Religion
Related: About this forumAtheist Group Argues In Court For Right To Perform Weddings
By Brandon Smith, IPBS
Posted October 22, 2012
A secular organization, the Center for Inquiry, argued in federal court Monday that Indiana’s marriage statute is unconstitutional because it does not allow non-religious organizations to marry people.
Under Indiana statute, marriage is essentially a two-step process. The state issues a marriage license and then it is solemnized. The state’s marriage statute spells out who can solemnize, including religious organizations and some elected officials.
Solicitor General Thomas Fisher says the purpose of the statute is for the state to regulate marriage while accommodating religious groups and providing alternatives for non-religious organizations.
“Once you get beyond the contours of the historical accommodation we’re talking about, it’s pretty difficult to find a neutral rule that limits who can solemnize but still include CFI,” he says.
http://indianapublicmedia.org/news/atheist-group-argues-court-perform-marriages-38549/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
no_hypocrisy
(46,078 posts)No religious test for public officials to perform civil duties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)"While questioning the attorneys, federal judge Sarah Evans Barker said she believed the statute was generic enough that it could include the CFI under a broad definition of religious organization. But CFI asserts it is not a religious group because it has no belief in a higher power or supreme being. Barker did not set a specific timetable for her ruling."
So, they argue they don't want to be lumped in with religious groups even though that will allow them to perform marriages. But, if they, as a nonreligious, nongovernmental group, can perform marriages, what's to stop the VFW or Chamber of Commerce?
Quakers, btw, also have a problem with our unique marriage ceremonies and solve them by simply providing the appropriate legal documents to the authorities. The NY Ethical Culture Society advertises itself as a locale for nonreligious weddings and offers to "provide officiants," some of whom are Ethical Culture leaders.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is that the Ethical Culture Society on Central Park West.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)because FGC Quakers have no official clergy or ministers, there's no one to sign the marriage certificate.
The wedding ceremony starts as a silent meeting for worship with the bride and groom at the "front" of the meetinghouse. Eventually, the bride gets up and speaks to the groom, taking him as her husband. Then the groom speaks agreeing to take her as a wife. After they have spoken, the rest of the meeting is free to comment and after a few small ceremonial thingies they are married in the eyes of the meeting.
The interesting part is that the marriage certificate is a large framed thing usually made by a local calligrapher which everyone signs as they leave for the food. As Quakers, we are all clergy, so we all sign, but this is not accepted by state or local agencies (besides, it's tough to give them a copy) so a separate "normal" certificate signed by the clerk of the meeting is sent to the authorities to make it nice and legal-like.
It's a beautiful ceremony in its simplicity, and Quaker couples hang the certificate in their homes.
rug
(82,333 posts)Maybe you should sue to make the state accept all your signatures. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Nothing. Is that a problem?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but I'm not sure how much trouble those have caused.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)How could it matter if was a pastor, an Elvis impersonator, the CEO of a company, the chairman of a non-profit, or your best friend?
rug
(82,333 posts)Chapter 6. Authority to Solemnize Marriages
IC 31-11-6-1
Persons authorized to solemnize marriages
Sec. 1. Marriages may be solemnized by any of the following:
(1) A member of the clergy of a religious organization (even if the cleric does not perform religious functions for an individual congregation), such as a minister of the gospel, a priest, a bishop, an archbishop, or a rabbi.
(2) A judge.
(3) A mayor, within the mayor's county.
(4) A clerk or a clerk-treasurer of a city or town, within a county in which the city or town is located.
(5) A clerk of the circuit court.
(6) The Friends Church, in accordance with the rules of the Friends Church.
(7) The German Baptists, in accordance with the rules of their society.
(8) The Bahai faith, in accordance with the rules of the Bahai faith.
(9) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in accordance with the rules of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
(10) An imam of a masjid (mosque), in accordance with the rules of the religion of Islam.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.34-1999, SEC.1.
Generally, the person who presides over a wedding is an "official witness" who will certify to the state that the two indeed married. Therefore, the persons authorized are deemed credible ex officio, such as clergy or certain governmental employees. The idea is to avoid having the "groom"'s mechanic friend sign the certificate so he can get a piece of the "bride"'s property by claiming a marriage. Like most of law, it's all about proprty rights. Given the legal advantages to a marriage, the state wants a person whose responsibility is evidenced by his or her position to certify the marriage.
That said, this is a rather specific statute heavily biased toward a religious office. Frankly, I don't see why they have clauses 5 through 8 when that's already covered by clause 1.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)presumably have the same problem with no official clergy, hence the "rules" wording.
I agree that the possibilities for fraud are rampant if just anyone can be a marriage officiant. To answer the other people here, there's no problem with the VFW marrying people as long as protections are in place.
rug
(82,333 posts)Many groups do have a policy of no clergy. Thanks.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)whatsoever being involved in any way. Not disagreeing, just expounding on your point.
That sounds like the State thinks that by virtue of being a clergy person, one is a responsible person. And that is nonsense, wouldn't you agree?
rug
(82,333 posts)Not that that's much. Presently, the clergy likeley have less.
I think who the state accepts as an official witness is purely civil. That said, the aims of this lawsuit seem murky. Rather than argue for a non-religious, but non-public, official witness, it seems to me they should simply restrict that authority to a public official, A notary public would do just fine. If people then wanted a religious, or humanist or atheist (if there is one) wedding ceremony, then by all means have what you want. But at least the civil aspect would be taken care of already.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and the US hasn't gotten around to splitting marriage into separate civil and religious institutions like several European countries have.
Martin Luther and other historical religious figures have said that marriage is primarily a religious thing-- a state of union before God. We're slowly putting that idea into the background, but it's worth revisiting in terms of separating the legal aspects of marriage from the spiritual-- let all marriages be civil but then, if you wish, have your church wedding. Or, just have your church wedding but it not being legally recognized by the state. Personally, I see marriage as obsolete since it started eons ago as a means of establishing paternal obligation and became primarily a religious observance. Now, since half the marriages end in divorce and that seems to be going up, it is mainly a stimulus program for divorce lawyers.
Back to where we are, with most marriages being performed by priests, rabbis, and ministers, it does make sense to keep them in their traditional place as marriage officiants. Because it takes less than a minute to sign a marriage certificate but possibly years and mucho bucks to tear it up, expanding the civil authority further outside of the system of judges and other government officials seems just the slightest bit scary and ripe for abuse.
Silent3
(15,190 posts)...for sake of ceremony, one person accepts a male role and the other a female role during the ceremony.
If a gay couple didn't want to go along with such a ruse, if they wanted to be married as two men or two women, no obfuscation or pretense about it, would you consider that to be their problem? Would you decide that the state had done all that was reasonable to accommodate the couple, and if the couple didn't go along with the semantic game, that was their problem?
If that sounds appalling to you (and I hope it does), why would you think an organization that wants the same right to perform wedding ceremonies as religious organizations should play along with classifying itself as just another type of religious organization?
Further, as someone else asked, why shouldn't the VFW or the Chamber of Commerce be able to conduct marriage ceremonies?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Are they saying atheism is or is not a "life philosophy that fulfills the function of what a religion does for a religious person"
rug
(82,333 posts)Otherwise, they'd have no standing. In that case, there'd be no equal protection issue.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Interesting times indeed.
rug
(82,333 posts)Chess clubs indeed.
