NY Ministers charged for marrying gays in religious ceremony

Wow, talk about heavy-handed -- and a violation of the separation of church and state!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040315/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_ny

KINGSTON, N.Y. - Two ministers were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples — apparently the first time in U.S. history that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies.

District Attorney Donald Williams said gay marriage laws make no distinction between public officials and members of the clergy who preside over wedding ceremonies.

Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with 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.

Each charge carries a fine of $25 to $500 or up to a year 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. "It's ridiculous that prosecutors would spend their time charging anyone with a crime who is simply trying to unite two people with basic rights and protections."

Welcome to Dubya's America -- where you can do insider trading and steal people's retirement accounts and never go to jail. But be a pastor who marries two men or two women in a religious ceremony, and have your freedom of religion violated and get arrested immediately.

Build a gazillion prisions (think of the jobs that would create, as long as you let Republican contributors build them)...Then lock up everyone in the Country and let "Little John" decide who to let go one by one.

Come to think of it, that should clear most of the traffic problems in TampaBay, 'cause Jeb and Johnny wouldn't let many out.

. . . these people are fighting for the civil rights of all Americans and are being threatened with jail time, while CROOKS like Bush's friends at Enron, TYCO and WorldCom have gone for YEARS without being prosecuted or even threatened with legal action.

The candidate should be getting up and talking about this (if he could ever grow a spine on civil rights).

how this isn't about civil rights?
shit like this is gonna cause some serious reaction -- this is beyond outrageous.

I posted this and so did another poster yesterday afternoon. Both threads sank like stones, one after a DUer spent most of the posts in the thread telling everyone how tired he was of the whole topic.

I sure hope people start taking this case seriously. Maybe this time it will attract some attention here.

As near as I can figure, the ministers were arrested because they had the nerve to not only marry gays, but to do so publicly, while saying that those marriages should be legally recognized. After all, Unitarians have been marrying gays for years without being arrested.

But this time, someone decided that it was time to cut them off as an example to the rest of us.

This is not only a direct attack on the freedom of religion (authorities telling the ministers that they can't perform marriage ceremonies that the authorities don't approve of), but also an attack on the freedom of speech, since the ministers probably would have been ignored if they had performed the ceremonies in a less public arena, and not said they should be legal marriages.

What are we coming to when DUers can't see how BIG a problem this is? The authorities here are working to determine that a form of religous expression is forbidden by the government. We should be very, very angry, and very, very scared.

I didn't get here yesterday to express my outrage about the arrest of the Unitarian ministers. What people do in their church is their business. Of course, I'm sure Ashcroft thinks that it is the government's job to make sure that what is said and done in churches should be monitored by the State to make sure it complies with the tenets of the TaliChristians (Christians who are as tolerant as the Taliban).

Could someone dispel my ignorance of NY law and tell me if marrying two people of the same sex is spcifically illegal?

In some states it isn't specifically stated that same sex couples can't marry, in other states it is.

If it isn't specified as being illegal, where's the crime, other than to some ignorant person's sensibilities?

If a couple has made a committment to themselves to stay together forever, why shouldn't they be married? How does this harm society? Or is it because so many hypocrites clamoring for a discriminatory Constitutional Amendment has so much disfunction in their own families?

Mayor West had taken a oath to uphold the law, but I don't see how he broke the law.
The Clergy never swore to uphold state law; the took an oath to the Lord.
What did they do that wasn't done on the TV series Friends and Sinfeld?

Yet again Conservative opponents of gay rights are shown to be liars. In Cleveland Heights, Ohio, a conservative councilman, who promised to honor the vote of the people on domestic partnership, now is suing as a private citizen to block the law. So much for it being a matter of who decides.

Now the idea that this is about religious freedom is laid waste to. Which commandment is it that says no bearing false witness?

apparently the first time in U.S. history that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies.

Understand this. Clergy in several religions have been performing marriages of gays for years. Some have been disciplined by their churches, some perform gay marriages with the full approval of their denomination.

These are religious marriages. They do not have civil recognition. The couples involved do not receive the 1000+ federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage that are accorded to governmentally recognized marriages.

