United Church of Christ challenges NC Gay Marriage Ban on Free Exercise Grounds

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Apr 29, 2014.

  1. QGator2414
    Online

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,223
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +733
    Has the state of NC tried to stop the ucc from performing a ceremony?
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    Well, there's no legal case that can be brought forcing states or the federal goverment to grant any benefits or status to multiple marriages or polygamous unions that dont already exist, there's just simply no basis in which laws can be passed or maintained making cohabitation or polygamy illegal or preventing possible future laws recognizing those arrangments, should they obtain any level of popular support to pass.
  3. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,456
    No idea.

    But, especially in the First Amendment context, a desire to undertake a course of action encompassing a constitutionally protected interest that is proscribed by the language of the statute, combined with a credible fear of prosecution under the statute, can itself be enough to establish standing to challenge the statute. The rules can get complicated here, but you don't always have to let yourself be prosecuted before challenging the First Amendment constitutionality of a statute.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. QGator2414
    Online

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,223
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +733
    Yeah.

    I am just trying to figure out whether this was agenda driven or was the ucc freely expressing their religion already and somehow found out there may be a concern the state was looking to stop them.
  5. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Uh, what?
  6. tim85
    Offline

    tim85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,173
    Likes Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173
    Huh, didn't know that.

    @MichiGator2002 Agree with the state level. Gay marriage, abortion, etc - I think all those types of things could be settled at the state level. I partly wonder if Democrats don't like the idea because keeping it at the federal level allows to use all of those social aspects to be used in the President elections, making them more palatable to certain groups. At the state level, Presidents couldn't use the social platform as much.
  7. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    Now you're packing for Utah as we speak, eh? ;)
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    The only reason Windsor could come about is because the Federal goverment decided to ban recognition of same sex marriage WRT DOMA when it seemed like a state might legalize it. That should be pretty instructive example I think, but one that will probably be relived. If a state wants to expand rights or freedoms with no clear constitutional conflict, don't hastily ban it at the federal level on largely moral & reactionary grounds.
  9. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,172
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,307
    Read my whole statement. The state has a ground to stand on because it is enforcing the law that is already on the books. The so called sodomy laws. Religious freedom protects us from laws being created that can rob us of existing religious liberty. I don't believe the constitution protects a church from a law that ALREADY exists.

    Churches are prohibited to practice many things by law.
  10. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Which sodomy laws are on the books again?

    Further, marriage and sodomy are mutually exclusive concepts.
  11. GatorBen
    Online

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,184
    Likes Received:
    623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,456
    Sodomy laws aren't "on the books" (and to the degree a state hasn't formally repealed them, they have been facially unenforceable for the past 11 years).

    If a state made the argument that they were just enforcing their sodomy laws, you could address that in a really short opinion: "You lose. See generally Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)."

    Even if you were correct that the Free Exercise Clause only applied to the State making laws and not to it enforcing ones that are already on the books, you would likely need a law that predated 1868 (the date the 14th Amendment, which is what incorporated the Free Exercise Clause against the states, went into effect) to have a law that wouldn't count as a "new law being created that could rob us of existing religious liberty." NC's gay marriage amendment went into effect in 2012, their legislative prohibition on recognizing same sex marriages went into effect in 1996, and the first version on their prohibition on clergy performing marriages without a marriage license appears to be from 1871. So not a single one of those applicable laws would be a law that "already existed" in any case.
  12. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,478
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,832
    because ultimately, it's unconstitutional, and it's only time before judges strike down each ban

    if you don't agree with gay marriage, don't get one..............simple
  13. 08gatorbait
    Offline

    08gatorbait Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tampa
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    Trying to use God to stop marriage from people in love is just absurd.

    Let's not forget the Bible was used to defend Slavery in this country too. The book is old, and it's message is obsolete in a lot of social norms(specifically the old testament). Unless you think it's cool to sell your wife or daughter as a sex servant still.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2014
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  14. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,172
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,307
    The Bible did not tell us to do those things, It historically documented that they happened. That is a big difference.
    The overall message of that book will NEVER grow obsolete.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,172
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,307
    But that is such a silly argument. (not aiming that at you specifically, just the argument) I don't agree with incest or bigamy either. You cant just use the "don't get one" plan when we don't agree on things. that is a slippery slope.
  16. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,172
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,307
    But most of these "churches" have just recently "decided" that they are cool with it. Therefore it does not take a very old law to qualify. I challenge you to find an organized church here in North Carolina that was marrying gays prior to 1871....or heck probably 1996 for that matter.
  17. 08gatorbait
    Offline

    08gatorbait Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tampa
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    Actually it very much did. But the point was we can't use the Bible as a way of determining decisions today, especially the old testament. Now Jesus, that guy had some great examples of how to live. We should model after many of the things he said, but the old testament is out dated. Things like this are not an example of ways you should view our society. This implies directly, that all non Jews are allowed to be slaves. So you are telling me that this is okay?


    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    Or how about this...we should certainly choose laws based on this

    Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

    SO we should kill every Muslim on Earth. Those horrible people....

    Or maybe this passage could shed some light on how we should treat woman.

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
    (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

    Oh I see. So if I rape a woman, then she is mine? Wow...look out hot women...any guy according to the bible can rape you for a small price to your dad and then his punishment...is he must continue to sleep with you for the rest of his life.

    I don't see how you can read this stuff to children to be honest.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  18. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,172
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,307
    Fair enough. I stand corrected. I think thats the first time you've got me OBOB :cool:

    However my point about laws long in existence still applies.
    IRT marriage the same applies, as laws have been on the books for years.

    “A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry” (NC General Statute 51-1) “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.” (NC General Statute 51-1.2)

    http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_51/GS_51-1.html
  19. tilly
    Online

    tilly Superhero Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    22,172
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC via FLA
    Ratings Received:
    +6,307
    Right. The Bible is documenting what the laws of that day were.
    Jesus tells us that those are not what we live by today. You kind of made my point.
    Those were man made laws, documented by scripture, that no scholar alive feels apply today.
    Show me in the scriptures where God says it is Ok to rape a woman...lol. Nice try though.

    When it comes to marriage however, Jesus himself spoke of that being between a man and a woman.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. 08gatorbait
    Offline

    08gatorbait Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    192
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Tampa
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    My goodness the ignorances of religion is mind boggling. Keep convincing yourself this book has any merit.

    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)


    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.


    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.



    So let's dissect this passage.

    Part 1. Genocide starts
    Part 2. Genocide going well, all the men are dead and destroying everyones home
    Part 3. Oh look, time to slaughter all those woman who aren't virgins and their evil little baby sons
    Part 4. Enslave the young girls as sex slaves

    Man...that Moses guy is a class act huh LOL. Rape, check. Genocide...check. Slaughtering kids? Check. The lords work is done!
    • Dislike Dislike x 2

Share This Page