A new take on gay marriage

[Her3tiK]

Apparently, it's now illegal for priests in Indiana to perform gay marriages.
http://americablog.com/2013/07/indiana-makes-crime-preacher-conduct-gay-marriage.html

In what appears to be a rather massive violation of the freedom of religion, the Republican party in Indiana appears to have amended the state criminal code to either make it a crime, or confirm that it remain a crime, for clergy to conduct weddings for gay couples.

While it is not widely known, numerous mainstream American religions permit gay nuptials. The faiths include reform Judaism, Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ, among others.

The amendment to the criminal code, which will go into effect on July 1, 2014, makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of $1,000 for clergy “solemnize” a marriage of two men or two women.

I literally cannot process this information. My brain shuts down when I try to think about it, and I cannot so much as fathom a response to what has transpired. This must be what a 404 Error feels like.

[Canadian Mojo]

It will be interesting to see if this brings down the weight of all the churches on their heads. Many may agree that gay marriage is wrong, but I doubt any of them really like the idea of being told what they can and cannot do.

[Witchyjoshy]

Hey, you people who want the "government to stay out of your religion"!

This is exactly what's happening!  Get them out of your religion!

[Osama bin Bambi]

Wasn't this the same crowd whining about how same-sex marriage would force priests to perform it?

[Sigmaleph]

The fuck.

I've read some fundies say that "freedom of religion" means "freedom to choose which Christian denomination you follow". As it turns out, even that was too liberal for these guys.

[TheUnknown]

From reading the comments, this law's actually been in the books since 1997.  Some others who said they actually read that law are saying that solemnization as referred to in the law doesn't prohibit churches from performing ceremonies, but filing actual paperwork to get a marriage license in the state.

[Her3tiK]

From reading the comments, this law's actually been in the books since 1997.  Some others who said they actually read that law are saying that solemnization as referred to in the law doesn't prohibit churches from performing ceremonies, but filing actual paperwork to get a marriage license in the state.

Something something something still going a bit too far. I am all for jailing clergy, but this is a really stupid pretense for it.

[Valerius]

From reading the comments, this law's actually been in the books since 1997.  Some others who said they actually read that law are saying that solemnization as referred to in the law doesn't prohibit churches from performing ceremonies, but filing actual paperwork to get a marriage license in the state.

Do churches actually do that? I always thought that people would have the ceremony in the church (which is more or less meaningless in the eyes of the state), and then they file for a marriage certificate themselves. But either way, the hypocrisy of this law is colossal.

[chitoryu12]

Even worse, you can be charged with a felony just for asking for a marriage license for a gay marriage, because they believe that you must inherently be deceptive to fill out the form and even a denied license results in a criminal charge.

They're not even trying to not seem evil at this point.

[Sylvana]

From reading the comments, this law's actually been in the books since 1997.  Some others who said they actually read that law are saying that solemnization as referred to in the law doesn't prohibit churches from performing ceremonies, but filing actual paperwork to get a marriage license in the state.

Do churches actually do that? I always thought that people would have the ceremony in the church (which is more or less meaningless in the eyes of the state), and then they file for a marriage certificate themselves. But either way, the hypocrisy of this law is colossal.

Most priests are given the rights by the state to sign marriage licenses. In general most people when they get married do the whole ceremony in the church and then between the ceremony and the reception they sign the papers. The priest and the couple as well as their witnesses (normally first man and first bridesmaid) move off to the side of the church where they sign the document. This normally happens when the rest of the visitors are filing out of the church towards the reception. Of course, some couples make the signing part a central aspect of the ceremony.

What gays could do is exactly as you state though, they can have a ceremony that is essentially meaningless in the eyes of the state and then fill in the forms with a state registrar. They could even bring that person along for the ceremony. This law however prevents the priests from acting in their capacity as a recognized registrar for gay marriages.

Most countries that have legalized same sex marriage have included in the law an option for priests to opt-out of their duties as a registrar for same sex marriages, however state employees do not have such a luxury.
In short this law is pretty damn stupid.

[rookie]

Do churches actually do that? I always thought that people would have the ceremony in the church (which is more or less meaningless in the eyes of the state), and then they file for a marriage certificate themselves. But either way, the hypocrisy of this law is colossal.

"By the power vested in me by [State] and/or diety, I now pronounce you man and wife (or however you pronounce people of the same sex."

Anybody who's check clears can marry people. Fill out the form and send in the money. A little while later the state sends you a liscense in tghe mail. A church will just have a bit of added pomp (organ music, alters, seating).