I guess New York State is so safe from crime that they can waste time and money on something like this. Where does it end?
Nope. I’m not misinformed. You’re a moron. The Unitarians have been preforming wedding ceremonies for decades. But they’ve never been prosecuted before. Therefore, it seems that the D.A. in this case has decided they aren’t free to perform the religious ceremony they’ve been doing for years.
Williams’ claims that these ceremonies are “drastically different” is a lie. It doesn’t matter to the law that these ministers consider these couples equally married to a straight couple. And the fact that they say that publically doesn’t make the ceremonies “drastically different”.
Furthermore I’d argue that a law against “solemnizing a marriage without a license” runs afoul of the First Amendment. If marriage is a religious sacrament then saying the church can’t marry who they will in a strictly religious ceremony is an infringment. These ministers can’t issue the state license so they’ve not violated any civil rules.
I said “appear”. Perhaps you are not misinformed after all, but are merely unfamiliar with - or incapable of understanding - the difference between the concepts of “civil” and “religious”. Despite all the blather in your most recent post, the ministers are being prosecuted for performing what they themselves consider to be civil ceremonies. Therefore it has no connection to freedom of religion.
If you understand but still disagree with the above, try to address it coherently please. Thank you.
Izzy, the fact that the ministers consider them to be civil ceremonies doesn’t make them so, and therefore, the “infraction” is unprosecutable. No one present at the ceremony was misled. It’s simply a statement, and it pissed off the anti-gay marriage people (who are most likely Christians…and have a hard-on with both Unitarians and gays). The church and the government need to get the hell out of each other’s pants and tend to their own business.
kalhoun,
Your post is besides the point - even if the infraction is unprosecutable and the prosecutor is a fool and jerk etc. etc. this does not mean that freedom of religion has been compromised as the title of this thread stated. Because the prosecutor is not prosecuting the religious aspect of the ceremony but the (purported) civil aspect.
I am not convinced that what you say is true - I am under the impression that (licensed) clergymen have their ceremonies recognized by the state, and merely require filing with a clerk (see: here). But the important point here is that even if you are right about this issue, it is still not an infringement of religious freedom, as above.
It isn’t. Religion tends to claim it is, but for all practical intents and purposes, it is a governmental procedure for domestic unification in terms of property, wealth, etc.
I see your point, but until something was actually filed, all it really was is a religious ceremony with “wannabe” undertones. They had no business doing anything until a crime was committed. Which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t.
Wrong again. The clergy member must file the certificate with the clerk who issued the license. A clerk must have issued a license before the Religious Marriage is also Civil Marriage. These ministers were charged for performing Religious Marriage Ceremonies and saying in their opinion, they were the equal of straight marriages. Legally, though, there were no licenses involved so no civil laws were broken. It follows, then, that they were charged with a crime for performing a ceremony in accordance with their religious options. This appears to me to violate their Religious Freedom.
Homebrew:
In your view, does the law against solemnizing a marriage without a license have any meaningful application?
If someone comes along and says, “I am licensed by the state to perfomr marriages, and I can marry you two - where’s your check?” and they do so without valid authority, I can easily see that as being a crime. After all, the couple may believe themselves to be married when, legally, they are not. A civilly-valid marriage, after all, carries with it the sanction of the state.
If someone comes along and says, “I am a minister of the Such-and-so Church, and I can marry you two according to the tenets of my church - where’s your check?” then that is, to me, a clearly religious exercise and protected by the First Amendment.
So it seems to me it all depends on what sort of form the “marriage” took. If Ms. Greenleaf and Ms. Sangrey represented themsleves as officiating over civilly valid marriages, with no licenses, that is - and should be - a crime. If they simply represented themselves as UU ministers marrying people according to the tenets of the UU Church, that’s protected conduct.
- Rick
No, again, they are being charged with claiming to perform a civil marriage. When someone performs a purely religious marriage ceremony - as the Unitarians have been doing for years - and gets prosecuted, then come back. Until then you have no case.
(I don’t know who would or would not believe that the ceremonies were valid legally. Presumably there was some purpose in them claiming to be performing civil ceremonies, otherwise they wouldn’t have made the claim.)
Best as I can tell of what you’re saying - to the extent that you’re saying anything at all - it’s that since you don’t agree with charging them for performing a purported civil ceremony, it must be that they’re really charging them with performing a religious ceremony. This is silly. Since there is no law against doing any kind of religious ceremony, the DA is going to have to charge them in court with performing a civil ceremony. If you guys are right about that charge being invalid, the charge will be thrown out of court. If you are wrong, it may not. But you don’t get to claim that the charges are something that they are not.
(BTW, homebrew, your assertion that “Legally, though, there were no licenses involved so no civil laws were broken” seems inordinately stupid, in light of the fact that the very charge against them - according to your own link - is “solemnizing a marriage without a license”. Let’s see you get around that one…)
I’ve already got around that one. These ministers did not file marriage certificates. They simply preformed marriage ceremonies, as UU pastors have been doing for 35 years. The D.A. then took it upon himself for file charges against them. The Religious Ceremony and the Civil License are two distinct things. The ministers in this case are being charged with a crime for preforming a religious ceremony.