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... " Because of this, clergy can choose to marry anyone they want to in a religious ceremony. The governmental recognition of said marriage is a seperate matter.

When the officials in NY state arrested these ministers and charged them with solemnizing a marriage without a license, they are saying that governmental regulation of civil marriage apply also to religious marriage. They have just "prohibited the free exercise thereof".

This is a major step towards establishing a state approved definition of an acceptable religion. This is more than a gay marriage issue. This is an issue that affects every single person here, religious, agnostic or atheist.

Maybe this is a good thing.

"Marriage" should be up to the churches. The state has no business giving its "blessing" to religious sacraments or rites.

The state should not be doing Marriage. It should be doing the equivalent of civil unions. Not marriage, and not for anyone.

This case, which, I agree, is outrageous, may result in pushing the debate in that direction.

The other thing it may do is convince the majority of people that the right wing extremists are really pushing this way too far, and are motivated by hatred and bigotry, not principle.

What my husband and I have is not a marriage? I completely disagree with you. Our marriage ceremony was secular, non religeous and we have a marriage. Religeons/churches etc do not own words. There are people who would classify us as civil unionized or what ever. It's not up to them to define us. We are married.

I never thought I'd see the day when people were arrested for conducting marriages.

Separation of church and state goes both ways. If the UUs want to marry gays that's their own business.

They keep the outrages flying so fast and furious that it's tough to know where to put your energy in the battle.

But this is one of the worst, IMO. The government has no damned business controlling churches in their conduct of something that is a religious ceremony and not a crime.

Now, where did I leave my pitchfork. Anybody got a torch?

If you're a religion that even a hard-head atheist like me can get behind, respect and support, then you are a truly a Good Thing®

At least that's the selling point I've heard, being a UU myself (but not an atheist). :D

Rev. Dawn Sangrey is the wife of one of the members of my UU congregation who serves on our board of trustees. This issue is REALLY hitting home within my congregation. The overwhelming majority of our congregations has fully supported the issue of same-sex marriage -- but the support has not been unanimous.

Just this past weekend, I got into it after the service with one member of our congregation who told me he was leaving over the UU support of gay marriage -- saying that he thought it was an "abomination", that gays SHOULD be treated as second-class citizens, that legitimizing it would lead to bestiality, that the purpose of marriage was to protect the family, and so on.

This guy is also a Lt. Col. in the Army Reserves at my Brigade HQ -- and is probably the most conservative person in our congregation. Usually I am rather reserved around him (due to the Army association), but this time I let him have it.

I told him that I found his POV to be abhorrent, and that while there were many valuable things I thought that conservatives brought to the public discourse and that their points of view WERE needed, that this was an issue on which they were completely and morally wrong. I told him that the SAME ARGUMENTS were used 50 years ago against mixed-race marriage. I told him that if the purpose of marriage was to protect the family, then we should immediately invalidate any marriages in which the couple is unable to biologically have children.

He replied that this was the number one source of annulment. I told him that was not consistent with what he said -- if the purpose of marriage was to protect the family, and these people (like gays) were biologically unable to procreate, then their marriages should be made illegal.

He actually had to grudgingly concede my point. But I walked away from the conversation with a sick feeling in my stomach, amazed that in a place even as open to dialogue and debate as a UU fellowship I could find such an abhorrent and divisive and hateful viewpoint.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I guess....

as NY has a gender neutral marriage laws, like NJ.
I have always liked Spitzer, but did not like the way he dissed Howard Dean early last year (turns out that he was more or less on target, lol, so I might have to drop that grudge). Why would he oppose gay marriage in NY?

Because it's politically convenient.

and take his involvement here has less support to his other high profile success (arresting white collar criminals, environmental protection, child protection).
I think that his involvement here may not benefit him.

All those other things -- white-collar crime, environmental protection, child protection -- were part of his JOB as AG. His job as AG is to enforce the law of NY state.

Legal same-sex marriage, unfortunately, is NOT part of the existing law in NY state. Therefore, by becoming involved in this issue in a way that would VIOLATE existing law, Spitzer would be in clear violation of the oath he took as AG.

