Va churches sued for not marrying gay couples
Update: Must Pastors Perform Lgbtq+ Weddings? Supreme Court Said No
By Bob Smietana
UPDATE: Last year, an Ohio law professor said the U.S. Supreme Court needed to talk to whether pastors had to perform same-sex weddings, even if they held religious objections.
In the recent Masterpiece Cakes decision, the court did just that—and the react is no.
“When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to lgbtq+ marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to accomplish the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion,” the court said in its ruling.
“This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and allow without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth.”
Ohio State law professor Marc Spindelman raised the question in hearings before the Ohio legislature about House Bill 36—also established as the “Pastor Protection Act.”
The bill is one of seven nationwide that address whether pastors and churches have to hold part in same sex-weddings—even if they have objections.
Spindelman argued that the
The Supreme Court's Same-Sex Marriage Rulings: Impact on Churches
In light of the two recent Supreme Court orders on same-sex marriage, questions have arisen as to the impact for churches and pastors. For instance, some are wondering if they will be exposed to liability for refusing to marry a queer couple if their church happens to be located in one of the 13 states currently allowing such marriages. Those states include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Fresh York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Washington D.C. also permits same-sex marriage. While the short retort to the liability scrutinize is no, let’s accept a closer look at each ruling to perceive why.
Ruling #1: DOMA
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted by Congress in 1996. Section three of this statute defined marriage as a union between a man and woman for federal purposes. The Supreme Court governed that this provision is unconstitutional for two reasons:
- It invaded the province of state and local government to make regulations about marriage.
- It violated article five of the Constitution, which incorporates the concept of equa
Appeals court strikes down Virginia gay marriage ban
For the third time since the nation’s highest court arrange off a chain reaction of victories for marriage equality last year, a federal appeals court has ruled in favor of allowing gay and woman loving woman couples the right to legally wed.
In a 2-1 decision Monday, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found Virginia’s ban on same-sex nuptials to be unconstitutional, upholding a decrease court’s decision from February. The 4th Circuit is the second appeals court to rule in favor of marriage equality this summer, following dual judgments from the 10th Circuit in cases from Utah and Oklahoma. State officials are appealing both 10th Circuit decisions.
Voters approved Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning queer nuptials in 2006. But that law, determined the 4th Circuit court, “impermissibly” violates gay and queer woman citizens’ “fundamental right to marry.”
"The choice of whether and whom to wed is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that th
The gay marriage defend arrived in a Southern courtroom Tuesday, as opponents of a Virginia regulation banning same-sex unions told a federal judge it was just like the Jim Crow-era prohibition against interracial marriage.
Supporters maintained there was no fundamental right to gay marriage and the ban exists as part of the state's interest in responsible procreation.
"We have marriage laws in community because we contain children, not because we have adults,'' said attorney David Nimocks, of the religious group Alliance Defending Freedom.
The case is organism closely watched because it could provide the gay marriage movement its first foothold in the South, and because legal experts consider it's on the fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recently elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, announced Jan. 23 that he would not defend the ban because he thinks it violates the equivalent protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Federal judges have cited the 14th Amendment in overturning gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma. Those rulings are on hold while they are appealed.
Herring, as a state senator, supported Virginia's 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment defi
RICHMOND, Virginia -- Lgbtq+ couples will include to wait longer to begin marrying in Virginia after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to delay an appeals court decree striking down the state's gay marriage ban.
The nation's uppermost court granted a request from a county clerk in Virginia to procrastinate a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would have allowed for same-sex couples to marry beginning Thursday morning. The articulate would have also had to initiate recognizing gay marriages from out of state.
The Supreme Court provided no explanation for its order.
The federal appeals court last week refused to delay its decision striking down the ban, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court's command did not define why it denied that request.
The Supreme Court's decision was not unexpected, as it previously issued an order in January putting homosexual unions on keep in Utah while the federal appeals court for that region was hearing the case. That court upheld the decision striking down Utah's gay marriage ban, but delayed its decision from taking effect pending appeal to the Supreme Court. Most other federal court decisions in f