Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signs law that allows people to refuse to ‘solemnize’ marriage licenses

[essentialsaltes]

States that allow self solemnization avoid these issues. Couples don’t need an officiant just there own signatures.

Interesting! I had no idea California had a "non-clergy" marriage license.

Self-uniting marriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BCP1928]

Here is where I've been told the reason I provided above.

Correct. But what is the religious justification for that answer?

 

[durangodawood]

Interesting! I had no idea California had a "non-clergy" marriage license.....

I got a temporary one in CA and officially married my friend to his wife like 20 years ago.

I really should have pushed for some special religious personal privileges in hindsight.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Correct. But what is the religious justification for that answer?

The concept of marriage was invented by God when he made Adam and Eve, therefore all marriages are subject to the laws of God, no matter who performs them.

Edit: to be clear, I don't ascribe to this belief - it's just the argument that has been made to me. Ultimately, it doesn't have to make sense, because it's a belief, and beliefs are often irrational.

 

[BCP1928]

Interesting! I had no idea California had a "non-clergy" marriage license.

Self-uniting marriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It started with Kirby Hensley and the Universal Life Church. A government issued marriage license is a civil contract. A civil contract needs witnesses identified by a notary public or a civil magistrate. By tradition, a clergyman could also perform that function, being thought a trustworthy and respected member of the community and as a convenience to the couple he was marrying in hs church. But the good Reverend Kirby Hensley demonstrated that anyone could call himself a clergyperson and the secular state could not deny it. If anyone at all can authenticate the witnesses to a civil contract then the function is redundant and there is no point in keeping on with it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

“My answer remains the same regardless of whether this bill was intended to target marriages of same-sex couples, interfaith couples, or interracial couples — it’s unconstitutional because the Constitution prohibits public officials from discriminating against members of the public based on their personal beliefs,” Taylor said.

I'm glad somebody else is lumping interfaith and interracial unions together like this. Interracial marriages aren't prohibited in most Christian sects anymore, but interfaith ones certainly are. Where's the outrage about being forced to allow Christians to marry jews and atheists?

 

[Hank77]

What sincere religious belief prevents a government official from issuing legal civil marriage certificates?

This law does not say that the clerk can refuse a marriage application, certificate, or other paperwork. It says that the government employee does not have to perform the marriage service. You know, the "I do," "I do," and "I now pronounce you ..." part of it.

 

[Vambram]

Phrasing. This sounds like you'd be willing to work a private job that would require you to certify something that you believe is immoral.

No, it does not sound like that at all.
My response was specifically targeted about the topic of this thread.

 

[7thKeeper]

No, it does not sound like that at all.
My response was specifically targeted about the topic of this thread.

Yes it does. Unintentionally, but it did. Hence why I wrote "phrasing".

 

[BCP1928]

This law does not say that the clerk can refuse a marriage application, certificate, or other paperwork. It says that the government employee does not have to perform the marriage service. You know, the "I do," "I do," and "I now pronounce you ..." part of it.

None of which is necessary to a civil marriage.

 

[rambot]

Camilla Taylor is the deputy legal director of Lamda Legal an LGBTQ advocacy group. Of course she would find fault with allowing public officials to practice their sincere religious beliefs concerning same sex marriage.

Anyone who's read the Constitution or is a reasonable human person would ABSOLUTELY see the fault in it.

Here's the thing: If you are unwilling to do your job, you should not have your job. When you work in government office, you are, in fact a SERVANT of hte people. How many times have we heard Republican kvetch about that? Well here's an example and a reminder that government workers work FOR the citizens. As a teacher I work FOR my students and their parents. I don't get to "pick and choose" whom I teach.
If I were muslims, I wouldn't be able to say "I'm not teaching that Jew".

If you are unwilling to solemnize a legal marriage certificate, you need to quick your job and get a new job. It truly is as simple as that. If the marriage is legal, then your "feelings" are secondary to the law of the land. And if your feelings are important to you, well, are they as important as you DOING that task?

Remember, a government desk jockey has no real actual power. Some idiots think they do, but they don't. They have policies and procedures they aer obliged to follow. Much like every other human person, there are also laws they must follow.

 

[rambot]

This is the goal. Put the gay Americans back in the closet.

No, I don't think that's the focus. It's to try to artificially, and, in a misguided effort of thinking that God is interested in ruling America, get Christians to insert their power over other people.
Personally, I'm not convinced it is not meant to be self serving...

 

[rambot]

This is why I will never work in a government job that would require me to certify something that I sincerely believe is immoral.

Thank you! I appreciate that attitude and I think that is how it should be.
There ARE things I wouldn't do for the same reason, but chances are 100% they are different than most people.

 

[rambot]

The answer I got (don't remember who from) was that since he was a Christian, everything he thought, said or did was enshrined in his personal religious dogma. There was nothing he could do or say that wasn't protected as his religion.

I think that is total self-serving bunk. I hope the pendulum swings back to moderation.

And that is the feeling I get from a lot of the further right conservatives. It doesn't feel like it's about faith but just about preferences and power.

 

[Hank77]

None of which is necessary to a civil marriage.

The OP has it right when it says "solemnize" the marriage."

Solemnization of marriage refers to the formal requirement of performing a marriage ceremony by a professional who is authorized by the state. The person who can perform the ceremony varies depending on the laws of the state.

Last week, Tennessee state lawmakers passed HB 878, which states “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.”...

I think you'd find in many states it is necessary. One of the jobs of a Justice of the Peace.

 

[BCP1928]

The OP has it right when it says "solemnize" the marriage."

Solemnization of marriage refers to the formal requirement of performing a marriage ceremony by a professional who is authorized by the state. The person who can perform the ceremony varies depending on the laws of the state.

Last week, Tennessee state lawmakers passed HB 878, which states “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.”...

I think you'd find in many states it is necessary. One of the jobs of a Justice of the Peace.

Not necessary, just traditional. It may be considered necessary under some state laws, but civil marriage is a civil contract and under contract law it is not. It is just a matter of authenticating the identity of the contracting parties and their witnesses. A notary public can do it and you won't have to say "I do" to him even once.

 

[Hank77]

Not necessary, just traditional. It may be considered necessary under some state laws, but civil marriage is a civil contract and under contract law it is not. It is just a matter of authenticating the identity of the contracting parties and their witnesses. A notary public can do it and you won't have to say "I do" to him even once.

I think in most states that would be considered a civil union, not a marriage.

 

[BCP1928]

I think in most states that would be considered a civil union, not a marriage.

Constructively, that's all you ever get from the state, whether you are married in a church or not, even though it says "marriage license" on the paper. It doesn't matter whether you call it a civil union or a civil marriage.

 

[RileyG]

This is the proper way to handle such a situation - the government exists to serve everyone according to the law. If you are unable to do so, you should not take the job. Codifying the ability to deny service on an individual basis because of your own beliefs violates the purpose of government - a person should not have to wonder whether or not they will be able to get the services they need based on the clerk who takes their case.

I agree completely. If you can’t do your job, don’t accept it.

 

[RileyG]

I'm glad somebody else is lumping interfaith and interracial unions together like this. Interracial marriages aren't prohibited in most Christian sects anymore, but interfaith ones certainly are. Where's the outrage about being forced to allow Christians to marry jews and atheists?

In the RCC, you promise you bring your children up Catholic, regardless if one of the parents is non-Catholic or even non-Christian. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, your spouse MUST receive water baptism in order to be married, otherwise no wedding will occur. Quite frankly, I do not know with Protestant sects. I'm sure it varies greatly.