Williams is thereby saying their religious ceremony is a violation of civil law and charged them with a crime. This is clearly a violation of their First Amendment rights.
If a non-licensed “preacher” were to try to file a marriage certificate for a valid license, then they’d run afoul of the law. Even in that case, though, I see the law as bullshit. The more I think about it, I’m not really sure why there needs to be officially recognized folks for officiating at marriages. Once a marriage license is obtained and signed by the participants and the clerk, why is it necessary to go a step further and get a preacher or judge to sign an additional certificate? The Religious Ceremony should be completely separate from the Civil License.
Greenleaf and Sangrey can do both. However, they did not file marriage certificates but opined that these marriages are, in their eyes, equally valid. They were then charged with a crime by Williams.
I’m coming more and more to agree with your position that the government should not recognize “marriage” but have a “civil union” for everyone. Although that’s probably the best solution, I still doubt that it will ever be accepted by the majority.
I don’t think the article gives us quite enough information. From the way I’m reading it, the two thought that the marriages would, in fact, be legal in a civil sense. Most likely because the couples had been issued licenses by the clerk, which they then brought to the UU church and requested a marriage ceremony. Since they had what seemed to be legal licenses, the two ministers considered the marriages to be legal once performed.
So, from the way I am reading it, if the couples had not been issued licenses, the ministers would simply have performed the ceremonies with everyone involved knowing that they were simply religious, without the civil and legal results.
I am not of course conversant with the law of the State of New York, although prosecuting clergymen for performing a meaningless ceremony that does not result in a union sanctioned by the State of New York seems sort of pointless and vindictive. Perhaps the State’s Attorney is playing to the peanut gallery; perhaps he is acting out of righteous indignation, but I doubt if he is simply acting as the humble servant of the law.
For good or ill, the statutes of my state are less punitive. After a throw away male-female line, the statute requires a license from the county recorder of deeds and a litany of consent to be conducted by or before a judicial officer or “ a person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith.” The person presiding is required to file an affidavit of the proceedings with the county recorder—that is done on a form that comes right with the license. The punitive section says that if you perform a wedding other than as the statute provides then the proceedings are valid but each participant, the couple, the witnesses, the presiding person are each to pay $50 into the State’s general fund. No jail, no fine, just a tax. That tax liability arrises only with the filing of the record with the recorder of deeds.
It seems to me (albeit without research) that in Iowa the New York Unitarians would have committed no criminal offense but would have exposed them selves to a $50 head tax. In New York it is a crime, apparently. I assume not a big time crime like robbing a bank of setting fire to an orphanage. Were the Unitarian ministers to rob a bank or set fire to an orphanage as part of a rite of the faith it would still be a crime. I recall that we have dealt with this sort of thing in the context of the use of marijuana or peyote as part of a religious rite.
I may well be dealing in hyperbole here, but then so is out friend Homebrew.
Read it again. You’ve claimed that since there is no license, no law was broken. In fact there is a law that specifically prohibits marriage without a license (which is what they are being charged with) - a direct contradiction to your position. You’ve not even addressed this issue, let alone gotten around it.
No he is not. Again, he is saying that their holding this out as a civil marriage is a violation of the law. I see that you intend on ignoring this and mindlessly repeating yourself over and over again, so let my statement here count as a rebuttal of all future such claims.
You are confusing “license to get married” with “marriage”. The license means that the state is saying “it’s OK for you guys to get married”. The actual marriage is the ceremony performed by the clergyman/clerk/judge/mayor/whatever.
First off, let’s look at the law at issue. NY Domestic Relations Law Sec. 17 provides:
What the ministers (and the New Paltz mayor) are accused of is solemnizing or presuming to solemnize a marriage without a license.
The problem here is not the ministers performing religous functions or services, that they have a broad First Amendment right to do. However, when the clergy member starts getting into actions with civil consequences, there begin to be problems.
Here, I see the issue as largely based in fraud. A clergy member may hold a service blessing, joining or consecrating any couple religiously, or claim that a couple is married in the eyes of the church. However for the clergy member to claim that the service has the civil legal effect of a marriage authorized under the Domestic Relations Law, when the service was performed without a valid marriage license, is misleading to the participant and the public, and may be criminalized.
I see that the key issue will be whether the ministers “solemnize[d] or presume[d] to solemnize any marriage.” That is to say, the issue will be whether the ministers performed a soley religious ceremony, or added statements or representations the civil status of the marriage.
Frequently, at weddings the officiant will say something like: “Under the authority vested in me by the rites and traditions of the XXX Church, and by the laws State of New York [pause for brief chuckle], I now declare you husband and wife.” This statement, amusingly incongruous in a religious ceremony, is both a reminder that the marriage is both civil and religious and a statement that the couple is married as a matter of civil law. If it were included in a ceremony uniting two people in a purely religous manner where the participants did not have a marriage license, it would almost certainly be a violation of DRL 17.
And that’s where my question came in - was there a license issued and handed to the ministers?
Well for starts, you might try reading my first post to this thread (second quote).
You’re right, thanks, I missed that. I read the first article posted and didn’t see any answers.
Part of the answer rests on what an “affidavit of marriage” is and what it says.
Regardless, I think the guy filing charges is being a bit of a bully.