Isn't this against the Constitution?

[Cleita]

If there is a law against gay marriage, what is its basis? If the basis is only religious because the Bible says something against it, isn't a law like this against separation of Church and State and therefore invalid? Since I have no expertise in Constitutional law or history can anyone enlighten me on why these ministers are being charged with violating the law?

<snip>(posted: March 11th, 6:05pm) The gay marriage debate still alive and well in New York and it could lead to criminal charges against two Unitarian ministers. The women performed ceremonies last weekend in New Paltz and met today with the Ulster County District Attorney.

"We hold the law up high and we believe that what we have done is legal...and the right thing to do," says Reverend Dawn Sangrey.

Reverends Dawn Sangrey and Kay Greenleaf spent about an hour with Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams as he mulls whether to charge them with violating state law by performing same sex marriages.

"I want to make it clear that last Saturday, I intended to solemnize the marriages between people who love and cherish each other," Reverend Kay Greenleaf said.<snip> more at

http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=1706254&nav=6uyMLTUX

[bowens43]

1. None of the laws against gay marriage

are openly based on religion. The laws as they exist are not a violation of the first amendment. Those being arrested are bing arrested for violating state laws. Whether or not a law is Constitutional is for the courts to decide. Hopefully there will be a constitution challenge to these laws based on the 'equal protection' clause.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Do we need to keep asking this?

We've been over, around, about this topic 100 times already. Yes, a gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. Yes, that's why they are pushing a constitutional amendment because they know it won't float. No, the fucking fundies don't care that it would make the constitution contradict itself. Yes, this country is completely fucking insane. Yes, that's why we're stuck with that fucking asshole Bush to begin with. That should clear up all your questions.

[Cleita]

3. Geez.

I didn't mean to make you angry. I didn't think the specific question I asked in the context of the story had been answered yet. I also want to know why there isn't community outrage, protests, etc. about this. To me this is like arresting a minister for baptising dogs. It shouldn't be within the jurisdiction of the state to do this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. i'm not angry

I'm sorry if I came off that way. It just seems like we've been over this whole thing here so many times and all it serves to do is piss each other off and divide us here. I know you already know the answer to your own question because I've seen you post here before, so I wonder why it is that you'd post it.

[Cleita]

9. Because I don't know the answer.

No one has explained why the secular government would have any legitimate jurisdiction over these acts and yet they persist on charging these religious persons with crimes.

[LeahMira]

4. Darn!

Do we need to keep asking this?

Duck and cover!

OK, Sir JW. I think we're seeing people make an issue of this whole gay marriage because they want it to hit the Supreme Court before Bush's silly amendment proposal makes the rounds. I also think it's a darn good strategy.

Clearly we don't want or need a Constitutional amendment. But the Supreme Court really can't speak to any issue until a specific case is brought before it.

This is the cool thing about it. If the states keep cool about gay marriages, the marriages become sort of de facto legal (There are lots of laws on the books that are no longer enforced). If the states forbid gay marriages, the ministers and mayors that are performing them can appeal the case to a higher court on grounds that the state law is unconstitutional. Then, maybe the Supreme Court will eventually be asked to speak to the issue. Once the Court speaks, that decision becomes the law of the land.

Now, there have been challenges in several states. Some of them may lose out, but sooner or later there will be a case that makes it to the Supreme Court... before any silly amendment has the chance to get off the ground.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. we all know this though

because if what you said wasn't true, a constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary. It's also why the fundies haven't brought it to the Supreme Court themselves - because they know they don't have a prayer of winning the case.

[kayell]

5. If you don't like these threads, you can use the hide button

Some of us find this discussion extremely important.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. And if you don't like my posts

You can hit the ignore button just as easily.

[kayell]

10. The problem is that you are hijacking the threads that you post this on

People spend more time standing up to you to defend their right to talk about something, rather than actually talking about it.

Again, if you don't like a particular topic, either ignore the topic, or hide it if you wish. But it is rude to keep trying to yank the topic of discussion away from people who are interested in it.

[kayell]

11. I can't figure this one out

I can understand the legal reasons that Mayor Jason West was charged. I think they were WRONG, but I understand the reasoning. This is just totally beyond me. The ministers are not like govt. officials, sworn to uphold the law. Unitarian ministers have been marrying gays for years. This would appear to be a case of religious marriage vs. civil marriage.

Were they arrested because they spoke out and said that these marriages should be recognized as civil marriages?

It looks like possibly more than one 1st amendment right may have been abused in arresting the ministers. Freedom of religion AND freedom of speech.

Were they arrested just to set an example for all the other "ungodly" religions that marry gays like Quakers, the MCC, and ...?

I'm finding this case a lot more worrying than most people here obviously.

[Cleita]

13. When the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses

to gay couples and the justice of the peace married them in City Hall, it was a civil matter and something that will have to be settled in the courts, although I think he was right because a group of citizens are being denied their civil rights. It's no different than half a century ago when interracial marriages were declared unlawful through much of the South as well as many other states. This is no different.

Now, when these ministers married gay couples with the approval of their congregation, what right does the law have to say they have violated the law? This has absolutely nothing to do with the civil legality of a marriage. The state has no more business interfering with a religious rite than religion has shoving ten commandment monuments in civic buildings.

[MichaelHarris]

12. My thoughts

Hope this helps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x36724

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x38146

[arewethereyet]

14. it is coincidentially religious, it is mainly societal

its just that those two were one in the same through the Middle Ages and on for a while.