NH Repuke Daniel Itse tries new stealth tactic in war against Marriage Equality

[Ian David]

CONCORD, N.H. -- One of the Legislature's most ardent marriage activists says his latest bill on the issue is meant to brace the separation between church and state, but critics say it would potentially threaten liberal denominations that perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Fremont Republican Daniel Itse wants to expand part of the law exempting certain religions from obtaining licenses to perform marriages because they do not have ordained clergy.

"You have to wonder why you're seeking permission from the state to perform a religious ceremony," he said. "That's the nugget -- it's probably the first religious ceremony ever performed, according to the Bible, so why are you seeking permission from a secular state to do so?"

Itse said the bill corrects perceived inequities in the law and protects religious officials from a $60 fine for performing a marriage without a license, though he acknowledged the penalty is rarely assessed. The current law makes exceptions for rabbis and Quakers.

He opposes gay marriage and is a sponsor this year of a constitutional amendment to ban it, but he denied that the goal of this bill is to clip gay-friendly clerics or provide an obstacle to legal recognition of same-sex couples.

"In my opinion, it is neutral to that," Itse said.

<snip>

"I think it's meant to quash clergy who are talking about officiating at what they would define as a marriage and not caring whether the couple had a valid marriage license," said Rabbi Richard Klein of Temple Beth Jacob, a Reform Jewish synagogue in Concord.

More:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/01/23/nh_bill_seeks_to_change_marriage_law/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+City%2FRegion+News

[BOSSHOG]

1. Because the "secular state" is the source of law Jughead!

Religious ceremonies are moot and irrelevant and carry no judicial bearing in the land of the free. Its really quite simple danny. Just check out what our forfathers wanted for our nation and just why oh why did the early settlers leave Europe? To get away from people like you.

No one needs permission from the state to perform a religious ceremony. Its what freedom is all about danny. Unless of course, your ceremony involves the beheading of liberals.

[JDPriestly]

2. What liberal churches are targeted?

Can Mr. Itse be more specific?

Isn't Mr. Itse's plan a means of "establishing religion"? It seems to me that to approve certain pastors as qualified to perform marriages and to refuse to approve others based on the church's beliefs and rites is establishment of religion by the state.

Mr. Itse is perverse. What's more he is stupid. The "liberal" religions will still perform ceremonies, they just won't call them marriages. Then what is this silly man going to do.

Mr. Itse, it's a love, it's a find a way. Remember?

[Ian David]

3. Liberal Churches like The Unitarians and United Church of Christ, I guess. n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Very likely, the Universal Life Church and other "mail-order ordinations"

A great many ULC ministers do "alternative lifestyle" weddings, including same-sex unions. Many states have tried for years to shut down the ULC, but the Supreme Courts always come back with the same thing: The First Amendment prohibits any interference by federal, state or local governments from determining religious matters, including the qualifications that define "ordained minister."

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. A few decades ago in Washington State...

The state Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the state law that defined "ordained minister" for the purpose of who can officiate at marriage. Now, state law merely states "regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest of any church or religious denomination" (among others) and leaves that undefined. State law also says,

A marriage solemnized before any person professing to be a minister or a priest of any religious denomination in this state or professing to be an authorized officer thereof, is not void, nor shall the validity thereof be in any way affected on account of any want of power or authority in such person, if such marriage be consummated with a belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage. (RCW 26.04.060

I would laugh myself silly if Mr. Itse's attempts draw focus to the unconstitutionality of a statutory definition of "ordained minister" and causes the law he is trying to toughen to be tossed altogether.

[kevinbgoode]

6. Well, I think we should just amend that little law

to also stipulate that no one who is married by those churches may seek a divorce from the state until they meet the conditions set by their chosen faith. Once the straights have to suddenly live by their newly-discovered anti-gay biblical law when they exchange vows in their churches, you'll see a sudden disinterest in being married in church.