Looking at the current federal AG, is it really a GOOD thing when an AG starts to ignore legal precedent and carry out his duties based on personal beliefs alone?

. . . but in reality AGs have plenty of leeway.

If Spitzer (or John Ashcroft) enforced corporate fraud and abuse cases with the same zeal they're enforcing unconstitutional anti-gay laws, society would be a lot better off.

The reality is, the AG in NY is as political as they come. He's trying to build a reputation for himself by "fighting the agendas" of "big finance" and "homosexuals" -- and "compromising" in the latter case by stating NY State has to recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

He is using his position as AG to build a future political platform for himself as a "crusader" on key issues. The local AG is also clearly over-reacting in an effort to not make NY State a battleground -- unfortunately for him, he just jacked up the debate several hundred notches and virtually guaranteed that the New York marriage laws will be partially or completely struck down by a state or federal court under constitutional precedent.

Your post tells me that you are not overly familiar with the nuances of this case. As a NYer -- and someone with "inside information" on these recent happenings, as one of the ministers is married to one of my fellow UU congregants -- please permit me to clarify some things.

First, Spitzer has said publicly that he, personally, supports same-sex marriage. He has also said publicly that he encourages those who support it to work through the process, by lobbying for legislation that legalizes it along with going through the courts.

The only "compromising" that Spitzer is doing WRT recognition of civil unions is by stating the existing law. While there is always "leeway" within the law, there is not so much leeway that something that is NOT yet legalized can suddenly be declared legal on a whim.

And you're also ruling out the very real possibility that the local DA is actually ATTEMPTING to ratchet up this debate by acting on this issue. If he/she DIDN'T want to spotlight it, then these arrests would not have been made, since the couples who have been married are not subject to additional legal benefits under existing NY state law.

. . . and I know that, in no case, may a state make regulations that censor the free speech or expression of individuals, especially on issues of debate like gay marriage.

someone with "inside information" on these recent happenings

That doesn't invalidate the legal opinions of others.

Although, if your suggestion that the NYAG and UUers are acting in concert is correct, it's very interesting.

But it's clear from what Spitzer has said that he personally supports same-sex marriage rights.

All these actions are doing is interjecting the issue into the courts. While Spitzer would be nuts to actually encourage people to break the law, if he really DOES support same-sex marriage I can't help but think that he's sitting back with a little smile on his face watching how this issue is being thrown on the front pages.

. . . and I don't think of his public pronouncements as particularly honest. He's crafty and wants to be on the "right" side of the issue historically AND politically. Do one thing, say another is not out of the realm of possibility here.

Just speculating.

Spitzer has said throughout this recent debate that NY state, while it recognizes civil unions between gays from other states and the legal protections incurred thereof, it does NOT have legally sanctioned gay marriage. His words to those performing gay marriages has not been to outright denounce what they are doing as "immoral", but rather to tell them to work to change the law.

IOW, he is playing the part of a neutral public official on this matter, working to uphold the standing law of NY State -- as an Attorney General SHOULD do. He has stated that personally he has no problem with gay marriage, but that in regards to his JOB it is not his place to say.

To be quite honest, as a NYer I agree with the way that Spitzer has handled this. It would be rather refreshing if our federal AG were to handle such issues according to existing law, as Spitzer is doing, rather than interjecting his personal beliefs in such severity that he ends up violating standing legal precedent.

And I also agree with what these ministers and public officials violating the law are doing -- they are engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience in hopes of inconveniencing the government to the point that the law can be changed.

and there are legal tools that can be exercised in NYS that basically give gay couples all the "benefits" of a marriage. How far off is gay marriage in NYS? Was Spitzer's advice, "Fight them in court. What they are doing is unconstitutional and the best way to change it is to challenge it in court."

To be honest, I am highly supportive of the way that Spitzer has handled this, because he has done the job that he was elected to do (which is not to MAKE laws, but to ENFORCE existing ones) while at the same time not being heavy-handed or overzealous.

His advice has been to work to change the law to legalize same-sex marriage through legislative and legal channels.

I think that gay marriage is still a bit off in NY, but civil unions will probably happen any time now. I know that in NYC same-sex couples can already file for "domestic partnership" which is essentially a civil union without a marriage license.

