination law in public services, though I’m not sure it necessarily would be under Federal law (affectional orientation is not a strict-scrutiny category – remember, companies can fire workers for being gay in many states, and Federal law imposes no limits on this either). So, the judge may be following the law in concluding that if he doesn’t want to marry same sex couples, he shouldn’t marry any couples.
That said, he was a fool to tell his staff his reasons. That statement may well open him to an ethics inquiry, because it provides evidence that his refusal to marry any couples follows from reasons of discrimination.
Our society respects and celebrates diversity, which is great, and it demands limits on discrimination, which is great. But we get along when everyone shows some willingness to accommodate the convictions – even if we’re convinced they’re wrongheaded and dangerous convictions – of others, up to a point. Even as a strong supporter of SSM (I’m married, after all), I think the case for letting one judge choose not to carry out a voluntary activity he’s qualified but not obliged to do may be reasonable… provided that Oregon law makes it easy to find persons qualified to perform marriages. The circumstances do matter, and if all judges in a large region began refusing, of if only judges were qualified to perform marriages, the situation would be different. But for now, while I certainly disapprove of this judge, I’m not sure he needs to be sanctioned (except, perhaps, for involving his staff – public employees – in the matter).
We did it that way too! An ex-Catholic priest got to be commissioner-for-a-day (at our request) and married us with vows we wrote our very own selves. It was really very affirming. And subversive.
Davis will have company.
“It’s an exercise of his religious freedom rights under the First Amendment,”
That he voluntarily abrogated during the faithful performance of his position by choosing to take that position as his job.
1 Like
SUICIDEARSONIST: "“Your wording isn’t great there. The way it reads, if I have a religious marriage, it doesn’t count if I want to file taxes jointly, and if I have a secular (civil) marriage, it doesn’t count if I want my kid baptized. They don’t work that way.”
You did misunderstand me, because I didn’t express myself clearly. I’ll try again.
If you hold a purely religious wedding ceremony without also completing the minimum necessary legal steps required by your state for a legal wedding, you are validly religiously married but you are not legally married. Your religious marriage exists, but generally will not be recognized for legal purposes.
If you hold a purely religious wedding that is counter to the laws of your state (e.g., marrying a 10-year-old) but consistent with your religion’s rules, you are validly religiously married but you are not legally married. Again, no recognition for legal purposes. Similarly, certain breakaway LDS sects perform plural religious marriages. Those are valid religious marriages within those LDS sects, but they are not valid legal marriages in any state.
And if you go to the office of a government official to get married (e.g., justice of the peace), then you obviously have at that time only a legal marriage (although you’re free to add the religious marriage later, if you so choose or not.)
What usually happens is that people have a hybrid religious/secular wedding, during which a minister (who in all or most states is authorized by state statute to officiate weddings in the role of a state official) briefly steps out of his/her religious role and into a secular role to intone “By the power vested in me by the state of X, I now pronounce you [spouse and spouse].”
For that moment, the wedding is purely secular; but after completing the rest of the religious ceremony, there is in place both a religious marriage and a legal marriage.
1 Like
Patrick Korten, a spokesman for Day, told KGW that Day acted on “deeply-held religious beliefs.”
Fine then, I’ll refuse to pay the income tax because of my deeply held religious belief.
(of course I cannot but this is a thought experiment here)
And I’ll refuse to obey the traffic laws. I’m gonna speed and text at the same time !!!23one!!!
Toss this ASSHOLE in JAIL
Christian conservative politicians and public servants – including judges and county clerks – strive to protect the religious freedom of all Americans … just so long as you believe in Jesus Christ.
My advice to public sector Christian conservatives who deem that their warped interpretation of Biblical law trumps Constitutional law and therefore cannot stomach the recent decisions of the SCOTUS – quit your taxpayer-funded jobs, scurry on home, lock the doors, pull the blinds, and never come out again.
The American people have been fed a fiction – that everyone must obey the Supreme Court because of the Supremacy Clause.
When you read the Supremacy Clause however – Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution – you see that the Supreme Court or federal courts are not even mentioned. Rather, what has supremacy is the U. S. Constitution itself and all laws or treaties made in accordance with the Constitution.
True federalism understands that all magistrates – whatever their level or sphere of jurisdiction – possess lawful authority. And that whenever one branch of government begins to play the tyrant – all other branches (whether federal, state, county, or local) have the duty then more than ever to uphold the Constitution and oppose that branch acting tyrannically – even if that branch is the Supreme Court.
What Kim Davis, this judge and others have done is not just about religious liberty – it is about reining in a lawless federal judiciary.
Let me say loud and clear: The Supreme Court cannot make law. That takes legislators. Their opinion is not the ‘law of the land.’
So, you and I don’t really disagree about anything substantive, right? I would agree with you that if all judges refused to marry couples, there could be a problem. I certainly agree that any judge who refused to marry SS couples yet married DS couples would violate ethics, equal protection, and due process.
I guess my only disagreement on the ethics complaint is whether it would go to the point of a full hearing if all of the counts of the complaint are based on the marriage issue. I understand how his refusal may be regarded as an ethics violation by the person filing the complaint and, perhaps, by some members of the ethics board. It may be that Oregon requires all ethics complaints receive a full hearing. In many, if not most, states, however, ethics complaints tend to be handled in a manner similar to any legal case. There is generally a discovery phase during which frivolous or questionable cases may be dismissed without a full hearing before the board.
My main point was that since it is apparently going to the full hearing stage, I think the complaint is likely based on some other actions unrelated to SSM from his time on the bench. Certainly I may be wrong. But I still think the suggestion that the ethics complaint is primarily the result of SSM sounds like the rumblings of personal or political supporters of the judge, attempting to diminish the importance of the hearing and trying to make the complaint sound to his political base like he is a victim.
No, my wording is correct.
If you have a religious marriage but not also a secular marriage, it doesn’t count if you want to file taxes jointly as husband and wife. See, e.g., polygamist Mormon plural marriages, which are recognized by the Mormon church but not by any state (except the first marriage in the sequence, which would be legal to the state.)
As for baptism for your kid, that’s not really an apt example, since your kid can be baptized regardless of whether you and your spouse are married.