Author Topic: Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings  (Read 3022 times)

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
I suspect that the wording in question is inserted by politicians seeking to curry favor with the anti-gay wedding people. They did not think of the possible oppression of "liberal" churches and their religious freedom, or they didn't care, because "their" people aren't in those churches. It is Indiana, after all.

It is Indiana, after all?

What is that disrespect supposed to signify? 

As Pr. Yakimow and others have pointed out, the legislation in question also prohibits solemnizing polygamous and under-age marriages.

Mike

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Indiana is not known as a crucible for tolerance and openness. In the 1920s at least a third of its white, male citizens were members of the Klan, which supposedly had about 250,000 members. At one time over half the members of the state legislature were in the Klan.
Today the Conservative Party in Indiana is draining members from the Republican Party.
In 2012 polls showed Indiana trending more conservative than ever before. Veteran Senator Richard Luger, generally respected, lost his bid for re-election in the Republican Primary last year. Ironically, a Democrat won the election and will succeed him.
All in all, Indiana is a very very conservative state.
That's what I meant.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19185
    • View Profile
Indiana is not known as a crucible for tolerance and openness. In the 1920s at least a third of its white, male citizens were members of the Klan, which supposedly had about 250,000 members. At one time over half the members of the state legislature were in the Klan.
Today the Conservative Party in Indiana is draining members from the Republican Party.
In 2012 polls showed Indiana trending more conservative than ever before. Veteran Senator Richard Luger, generally respected, lost his bid for re-election in the Republican Primary last year. Ironically, a Democrat won the election and will succeed him.
All in all, Indiana is a very very conservative state.
That's what I meant.
I think the lens that sees racism as simply a degree of conservatism is bogus. Depending on the time and place, enlightened progressives have been the most racist among us. The klan nationwide was largely Democrats, e.g. Senator Byrd of West Virginia. The  Evolution textbook at the Tennessee "monkey trial" was the one "proving" the superiority of the white race on evolution grounds, not the creation book approved by the hick yokels.

Since Charles, as a sometime writer for the NYT, simply uses this as a taken for granted lens with which to view the American scene, he can't understand why conservatives complain of media bias. He simply assumes that to be conservative is to be on the racism spectrum somewhere.

Also, I believe it was Dick Lugar, not Luger. 

Steverem

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
    • View Profile
Indiana is not known as a crucible for tolerance and openness. In the 1920s at least a third of its white, male citizens were members of the Klan, which supposedly had about 250,000 members. At one time over half the members of the state legislature were in the Klan.
Today the Conservative Party in Indiana is draining members from the Republican Party.
In 2012 polls showed Indiana trending more conservative than ever before. Veteran Senator Richard Luger, generally respected, lost his bid for re-election in the Republican Primary last year. Ironically, a Democrat won the election and will succeed him.
All in all, Indiana is a very very conservative state.
That's what I meant.

It's "Lugar."  Apparently you were still reminiscing about your afternoon at the shooting range.   ;)

Not entirely sure Klu Klux Klan=conservative.  Senator Byrd's leadership position in said organization might run counter to such a perception.  (Good thing he only served as Senator, and didn't have a cable cooking show.)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 09:44:38 AM by Steverem »

Steverem

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
    • View Profile
Always comforting when I find Pastor Speckhard and I are thinking on the same wavelength. :)

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
Indiana is not known as a crucible for tolerance and openness. In the 1920s at least a third of its white, male citizens were members of the Klan, which supposedly had about 250,000 members. At one time over half the members of the state legislature were in the Klan.
Today the Conservative Party in Indiana is draining members from the Republican Party.
In 2012 polls showed Indiana trending more conservative than ever before. Veteran Senator Richard Luger, generally respected, lost his bid for re-election in the Republican Primary last year. Ironically, a Democrat won the election and will succeed him.
All in all, Indiana is a very very conservative state.
That's what I meant.

As Pr. Speckhard and Steverem have shown, the Klan mudslinging is out of place.

Yes, Senator Lugar was ousted by a Tea Party candidate.  But if Hoosiers were the backwater reactionaries you paint them as being, the moderate Senator Lugar and his Democratic replacement would never have been elected.

Whether it was Southern "Jim Crow" racism or Northeast patronization, all groups in this country dealt with their racist past in different ways.

Using the racist smear to justify homosexuality is a move that makes no sense and also one that I believe many who have suffered by racism resent.

Mike

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Mr. Gehlhausen writes:
As Pr. Speckhard and Steverem have shown, the Klan mudslinging is out of place.
I comment:
For heaven's sake! I'm not slinging any mud. I'm just mentioning facts of history.

Mr. Gehlhausen writes:
Yes, Senator Lugar was ousted by a Tea Party candidate.  But if Hoosiers were the backwater reactionaries you paint them as being, the moderate Senator Lugar and his Democratic replacement would never have been elected.
I comment:
For heaven's sake, again! I'm not painting the residents of Indiana as anything. Like Pastor Fienen, you tend to see every comment as some kind of death blow or the axe of an executioner. It isn't. Indiana is a very conservative state. That does not necessarily make people there idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion. Do you disagree with that?

