Gay Fray: Isn't this interesting? Criminal charges in gay marriages.

[Tiassa]

Charges filed in same-sex marriages

In what may be an escalation of the gay marriage fight, prosecutors in New York have filed charges against Universalist Unitarian ministers for performing same-sex marriages. The Associated Press reports:

Two ministers were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples in what is believed to be the first time in the United States that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies . . . .

. . . . Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with multiple counts of solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national debate over same-sex unions.

The charges carry a fine of $25 to $500 or up to two years in jail.

“As far as I know that’s unprecedented,” said Mark Shields a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay rights group . . . .

. . . . Greenleaf, who acknowledged performing the ceremonies in New Paltz knowing the couples did not have licenses, said she signed an affidavit for the couples and considers the ceremonies civil . . . .

. . . . Williams had said before Monday’s charges were announced that it would be more difficult considering charges against clergy because the clergy had not sworn to uphold the law.

He said his decision to press charges was influenced by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s opinion that gay marriage is illegal in New York and by the injunction issued by a state supreme court justice against West.

The ministers performed the weddings March 6.

Why is anyone shocked? It's civil disobedience, as the charge seems to center around an affidavit signed without a marriage license to accompany it. Nonetheless, it's silly, even disgraceful to make a criminal issue out of this. D.A. Williams, however, seems willing to pass the buck to Spitzer, and that's fine. In fact, that might even be the point.

Notes:

• Associated Press. "N.Y. clergy charged for same-sex marriages." March 15, 2004. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4533865/

 

[guthrie]

HHmm, interesting to see some religious people getting in on the act. Its likely to be among the first hard moves in the fight to get honosexual marriages legalised, I think itll stil take a good few years before it ends with them being legalised.

 

[SpyMoose]

I’ve got the sneaking suspicion that this will actually end with all the legal gay marriages being rendered invalid by a supreme court ruling. There would be no legal basis for such a ruling, but hey gays are icky, right? We don't need that to be written down for it to be so.

 

[Mystech]

Well with this move things are starting to get a little fuzzy. I suppose it's not quite government telling religious organizations what they can and can't do, because they're trying to get them on solemnizing a civil marriage when they had no power to do so. In this case it doesn't really matter what if any church they were affiliated with. So as things stand I suppose it's no big surprise, that's just part of all this civil disobedience stuff, people are going to get taken to court, thrown in jail, eventually we'll see large scale protests in the streets, people getting sprayed with fire hoses, beaten by cops and eaten by German Shepards, that's just the way Civil rights battles go.

 

[spidergoat]

A friend of mine recieved this in her e-mail:


A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If
the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does
not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 28:6-10; Deut
25:5-10)

 

[SwedishFish]

i love how wiccans have been performing religious marriages without marriage licenses for decades in this country and no one has ever said anything about it. as long as it is one man and one woman, right?

 

[Mystech]

i love how wiccans have been performing religious marriages without marriage licenses for decades in this country and no one has ever said anything about it. as long as it is one man and one woman, right?

The thing is, though that there's no law at all against religious ceremonies. The church of the very bright light can perform it's own marriage ceremonies between a man and three women, a woman and a tree, or three men and one of their lawns, and it doesn't mean a damned thing.

The issue here is that these Unitarians were not performing a purely religious ceremony, but instead performing a civil ceremony and attempting to issue a license. Or at least that's what the charges are. This is probably most evident in a particularly fundamentalist Mormon cult that lives in northern Arizona and Southern Utah. They still practice polygamy, and even have their spiritual leader appoint which men are to marry which (and how many) women, but because they perform only religious marriage ceremonies for these unions there isn’t a hell of a lot that the government can do.

 

[guthrie]

Well, supreme court rulings are likely to be the way to go to halt any individual stuff states might try.
And of course, anything to do wtih the old testament is a bit behind the times, and of course, religion specific, thus rendering it invalid.

 

[spidergoat]

I thought the republicans were supportive of states rights, whatever happened to that? I guess power has corrupted them.

 

[Mystech]

I thought the republicans were supportive of states rights, whatever happened to that? I guess power has corrupted them.

Yeah kind of a Bizarre turn around, isn't it? Also used to be a party of fiscal responsibility but now look where the economy and the national budget is. Really what is left for Republicans anymore? I'm surprised that you don't see more of them shouting about being betrayed by Bush. Oh well, if there's one thing the Republicans always had it was unwavering, even fanatical loyalty to their dogma. It often seems as though the White-house faxes all registered republicans a list of speaking points in the morning so that they can synchronies their rhetoric. I just wish that they could genuinely back up all those big words about character, accountability and credibility.