North Carolina clergy challenge state's anti-gay Amendment One on basis of religious freedom.

[MrFun]

Interesting. The article says that this is the first of this kind of challenge to anti-gay laws nationwide.

It turns the homophobic bigots' claim to so-called "religious freedom" on its head.

N.C. Clergy Bring Legal Challenge to Amendment One, Citing Religious Freedom
image
Religious Leaders Seek the Right to Wed Same-Sex Couples in their Congregations

Contact: Aaron Sarver, Communications Director, Campaign for Southern Equality, 773.960.2857 (c), aaron@southernequality.org

Asheville, N.C. (April 28, 2014) – This morning a federal challenge to Amendment One was filed in the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of the United Church of Christ (UCC) as a national denomination, clergy from across faith traditions and same-sex couples. The case challenges the constitutionality of marriage laws in North Carolina - including Amendment One - that ban marriage between same-sex couples and make it illegal for clergy to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples within their congregations. Clergy plaintiffs seek the religious freedom to perform these ceremonies and same-sex couples seek the freedom to marry. The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Tin Fulton Walker & Owen and Arnold & Porter LLP.

This case, General Synod of the United Church of Christ vs. Cooper, opens a new front in marriage equality litigation: it is the only case to bring 1st Amendment religious freedom claims among the 66 marriage equality cases pending in courts nationally. “In addition to bringing 14th Amendment claims under equal protection and due process, this lawsuit introduces a 1st Amendment claim that the marriage ban in North Carolina violates the right to the free exercise of religious beliefs by denominations, clergy, and congregants who believe that same-sex marriages are theologically valid and want to perform marriage ceremonies,” says Jake Sussman a partner at Tin Fulton Walker & Owen and lead counsel in General Synod of the United Church of Christ vs. Cooper.

“The core protection of the First Amendment is that government may not regulate religious beliefs or take sides in religious controversies,” says Jonathan Martel, a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP. “Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest.”

Growing numbers of faith traditions, including those represented among the plaintiffs, bless the marriages of same-sex couples. “As senior minister, I am often asked to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples in my congregation. My denomination - the United Church of Christ - authorizes me to perform these ceremonies. But Amendment One denies my religious freedom by prohibiting me from exercising this right,” says Rev. Joe Hoffman, Senior Minister of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Asheville and a plaintiff in the case.

The UCC is a mainline Protestant denomination with nearly 1 million members nationally. The first UCC church in North Carolina was founded in 1748 and there are now more than 150 UCC congregations across the state. President and general minister of the UCC Rev. Geoffrey A. Black says, “The United Church of Christ has a rich history of boldly joining faith and action, and we filed this landmark lawsuit against the State of North Carolina to protect the religious freedom of our ministers -- one of the essential freedoms of all Americans." A full list of plaintiffs in General Synod of the United Church of Christ vs. Cooper include the following parties:

The General Synod of the United Church of Christ;
Rev. Nancy Ellett Allison, Ph.D, Holy Covenant United Church of Christ; Lisa Cloninger and Kathleen Smith, a couple of 12 years, who attend Holy Covenant UCC;
Rabbi Jonathan Freirich; Joel Blady & Jeff Addy, who seek to marry;
Rev. Joe Hoffman, First Congregational United Church of Christ (Asheville); Diane Ansley and Cathy McGaughey, a couple of 14 years who attend FCUCC;
Rev. Nathan King, Trinity United Church of Christ (Concord); Shauna Bragan and Stacy Malone, who attend Trinity UCC;
Rev. Nancy Kraft, Holy Trinity Lutheran Church (Charlotte); Cathy Fry and Joanne Marinaro, a couple of 28 years, who attend Holy Trinity;
Rev. Nancy Petty, Pullen Memorial Baptist Church;
Rev. Robin Tanner, Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church (Charlotte); and
Rev. Mark Ward, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Asheville; Carol Taylor and Betty Mack, a couple of 41 years, who attend UUC of Asheville.

Last summer the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the federal government must recognize marriages of same-sex couples. General Synod of the United Church of Christ vs. Cooper joins the ranks of two cases filed by the ACLU in North Carolina’s Middle District that ask federal courts to act quickly to overturn Amendment One. In recent months, federal courts in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Tennessee, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky have found bans on state marriage to be unconstitutional. Public opinion in North Carolina is no less dynamic than the national legal climate. Recent polling shows that 62 percent of voters under the age of 30 in North Carolina support the freedom to marry. In addition, just 34 percent of all North Carolina voters now believe there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Good for them. It IS unconstitutional.

[Sava]

polling shows that 62 percent of voters under the age of 30 in North Carolina support the freedom to marry

GOP
RIP

[Sava]

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

[MrFun]

Our resident lawyers on here, are not interested in this?

[loinburger]

Our resident lawyers on here, are not interested in this?

I'll give you credit, you waited almost three hours before making a "why won't people pay attention to meeeeeee" post

[MrFun]

Considering this is a new way to challenge anti-gay laws, nationwide, I wanted to know what Imran or other resident lawyers on this site, think of this. Is it a feasible way to challenge the anti-gay laws?

I heard from someone else that this may not work out, because the anti-gay laws against equal marriage does not target religions, per say, and if that's the case, then the challengers using this approach cannot claim that their religious freedom is being denied.

[-Jrabbit]

This case is not a stunt or a ploy, Fun. It's a legitimate issue of religious freedom.

The NC Amendment One law specifically targets clergy. You might try reading the article you posted.

[MrFun]

This case is not a stunt or a ploy, Fun. It's a legitimate issue of religious freedom.

The NC Amendment One law specifically targets clergy. You might try reading the article you posted.

I never thought this was a ploy or a stunt. Others apparently, have this impression.

[Dinner]

This is pretty typical of religious bigots really.

[MrFun]

This is pretty typical of religious bigots really.

Yep. Religious freedom at one time was used to explain away prohibiting interracial marriages. And today, bigots use the cry of religious freedom to explain away anti-gay laws that ban equal marriage rights.

But like I said in the OP, civil rights activists may have a way of turning this appeal of religious freedom on its head, and for an actual good cause, rather than for the cause of bigotry.

[Elok]

Every time you post, a gay angel loses its rainbow-colored wings, and falls, literally and figuratively flaming, to the earth. WHY DO YOU HATE THE GAY ANGELS?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll give you credit, you waited almost three hours before making a "why won't people pay attention to meeeeeee" post

---

The question revolves around this statement:

make it illegal for clergy to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples within their congregations

What does that exactly mean? Does it mean that clergy can't perform official marriages for homosexual couples, in which case, duh. The way the article phrases it, it seems that clergy can't even perform non-official homosexual ceremonies, which would be a violation of their religious freedom.

However, there is nothing mentioning any clergy specific bans on the wikipedia article of the Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1

Here is the Constitutional section, after amendment:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the anti-gay laws against equal marriage does not target religions, per say, and if that's the case, then the challengers using this approach cannot claim that their religious freedom is being denied.

Well, you know how you can change this? Support Hobby Lobby in their case against the government in the Supreme Court