Mr. Gehlhausen:
Whether it was Southern "Jim Crow" racism or Northeast patronization, all groups in this country dealt with their racist past in different ways. Using the racist smear to justify homosexuality is a move that makes no sense and also one that I believe many who have suffered by racism resent.
Me:
FWIW, the Klan was also generally opposed to Jews, Catholics and immigrants. So "racism" is not its only flaw. But I was only referring to (relatively recent) history which may (or may not) have laid a foundation for the views of people in that state today.
P.S. I am beating myself up seriously on the misspelling. Sometimes everyone needs a copy editor.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 10:00:27 AM by Charles_Austin »

Steverem

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
    • View Profile

I'm not painting the residents of Indiana as anything. Like Pastor Fienen, you tend to see every comment as some kind of death blow or the axe of an executioner. It isn't. Indiana is a very conservative state. That does not necessarily make people there idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion. Do you disagree with that?


If you didn't intend to paint the state of Indiana as idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion (or, perhaps, as racists), you wouldn't have spent half your post pointing out the state's historical ties to the KKK.

Quote

I am beating myself up seriously on the misspelling. Sometimes everyone needs a copy editor.


I accept.  I'll warn you in advance my services aren't cheap.  The first invoice is in the mail.

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
If you didn't intend to paint the state of Indiana as idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion (or, perhaps, as racists), you wouldn't have spent half your post pointing out the state's historical ties to the KKK.

Or led that historical recounting with the thesis:

Indiana is not known as a crucible for tolerance and openness.

Mike
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 10:17:10 AM by Mike Gehlhausen »

LCMS87

  • Guest
I comment:
For heaven's sake, again! I'm not painting the residents of Indiana as anything. Like Pastor Fienen, you tend to see every comment as some kind of death blow or the axe of an executioner. It isn't. Indiana is a very conservative state. That does not necessarily make people there idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion. Do you disagree with that?

Thanks for the laugh.  I needed it this morning.  Since you often respond to even moderate critiques of progressive denominations as seemingly some kind of death blow or axe of an executioner--"At least I never write anyone out of the Christian Church . . ." I really enjoyed your words.  Rich indeed.

pearson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2206
    • View Profile

Not entirely sure Klu Klux Klan=conservative.  Senator Byrd's leadership position in said organization might run counter to such a perception.


Not to mention Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court Hugo Black, the darling of mid-20th-century progressives, who was a long-time staunch member of the Klan; or that the Klan was often at the forefront of advocacy for "separation of church and state" (Black wrote the majority opinion in the Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, which initially tied the "separation" doctrine to the First Amendment).  OK, I won't mention it.

Tom Pearson

Jim_Krauser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
  • "The one who is righteous shall live by faith."
    • View Profile
I'll agree that there's more sizzle than steak in the headline.  It is probably the case that even before this act, it was probably illegal to solemnize a wedding without a license. It's true here in NY.  And (as was formerly the case here in NY) Indiana does not issue licenses for same gender couples to marry.  So this new law is really the old law restated and is essentially redundant.  Some might say mean-spirited (in a salt-in-your-wounds sense) since it only restates what was always there.  Putting the best construction on it, we might conclude that it was passed to set aside any confusion the recent SCOTUS cases might have created.

Nevertheless it still points out the quandry for those religious bodies that acknowledge and affirm marriage equality:  Is the state not interfering in their free exercise of their religious tradition by claiming a sole right to use of the term "marriage"?  If a Reform Rabbi conducts a same sex wedding in the local synagogue, it might not have legal status, but is this not interfering to say that they may not do so? 

Now the point has been made marriages between for other relationships are also prohibited. That might be so.  But so far as I know, marrying a same-sex partner is merely a nullity under the law, not a crime or misdemeanor.  Marrying a second or third spouse, sibling, 1st cousin (goat, pig or horse) may in some jurisdictions be a crime even a felony.  So the parallel is not apt.  Those solemnizing a same-sex marriage would not be breaking a law, so much as standing outside of the law--i.e doing something that the law does not provide for. Oddly if this impact of this statute is as described, it only makes the officiant a lawbreaker, not the couple.  In a bigamous marriage the bigamist would be the lawbreaker and the officiant only insofaras he/she was a knowing participant.

As for the assignment to this being a GOP action, I imagine you would have to look at the vote tallies to assess the veracity of that claim.  I have not been able to find them on the internet, but it is true that the GOP controls both the legislature and executive branches in Indiana.
 
I'm no lawyer but the definition of "solemnize' in the statues seems broad enough to enjoin even a public ceremony for those married in another jurisdiction, but I could be mistaken. Nevertheless I think it is a legitimate concern, though the earlier one about a religious/non-civil ceremony is obviously more worrisome in terms of the 1st Amendment.
 