In an ideal world, we would have same-sex marriage -- because ANY celebration of love and committment between two people should be affirmed rather than condemned, especially in a world so lacking in love and compassion as this one. But I just don't see it gaining full popular support just yet. The compromise probably will be civil unions -- and same-sex marriage won't be realized for another decade, at least.

the civil disobedience of the ministers. While they are performing the marriages quite publicly, and with the intent of carrying on Mayor West work, they are NOT govt officials. They are ministers performing marriages. The ministers are not sworn to uphold NY state law. So they are doing a very visible protest of current NY marriage law, and speaking out, saying that these marriages should also be civilly recognized, but it is a wierd and unconstitutional reading of the law to say that the ministers broke the law.

These ministers are performing these ceremonies in public space in the village of New Paltz, NY. That is the same New Paltz in which the mayor, Jason West, was recently arrested for performing same-sex marriages. The ministers felt called to continue the campaign that West started, so they began performing the marriages up there as well.

The fact that they are performing the marriages in public, rather than private space, is probably what constitutes a violation of standing law. In that sense, it is different than if the ceremonies were held without an official marriage license in a private facility.

although I agree that the ministers are doing the marriages so publicly as a form of protest, I'm not at all convinced that they are in violation of the law. The law cited was about performing a marriage without a license, not about a location.

On the other hand, see below for my speculation on the possible reason that a cooperative DA might have for an arrest. Knowing the area and people involved, is this a possibility?

WRT to the space involved, when a marriage is performed in a public space it is, by nature, a civil ceremony. And since it is illegal to perform a civil marriage ceremony without a marriage license in NY, this action is breaking the law.

WRT the DA's motivations, it could very well be the case. New Paltz is in the same county as Woodstock -- Ulster County -- and is EXTREMELY liberal for a rural area. Hell, their Congressman in Maurice Hinchey, one of the more progressive members of Congress. The DA might be doing what he/she can in order to push this into the courts.

when a marriage is performed in a public space it is, by nature, a civil ceremony

That's clearly a violation of free speech rights, and I doubt it will stand up to scrutiny.

opinion that he thought that banning gay marriage would be found unconstitutional. He made it clear that he supports gay rights to marriage. His legal opinion was based on the fact that while NY does not have a DOMA, that the marriage laws in the state refer to husbands and wives, thus implying different genders. His legal opinion is on the current NY laws, that he thinks will be found unconstitutional in a future court case.

I disagree with Spitzer's take on the husband/wife line, but I'm a horticulturist, not a lawyer. :-)

The issue in these arrests though is that a marriage performed by clergy is seperate from the civil recognition of a marriage. Just as allowing gay marriages to be civilly recognized will not legally require ministers to perform gay marriages (violation of 1st amendment freedom of religion) so clergy can not be legally forbidden from performing any sort of marriage they wish to, for the same reason.

Episcopal priests and other clergy in Portland have been blessing same-sex couples for years, even before Multnomah County began issuing civil marriage licenses.

The American Baptist minister in the small town where I lived even blessed a gay union fourteen years ago, and was picketed by the Southern Baptists.

I bet some fundamentalist got wind of the fact that the Unitarians were blessing gay couples (not exactly LBN) and ran screaming to the equally fundamentalist D.A.

If you're unaware of the significance of New Paltz, it is the town in which the mayor (Jason West) was recently arrested for performing same-sex marriages in public ceremonies.

The reason that these ministers are being arrested is that they are also performing these marriages in public ceremonies in the "town square", not private ceremonies in their respective congregations.

This isn't about the fundamentalists at all. If you've ever been to New Paltz, this would be quite clear. The town has a SUNY campus and more artists and ex-hippies than neighboring Woodstock. It even has more than one head shop! What it is about is the fact that same-sex marriage is not recognized by NY state law, and the mayor and ministers have decided to engage in civil disobedience in performing these ceremonies.

The DA and police were entirely respectful of everyone involved throughout the process, even as they warned the mayor and minsters they would be facing arrest. One of the ministers is actually the wife of one of my UU congregation trustees, and he had nothing but good things to say about the way in which the whole thing was handled on all sides.

