I dont know about NC law or practice, but in New York a second religious ceremony requires a second license which is noted as if a second marriage but endorsed as being for a second ceremony. This would be true if both ceremonies are the same weekend or a longer time apart. Each is recorded with the State and causes a certificate of marriage to be issued.
A renewal of vows is not considered a wedding and requires no state license. s...@queenschurches.org Rev. N. J. L'Heureux, Jr. Executive Director Queens Federation of Churches 86-17 105th Street Richmond Hill, New York 11418-1597 Voice (718) 847-6764 FAX (718) 847-7392 Visit our Web site at <http://www.queenschurches.org/> http://www.QueensChurches.org/ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 4:40 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage This does not seem to me to be an issue that is limited to same-sex marriage ceremonies. Any religious ceremony by which a minister solemnizes a marriage for which a North Carolina license hasnt been issued is prohibited, with the exception mentioned by Doug. The issue could be much broader, and the criminal statute already would have been triggered by numerous Catholic weddings, if I understand Catholic doctrine correctly. I doubt that Catholic priests have been prosecuted, which suggests that the statutes have been treated as applying in the narrow way Eugene suggests. Here is the analysis: The religious ceremony exception seems to be in 51-6, not 51-7 (as Doug said), and seems to refer only to out-of-state weddings. Consider the result if the statutes are interpreted as Steve suggests (and as Doug thinks is perhaps correct). Suppose that a couple is married in Maryland by a Presbyterian minister pursuant to a Maryland license; the husband is Catholic and the wife is Presbyterian. If I understand Catholic doctrine correctly (or perhaps Catholic doctrine as it existed in the past?) their marriage will not be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. They move to North Carolina and at some point want the marriage to be recognized by the Catholic Church. They need to have a wedding ceremony performed by a Catholic priest. If the Catholic ceremony in North Carolina is the kind of marriage covered by 51-7, then the priest would violate the law by holding the wedding service. I think this kind of wedding service must have been done hundreds of times or more in North Carolina. I dont think there can have been an intent to criminalize the priests conduct in performing such marriages. That suggests strongly that the kind of ceremony that is prohibited is one that purports to create a civil marriage, not one that is designed to create a religious marriage. The absence of prosecution of Catholic priests would suggest that the law should be given the narrow construction argued for by Eugene. The narrow construction is a reasonable one; the phrase marries any couple (in 51-7) can easily be interpreted to mean marries the couple for civil purposes, which would explain the non-prosecution of the priests. All of this would complement Eugenes argument that the phrase as required by law limits the prohibition to those situations in which a license is required by law for the religious ceremony to have its purported effect of creating a valid civil marriage. Does that make sense? I suppose there still could be a question whether a religious official should be permitted to marry a couple without a license (any couple, I suppose) and take the position that it is a valid marriage for all purposes. Assume that the couple and the religious official know that state officials will act as though the marriage is not a valid civil marriage, but they believe that it is wrong to get a license issued by the state and that the state must (as a matter of natural law or their interpretation of the Constitution or of state law or some such thing) treat the marriage as valid. They reject the positivist notion that the law is what officials do. There is no fraud involved, because everyone knows what is going on. That issue could come up in any state with regard to any kind of marriage. Could such a ceremony be outlawed? (Perhaps some kind of fraud on third parties might result, if they hold themselves out as civilly married, knowing that state officials will not so treat them.) Mark Mark S. Scarberry Professor of Law Pepperdine Univ. School of Law From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 3:21 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage Oh, I agree that the law doesnt categorically exempt purely religious ceremonies. The prohibition in section 51-7 would apply to such ceremonies, but only if a license is required by law for such ceremonies. But I dont see how section 51-7 makes it a crime to celebrate a religious ceremony connected to a marriage for which a license is neither required nor even allowed. Or am I missing something? Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 3:17 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage The principal source of ambiguity is that §51-7 goes on to provide an exception for couples who are married by a judge and later have a religious ceremony as well. Hard to see why that exception was needed if no one thought the law reached purely religious ceremonies. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 6:11 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage Well, Id be happy to see a declaratory judgment making clear that the statutes dont apply here. But that seems to me to be pretty certain from the text of the statute; section 51-7 provides, Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In a same-sex marriage, there is no license required by law to be delivered to the person; indeed, no license is legally possible. So I dont see any basis for invalidating the statute on free speech or free exercise grounds as to same-sex marriages, though, as I said, it would be just fine to make clear that the statute indeed doesnt bar such ceremonies. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 12:47 PM To: Law Religion & Law List Subject: Re: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage I dont find that analysis persuasive in the sense that ministers would properly fear prosecution under that statute for performing a solemnization ceremony for same sex couples they would, as I read the statute, violate two aspects of it: peforming a solemnization ceremony between same sex couples AND doing so without a state-issued marriage license to perform that ceremony. To avoid the constitutional problem, the NC court could interpret it as Will Esser proposes, but it could also find the statute to be unconsitutionally vague or ambiguous as to the particular issue of performing a solemnization ceremony for a same sex couple. Given that the suit is in federal court and no state court has definitively ruled that Essers interpretation is the correct one, it seems that the federal court might well interpret it as unconstitutionally chilling free exercise (and free speech). Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org "I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality." Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 On May 9, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: I agree entirely, but which particular statutory scheme is under discussion? If its the North Carolina one, a recent post argued, I think, persuasively, that North Carolina statutes dont actually prohibit religious same-sex marriage ceremonies. Eugene From: <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:36 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: States prohibiting churches from sanctioning same-sex marriage Isnt this an easy case of free exercise violation? Assuming that states do not need to recognize same sex marriages as a matter of federal equal protection law, and do not need recognize church-recognized same sex marriages as vaild for state purposes (though the state would still recognize church authority to perform opposite-sex marriage), can the state ban a church from performing a religious marriage ceremony? -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice <http://iipsj.org/> http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 <http://sdjlaw.org/> http://sdjlaw.org "Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty." Mark Twain _______________________________________________ To post, send message to <mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see <http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