 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 03:50:33 PM by Jim_Krauser »
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

scott8

  • Guest
Now the point has been made marriage between for other relationships are also prohibited.  That might be so.  But so far as I know, marrying a same-sex partner is merely a nullity under the law, not a crime or misdemeanor.  Marrying a second or third spouse, sibling, 1st cousin (goat, pig or horse) may in some jurisdictions be a crime even a felony.  So the parallel is not apt.  Those solemnizing a same-sex marriage would be breaking a law, but are standing outside of the law--i.e doing something that the law does not provide for.  Oddly if this impact of this statute is as described, it only make the officiant a lawbreaker, not the couple.  Whereas in a bigamous marriage the bigamist would be the lawbreaker and the officiant only insofaras he/she was a knowing participant.

Bigamy, for example, is mentioned in the same section as same-sex marriage is mentioned.  Performing either would equally make the officiant a lawbreaker with the exact same penalty for both, regardless as to the culpability of those getting married.  This is directly parallel.

And Islam does allow for multiple wives, yet our laws against bigamy prevent this religious allowance from taking place.  This is parallel to those denominations that see same-sex marriage as allowable, and the law prevents this religious allowance from taking place in the same way.

Moreover, it applies to all officiants including judges, city clerks, mayors, etc and not only religious ones.  In that way, it is not targeting a religion directly, either Islam or liberal Christianity.

Jim_Krauser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
  • "The one who is righteous shall live by faith."
    • View Profile
Now the point has been made marriage between for other relationships are also prohibited.  That might be so.  But so far as I know, marrying a same-sex partner is merely a nullity under the law, not a crime or misdemeanor.  Marrying a second or third spouse, sibling, 1st cousin (goat, pig or horse) may in some jurisdictions be a crime even a felony.  So the parallel is not apt.  Those solemnizing a same-sex marriage would be breaking a law, but are standing outside of the law--i.e doing something that the law does not provide for.  Oddly if this impact of this statute is as described, it only make the officiant a lawbreaker, not the couple.  Whereas in a bigamous marriage the bigamist would be the lawbreaker and the officiant only insofaras he/she was a knowing participant.

Bigamy, for example, is mentioned in the same section as same-sex marriage is mentioned.  Performing either would equally make the officiant a lawbreaker with the exact same penalty for both, regardless as to the culpability of those getting married.  This is directly parallel.

And Islam does allow for multiple wives, yet our laws against bigamy prevent this religious allowance from taking place.  This is parallel to those denominations that see same-sex marriage as allowable, and the law prevents this religious allowance from taking place in the same way.


Your answer does not account for the illogical prohibition of solemnizing something (same-sex marriage) which is not a crime, where as in solemnizing a bigamous or polygamous marriage would be participating in a crime.  But in this instance an underlying crime is not being abetted by the solemnization.

It would seem to me that in order to effect the intent of this statute it would also be necessary to declare same-sex marriage a crime (whether you call it a fraud or whatever) with appropriate punishment attached, but to make it a crime only on the part of the officiant is, well, odd.

Because bigamy is mentioned in the same section of the law as same-sex marriage, does not make the association accurate or logically plausible.  It is not a equal application of the law if one is a crime and one is not.
Quote
Moreover, it applies to all officiants including judges, city clerks, mayors, etc and not only religious ones.  In that way, it is not targeting a religion directly, either Islam or liberal Christianity.

Officiants such as judges, clerks, mayors etc. are employees of the state and I would assume may restrict them in any way they wish since office they hold belongs to the state. 
The town I used to live in set a cap on how much a public officiant might receive as an honorarium.
A religious officiant is not an employee of the state.  The state accepts our marriage rite as sufficient evidence that the marriage licensed by them has been entered into.
Under that same logic it is quite possible that for the state's own reasons may choose not to accept or acknowledge the marriage we conduct; but I cannot see how they have any authority to prevent us from conducting our rites according to our precepts.
At the same time, that may well mean that the couple cannot represent themselves as married or seek benefits under state law.


So you agree that a state that requires adoption agencies to consider all applicants for placement of children equally, without regard to sexual orientation, does not infringe on religious freedom since the law applies to all adoption agencies equally and does not target a religion directly?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:55:08 PM by Jim_Krauser »
Jim Krauser

Pastor-Grace Evang. Lutheran Church, North Bellmore, NY

BrotherBoris

  • Guest

I'm not painting the residents of Indiana as anything. Like Pastor Fienen, you tend to see every comment as some kind of death blow or the axe of an executioner. It isn't. Indiana is a very conservative state. That does not necessarily make people there idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion. Do you disagree with that?


If you didn't intend to paint the state of Indiana as idiots or yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion (or, perhaps, as racists), you wouldn't have spent half your post pointing out the state's historical ties to the KKK.

Quote

I am beating myself up seriously on the misspelling. Sometimes everyone needs a copy editor.


I accept.  I'll warn you in advance my services aren't cheap.  The first invoice is in the mail.


Let's leave Indiana alone.  If you really want a state filled with "yahoos of Brobdingnagian proportion " come visit my home state of South Carolina.  We major in crazy here.  Whether it is right wing fanatics, religious fanatics, Lost Cause fanatics or the KKK, South Carolina is usually a hotbed of reactionary thought, very anti-intellectual (and anti-education) and to quote Pastor Austin hardly a "crucible of tolerance or enlightenment".  Nevertheless, we in South Carolina always thank God for Mississippi, because without them, we would be last in everything, instead of being only 49th!   8)