Alabama bill would let ministers refuse same-sex marriages

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Alabama bill would let ministers refuse same-sex marriages
| May 6, 2015 | Updated: May 6, 2015 9:14pm

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A bill working its way through the Alabama Legislature would allow probate judges and ministers to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday heard passionate testimony about the bill that the sponsor says came about after a brief period of legalized gay marriage in Alabama.

Proponents say the bill would protect religious beliefs, but opponents say it opens the door to broader discrimination of same-sex couples and other groups.

Rep. Jim Hill says he brought the bill, which has already passed the House, after a federal judge ruled that Alabama's gay marriage ban was unconstitutional. He says the legislation wouldn't prevent gay couples from marrying.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Alabama-bill-would-let-ministers-refuse-same-sex-6247480.php

[rpannier]

1. Ministers don't have to perform any marriage ceremony they don't want to

It doesn't matter the reason. They just don't
There are plenty of ministers that won't perform marriages of people from differing religions, that are of different races, etc
It's perfectly legal

Judges shouldn't have that option
They're a state employee.
Leave their damned religion at the workplace door or find another job

[Hekate]

5. Lots of people seem to be confused about the difference between Church and State, even here....

You took the words right out of my mouth. Ministers, priests, rabbis, imams, clergy of any stripe -- ALL are entitled to follow the rules of their faith when it comes to performing their sacraments.

When I married my husband, we would never have had the arrogance to walk into a Roman Catholic church and demand the priest marry us. Neither of us is Catholic, both of us had been divorced, and my husband is Jewish, and for any and all of those reasons a Catholic priest would have the right to refuse. My husband wanted to get married "under the chuppah" but the local rabbi wanted me to convert first. So we asked the Unitarian Universalist minister to officiate at our wedding, and he did so without hesitation. (The UUs, btw, likewise have no difficulty with gay marriages.)

However, a public official is sworn to uphold secular law, and when secular law says that any two consenting adults are eligible to wed, judges, justices of the peace, and county clerks are bound by law to comply. And that is as it should be.

[Cryptoad]

19. confuse?

thats their plan!

[LiberalFighter]

22. Clergy don't have to marry anyone if they don't want to.

Even if the bride and groom are members of the same church as the clergy person.

[malthaussen]

35. Beat me to it.

But apparently this bill applies to probate judges as well. Not a good idea.

-- Mal

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Musn't offend religious beliefs.

[Little Tich]

3. Why would anyone want go to a priest that thinks you should burn in hell anyway? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Irrelevant.

It is nothing more than codified bigotry.

[Little Tich]

6. I don’t want to offend anyone, but isn’t a little bit of bigotry part of most religious beliefs?

Perhaps, if a priest refuses to marry a same-sex couple, perhaps he (or she) should be obligated to provide a substitute priest to do it. That would make both parties happy, I think.

[pnwmom]

8. The Constitution says that laws can't be written requiring religions to make their rituals

open to anyone.

Anyone who is turned away by a priest has the option of going to a judge or other public servant, who should not be allowed to turn them away under any circumstances.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. This proposal extends past religious leaders.

I went through the same here in OK. We couldn't even get a Justice of the Peace once the anti-marriage equality law was shot down in OK. I had to be married by a minister. I am Jewish; it was far from ideal, but at least we are able to get it done. A civil servant shouldn't have a "religious exemption."

[Little Tich]

10. Civil servants should not be able to object.

And if they do, they shouldn’t remain civil servants.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. And yet...

A bill working its way through the Alabama Legislature would allow probate judges and ministers to refuse to marry same-sex couples on religious grounds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Yeah, the headline buried the important bit of the news

It's allowing the public servants to refuse to carry out their duties that is the crappy part of the bill that should be stopped. eg the discussion on the Scottish marriage bill:

On the question of "opt-outs", officials said: "The law is clear that when someone is providing a public service, they cannot, because of their religion or belief, discriminate unlawfully against customers or service users.

"Registrars are employed to deliver a public function and may be required to solemnise same sex marriages.

"This is similar to requirements that have been placed on some registrars since the Civil Partnerships Act 2004, meaning many have been required to perform civil partnerships as part of their duties."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-21800035

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Yup. The thing is if it weren't including public servants, it would be a pointless law.

It would be the equivalent of passing a law saying the sun must rise in the east.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. I was waiting for it

Its not religious officiants - its the ones supported by tax payers that I have a problem with. IE Probate judges. You don't want to do your job for everyone equally? You're fired!

[Behind the Aegis]

14. That's what makes this bill so devious.

No one is trying to make religious leaders marry everyone. That's absurd. It is nothing more than trying to codify bigotry. They don't want government interfering with religion, but they sure want government to support their religious bigotry. It really irritates me so many don't really see the real issue.

[jwirr]

24. The justice of peace should not he allowed to refuse as he/she is a part of the government. Other

than that the government does not have the right to establish religion. Thank God. Can you imagine what rw theology would mean to all our laws? Well, yes, you can imagine it. It is happening to you.