If the DA is friendly to the whole process, would he/she have instituted the arrest of the ministers, knowing that this will bring a whole 'nother issue into the courts? Namely that forbidding gay marriage is prohibiting the free exercise of religion by religious denominations that recognize gay marriage?

I've always thought that the eventual SCOTUS case will come down to the 14th amendment, but this certainly brings in the first.

The reason why is that these marriage ceremonies were performed in a PUBLIC rather than PRIVATE space. According to the first amendment, if they were actually RELIGIOUS ceremonies, simply having them in a public space would be a violation of the separation of church and state.

These ministers performed CIVIL ceremonies in a PUBLIC space. Other than public officials such as mayors and judges, ministers are the only other group legally recognized as being permitted to perform civil marriage ceremonies.

Like I said above, one of the ministers arrested (Rev. Dawn Sangrey) is the wife of one of my fellow UU congregants. He has spoken of it in some detail the past two weeks, updating us on what his wife is doing. As such, I do have a little bit of insider information on what the details of these cases are.

Since the state wouldn't recognize the marriages anyway, the "regulation" is a de-facto law limiting free speech with no legitimate purpose. Free speech on public space is not forbidden or limited in any way, BTW -- and civil ceremonies of all types (including gay commitment ceremonies) happen on public property (including parks) all the time.

This is clearly a local attorney general taking an aggressive stance against religious and political speech.

The mayor of New Paltz, NY (where all this is taking place) is a GREEN, for Chrissakes! The town is so f***ing progressive that they have a GREEN mayor! This town has more "head shops" than neighboring Woodstock, to give you an indication of the flava of the village.

This is not about some overzealous DA stepping in. What it MAY be, as kayell hypothesized in another post, is the DA attempting to do what he/she can in order to force this issue into the courts, where a legal precedent may be set.

. . . but Spitzer has a reputation for grandstanding, and the local AG doesn't necessarily ONLY cover New Paltz.

I am watching with interest. Clearly, the constitutionality of the law in question is nil, the real question is when and how it will be stricken.

Personally, I think he's be a GREAT candidate for Governor in 2006. As those are clearly his aspirations, of course he is going to grandstand when possible!

WRT the local DA, I'm not sure of party affiliation. But Ulster County is pretty progressive -- it not only covers New Paltz, but Woodstock and Saugerties as well. These three decent-sized towns alone are havens for artisans, environmentalists and ex-hippies.

Can you spell it out a little more clearly what the ministers have in mind? Clearly if they thought of it as civil disobedience, rather than as aother form of protest, then they intended to be arrested. If so, then they intend to fight that law in court with a particular reasoning in mind.

-----------------------------
"The ministers will plead not guilty at their arraignment March 22 and are prepared to go to trial, said their lawyer, Robert Gottlieb.

"There have been clergy throughout the country for years and years who have solemnized marriages between same-sex couples, and only the Ulster County D.A. feels compelled to haul them into a court and brand them a criminal defendant," Gottlieb said. "
----------------------------

That doesn't tell me much about motivation and strategy.

----------------------------

"Williams said he decided to press charges because the marriages were "drastically different" from religious ceremonies because Greenleaf and Sangrey publicly said they considered them civil. Some Unitarian ministers, Greenleaf included, have been performing ceremonies for gay couples since before the issue entered the national debate.

"It is not our intention to interfere with anyone's right to express their religious beliefs, including the right of members of the clergy to perform ceremonies where couples are united solely in the eyes of the church or any other faith," Williams said.

snip

Barbara Cox, a law professor and gay marriage expert at the California Western School of Law, said the case might be difficult to prosecute because clergy had not sworn to uphold the law.

"A minister who has no authority to make a marriage legally valid, how can you say they've broken the law?" Cox said.
------------------------------------

I'm still getting a first amendment arguement out of that. Can you explain what they have in mind?

. . . it's the local AG who is pressing the charges here.

He's clearly doing it out of a desire to quash things before they spiral out of control. The problem is, he's only upped the ante and made it likely that NY State's marriage laws are going to get changed in court (or even invalidated).

