Agnostic.com

11 1

Am I in violation of Missouri law?

January 9, 2018 - Missouri has tried this before and has failed, to allow those who "solemnize marriages in Missouri to refuse to solemnize a marriage if the solemnization of such marriage is contrary to such person's religious beliefs or sincerely held moral convictions."

To me, this is tantamount to legalizing the use of religion to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. But is this a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses? This is an interesting question to ponder.

I am permitted to conduct weddings in Missouri as an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. It cost me a few bucks and a signature online and I received my certificate of ordination. I am also ordained with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Current Missouri statute concerning who can conduct a marriage ceremony is clear:
"451.100. Marriages solemnized by whom. — Marriages may be solemnized by any clergyman, either active or retired, who is in good standing with any church or synagogue in this state. Marriages may also be solemnized, without compensation, by any judge, including a municipal judge. Marriages may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization."

2018HB 1763 would add a second paragraph to this section:
"2. Any person authorized to solemnize marriages under subsection 1 of this section may refuse to solemnize a marriage if the solemnization of such marriage is contrary to the religious beliefs or sincerely held moral convictions of such person authorized to solemnize marriages."

Personally, I do not want to conduct a religious-based marriage (Catholic, Muslim or Jewish) or a marriage ceremony that would require the mention of God. I would consider a pagan and secular based ceremonies and definitely a same-sex marriage regardless of the mention of God if the church of the parties refuses to conduct the ceremony. Does this mean I am in violation of the first section of the current law? Many think not.

However, if the refusal is based on some "religious conviction" not to conduct, let's say a same-sex marriage, that may be a different story. HB1763 would protect me from doing a Christian wedding, but can I use it also to discriminate against those in the LGBTQ community as well?

My research has not found incidents where such laws have been deemed unconstitutional in the past in any other state.
So I have two questions for you to ponder:

  1. Do you believe that HB 1763 would be in violation of the Constitution and if so, why?
  2. Does the current law permit me to refuse to conduct only secular and non-theist based marriages?
SageDave 7 Jan 9
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Missouri loves company! I recently found out they harbor the head quarters of the KKK!

One of the many in the US. TN, MS, AL and FL house local chapters as well.

0

If you are a person off the street(so to speak) marry whoever you want to. if you are an elected official marry whoever is in front of you, No questions asked, it's your job. You don't like it find another job. The employee does not get to write the job description.

0

Against Constitution not to worry even if passed as a state law.

0

I'm approaching this from a different angle, I hope it's appropriate here.
I'm in my 4th marriage, and if I had been an atheist way back when, and not subject to "gods laws", I probably would have never married. It aint for everybody.
I was in a faith that forbids sex with anyone your not married to. They all pretty much had that rule, but this one took it seriously.
So on two occasions I was overcome with lust, so of course we ran down to the church and got legally entangled. Each one cost me 5 years of my life in object misery, it aint for everyone.
So my conclusion is: no god, no rules, no marriages. I'm not against folks getting together, committing to each other, having kids, raising a family, etc, but without the overlord. So to tye this to the topic, no marriage, no officiate, no problem.

2
  1. Yes, but I'm not sure that anyone would have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of that law. See my answer to #2.

  2. You aren't a "public accommodation" when you perform ministerial services. It's not something you offer to the general public on an otherwise take-all-comers basis. So if you, or any other minister, declines an offer to solemnize a marriage for any reason whatsoever, it's not an ILLEGAL act of discrimination and the would-be spouses have no valid legal right to sue you and compel you to perform the ceremony.

Getting back to #1 -- because this isn't a public accommodation, no one can sue you for refusing to perform the solemnization ceremony.

Why someone would want to compel an unwilling officiant to preside over their own wedding is a complete and total mystery to me.

2

If a marriage can be solemnized by a judge then there should be no mention of religion, because to do so would be a violation of church and state. The ceremony is a civil ceremony, not religious.

2

Not sure if I'm answering either question posed with this but these are my thoughts;

You can't force someone to perform an act and marriage is hardly a service, so it's not like you're refusing to serve food to someone based on their race or religion

You can always say that you're not knowledgeable of how to perform those ceremonies that you don't want to, they may say you can learn them or something but if it's not a requirement to have that knowledge before being ordained then it can't be required to learn after the fact

1

I posed something to think about regarding the precedent of the scopes trial that may be used to attack the "religious beliefs" portion of HB1763. I am not a legal scholar, so I'm not sure how useful the thought is. The "moral conviction" portion may be harder to strike down.

[agnostic.com]

The Universal Life Church lists 2 tenets:

  1. Do only that which is right.
  2. Every individual is free to practice their religion in the manner of their choosing, as mandated by the First Amendment, so long as that expression does not impinge upon the rights or freedoms of others and is in accordance with the government’s laws.

You can than use the 2nd stated tenet of your religious organization to state that it is a violation of your religious beliefs to wed anyone who claims that theirs is the only true religion as that is clearly against your beliefs.

2

The short answers are no and yes.

Here is my take; no judge, county clerk, or other government employee may refuse to facilitate a same sex wedding based on the Supreme Court ruling. However, a minister can discriminate any way he or she wants, citing any kind of "religious conviction". A minister can even refuse to conduct anything but same sex weddings!

2

Damnable legalese. All laws should be written in plain English.

1

I hope a lawyer can answer this

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:13949
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.