Many churches limit who they will marry. Most only allow members to marry in the church. Many today require so many counseling visits before they will even marry members. They also refuse to marry someone who appears to be a very good candidate for divorce. They also refuse to marry couples from other denominations. Years ago they would not marry racially mixed couples.

I realize that this is a true form of discrimination but I do not see our courts overturning a religious law.

What I do think will change this (and already has in some churches) is time. The laws are in your favor now - let people see that all the things they have imagined would happen (when you were actually recognized as legal) are not going to happen.

If we could look ahead in the future I think we will see a very different world. The youth are changing a lot of attitudes and that is not going to change.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. It is that part of the bill that is cuasing me (and others) some major issues.

The minister who married us usually only marries people from his church and requires 6 hours of pre-marital counseling. However, after the anti-equality law was over turned in Oklahoma, he amend his ways because the state allowed JOP/clerks to deny marrying gay people, if they stopped all marriages, which is what happened in many counties. He figured since we had been together for 13 years, counseling wasn't really needed. He was even respectful enough not to mention Jesus in his brief speech and allowed for my Jewish traditions.

"I realize that this is a true form of discrimination but I do not see our courts overturning a religious law."

I am afraid that may be the case too. If the SC does the right thing, we may see more places enact similar laws. So, while gays will be allowed to legally married, it will be a chore, possibly a feat, to find someone to do it. It will be similar to women who wish to terminate a pregnancy; legally they can do it, but it can be a real hassle to find a place that will do it, and avoid places that trick you.

[jwirr]

32. I am at this point glad that at least you found a decent minister to marry you. I actually went

through this with my sister who married a black man. She found a minister and he married them in a park in their town.

[pnwmom]

7. Probate judges are not equivalent to ministers. They fill public positions and shouldn't be allowed

to discriminate.

Ministers aren't required anywhere to marry same-sex couples.

[leftynyc]

16. They already have

that right. Just another superfluous law to feed their sheep some red meat.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. I would agree, except this one includes probate judges.

If that is removed, then it would be, as you said, superfluous. However, as it is written, it is an attempt to codify bigotry and pre-emptively "defend" themselves from a possibility the SC will rule in favor of marriage equality. There will be more of these bills to come.

[leftynyc]

18. I didn't read that part

A lawyer would have to explain to me whether - given the supreme court does the right thing in June - that would make this law unconstitutional. I swear, I will never understand these losers.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. I am curious about your question too.

Would these laws be unconstitutional? One thing is for sure, it will make it more difficult for gay people and involve even more court cases.

[onehandle]

20. Another Alabama bill would let bowling alleys refuse to let leprechauns bowl. nt

[shenmue]

34. I hate that

Anti-leprechaun jerks.

[Nitram]

21. I have no problem with ministers following their religious beliefs.

That's what religion does. If a gay couple want to be married in a church, they just need to find a gay-friendly one. The Catholic Church in Tokyo (where I was living at the time) wouldn't let my wife and I get married there because I am not a Catholic and she is not a Christian (although the Bishop told us my being a Protestant was more problematic than my wife being a "heathen&quot .

[jwirr]

25. LOL I remember those good old days.

[TheSarcastinator]

27. I agree with you 200%!

This is exactly correct: churches should never be held to the same standards of equal access as the rest of the nation simply because the belief systems upon which they rely are based in prejudice, bigotry and exclusion -- we certainly could never expect them to change in order to make a more equal and just society. Just as a Catholic cathedral may refuse service to non-Catholic couples, so too should Evangelical churches be allowed to refuse service to miscegenated couples, gay couples, and anyone else they find to be outside of their ring of salvation.

Why? Religion is SPECIAL.

[Nitram]

37. Why would anyone want to be married in a church that believes your marriage is an abomination?

I'd rather be married by an open-minded minister than a bigot.

[LiberalFighter]

23. They should just bypass the need for any type of a ceremony.

Eliminate the middle man. Fill out the marriage license. Have the clerk sign and notarize it. Now considered married.

[immoderate]

26. Religion is superstition. Do not expect rationality.

--imm

[beachbum bob]

28. donn't understand the big deal?? Ministers can CHOOSE now....

seems like more hyperbole than anything else

[Behind the Aegis]

31. It is the inclusion of "probate judges" that is the issue.

They are civil servants.

[yallerdawg]

33. Speaking of Alabama...

Justice Alito had asked what about a brother and sister marrying?

If marriage is not specifically about a man, a woman, and procreation - traditional family - would it be discriminatory for a brother and sister, who lived together, loved each other of course, had no on else to leave property and values too, would it be discriminatory to ban marriage, especially if they are not incestuous, especially if sexual relationship can not be a determinant?

I was a little confused by the answer in court, but since it was asked can we expect the Supreme Court to be real specific on what is marriage?

[geek tragedy]

36. already covered by the First Amendment nt