I don't doubt the UUers would have married these people regardless of what the state threatens them about their religious beliefs and how they should censor their speech, but I doubt the primary motivation was to get arrested. This also gives lie to the idea that "no gay marriage" is a "religious freedom issue."

They're ministers. They see recognition of the rights of committed, same-sex couples to legally marry and enjoy the protections afforded under marriage (along with the right to have their love and committment legitimized just as heterosexual couples) as one of the great moral issues of our day. Therefore, they saw it as their calling to speak out on it forcefully and convincingly -- even if it meant threat of arrest or imprisonment.

It's the same motivation that, say, Rev. Roy Bourgoise (sp) has in starting the School of the Americas Watch and facing imprisonment. Ministers are people who are called by their faith. When their faith tells them that a civil law or policy is in opposition to what their faith tells them is moral or humane, then they can feel called to speak out against it in a way that will highlight the injustice.

You're attempting to look at the surrounding legal issues rather than just look at the core context under which the ministers themselves actually got involved. Don't confuse the motivation of the ministers by making it seem more complex than it really is.

It isn't prohibited for religious groups to use public areas. It happens all the time. The first amendment actually requires towns to treat groups equally. Be they religious or non religious. It is that simple.

I'd like to see this go all the way to the supreme court. Isn't this the point of civil disobedience? Reminds me of Rosa Parks.

It's just the UUs practising their religion AND making political speech on public grounds. Because of this, efforts to prosecute them are going to fail at some juncture.

they issue marriage licenses?

. . . is it something they should be arrested for?

Because if so, that's pretty inconsistent application of the law. Every year, thousands of licences are issued that shouldn't be, but arrests under that "offence" are pretty rare.

It does bring up an interesting question -- should religious leaders of any persuasion have the power to issue government licences? I've personally always been in favour of leaving licencing to officials of the state.

In other words, keep the religion separate and get the civil registration from a civil authority.

The local town or city or village is the one who actually "issues" the license. The official presiding over the ceremony has to then sign the license to validate it.

. . . why aren't Catholic priests, say, arrested if they refuse to certify a civil marriage that doesn't meet their religious tests?

This is where things get shaky. If religious authorities refuse to certify civil recognition as agents of the state based on religious grounds, isn't that imposition of religious values on the execution of the business of the state?

I wonder if that will be thrown in the mix along with the rest of this case. . .

didn't know that. Don't most ministers, priests, or religeous presiders over marriage say something like "By the power vested in me by the STATE of XXX.....

Seems they have some sort of governmental function. Don't they have to register or something in order to be able to sign licenses? My guess is that they have to agree to hold up the marriage laws of the state.

and this will all be over.

is this is in NY. There actually was a bill in ALABAMA that would've banned clergy from doing any sort of gay committment cerimonies, and it was defeated. Alabama won't do something this stupid, why would NY? I wonder if the freepers are right and this is a set up like the Texas sodomy case was, as much as I applaud that decision it was almost certain a set up.

Of course the license situation does bring another angle to this.

. . . is an interesting one. I suspect that will stand central within the legal battle, along with the licencing aspect.

How many American laws are written using the words husband or wife that have been effectively treated in recent years as gender neutral in the absence of an ERA? Are they now going to rear their ugly heads and bite us hard?

take it up with Patake

bizarre. In fact, a unique application of this law. "apparently the first time in U.S. history that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies. "

the intent is to remove the appearance of a legal union in the face of an unlicenced event.

being New York it smostly about trying to beat the licence fee.

the pastors knew the law, they chose to break the law, they got caught. it was a predictable outcome.

The licence has to be obtained from the state and is then witnessed by the clergy person in question. Since the couples had no licence to solemnify, the argument that the priests "broke the law" is bunk.

It is chilling to see so many progressives arguing for anti-gay laws that also deny freedom of speech and freedom of religion to others. :scared:

"It is chilling to see so many progressives arguing for anti-gay laws that also deny freedom of speech and freedom of religion to others. "

Some people here are in such incredible denial about their own level of bigotry - yet are so virulently anti-gay - that they would sacrifice the constitution to avoid having to share the word "marriage" with gays.

:scared: Me too.