Arizona Not Done! Bill Would Allow Judges To Discriminate Against Gays

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

DYLAN SCOTT – FEBRUARY 28, 2014, 1:40 PM EST

Another Arizona anti-gay bill that had largely flown under the radar could be coming up for a vote in the state House, the Arizona Republic reported Friday. The bill would allow judges and other public officials to decline to perform same-sex marriages based on their religious beliefs.

According to the legislature's website, the bill was introduced on Jan. 28. The House Government Committee approved it with a "do pass" recommendation on Feb. 4, and the House Rules Committee cleared it on Feb. 18.

The Republic reported that the legislation was "awaiting debate" in front of the full House.

The proposed bill language says that: "the government may not require a minister to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs."

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/arizona-hb-2481-anti-gay-bill

[Downwinder]

1. Is there an Arizona law that:

requires a minister to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs?

If so the Catholic Church has been breaking it regularly.

[pnwmom]

2. But a judge isn't a minister.

From the link at the OP:

"Montenegro said he hopes the intense uproar over SB 1062 will not influence votes on his bill.

"An assistant pastor at a Surprise church, Montenegro told The Arizona Republic on Thursday that the legislation grew out of instances in New Jersey and England, where churches were sued for refusing to perform same-sex ceremonies. He said the legislation would also apply to priests, pastors, rabbis and others who might be asked to sanction marriages that contradict their beliefs and teachings.

“The intent of my bill is to directly protect clergy, churches, man or woman of the cloth, to protect them from doing marriage ceremonies that go against their faith,” Montenegro said.

[theHandpuppet]

3. Also from the article...

The problem, according to gay rights advocates, is that the definition of "minister" is broad: "an individual who is authorized to solemnize a marriage" under Arizona law. The relevant statute includes state and local judges as well as justices of the peace and members of the clergy.

[pnwmom]

4. Yes, that is definitely too broad. Broad to the point of deceptive. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

7. Yep, purposely so.

They are just not going to give up. The bigots will just keep rewriting the bill and resubmitting it. It's exhausting having to fight these battles over and over again.

[Stonepounder]

23. Seems to me that a 'minister' had a perfect right to refuse

to perform a marriage ceremony. A marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one. You may choose to have a minister perform the ceremony, but that minister has to be recognized by the state as a person who is 'authorized to solemnize a marriage'. However, you do not need a minister. You can have your marriage performed by a judge, justice, or justice of the peace. I would think that the separation of church and state would differentiate between a religious and a civil ceremony when it comes to whether an officiant may refuse to perform or not. A Catholic Priest can refuse to perform a marriage if either member of the couple is not a Catholic, or if one of them is divorced. A judge can't (or at least shouldn't be able to).

Are we going to say that a judge can refuse to marry a mixed-race couple? Or can a judge in Arizona refuse to marry a Hispanic couple? You have to differentiate between religious and civil.

Remember, marriage is fundamentally a civil contract. You can get married without a minister, but just try getting divorced without a judge.

[elleng]

24. Quite right.

[merrily]

27. Did you read the post to which you replied?

The statute defined minister very broadly. It's anyone with legal authority to perform a marriage in Arizona ( including a judge or a notary).

[Stonepounder]

31. Certainly I did.

Perhaps it wasn't clear. A 'minister' and a 'judge' should be separate titles and jobs. A 'minister' should be able to refuse to marry anyone due to religious beliefs. A judge should be secular and should not be able to pick and choose who he serves. Can a judge decide he's not going to hear a case based on religious beliefs?

Yes, the statute is ridiculously broad.

[kardonb]

11. montenegro

" if they close the front door against your bigotry , try the back door ; maybe they won't notice what you're up to ( again ) .

[niyad]

12. from the link:

Gay marriage, it should be noted, is not legal in Arizona.

The problem, according to gay rights advocates, is that the definition of "minister" is broad: "an individual who is authorized to solemnize a marriage" under Arizona law. The relevant statute includes state and local judges as well as justices of the peace and members of the clergy.

[struggle4progress]

19. The bill defines "minister" as anyone "authorized to solemnize a marriage

pursuant to section 25‑124" of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and section 25‑124 specifies

1. Duly licensed or ordained clergymen.
2. Judges of courts of record.
3. Municipal court judges.
4. Justices of the peace.
5. Justices of the United States supreme court.
6. Judges of courts of appeals, district courts and courts that are created by an act of Congress if the judges are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
7. Bankruptcy court and tax court judges.
8. United States magistrate judges.
9. Judges of the Arizona court of military appeals.
B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies.

[pnwmom]

20. yeah, that's crazy

[Shrike47]

28. Ridiculous. A minister is an employee of a church or a person who routinely conducts services.

A judge or a justice of the peace is not per se a minister. All public officials who marry people should be prepared to marry any couple with a license. If you don't agree, find other work.

[struggle4progress]

29. It's game-playing by the legislator, who figures that protecting ministers' right-to-conscience

throws red-meat to various wingnuts

Same sex marriage has been ilegal in the state since 1996, and it's prohibited there by constitutional amendment since 2006

And there's no reason to think anyone could force a minister to marry, even if same sex marriage were legal in the state

So the whole thing is pointless and shameless showboating, designed to stir up controversy and generate publicity for the legislator

[former9thward]

5. Ministers, priests and rabbis are already exempt from being sued.

This bill would apply to judges who are public employees. If they don't want to do their job they can resign and seek another type of employment.

[theHandpuppet]

8. +1000

[weissmam]

6. This is gettig so obvious thats its starting to get stupidly funny

[theHandpuppet]

9. And stupidly expensive

These constant legal battles take a toll on pro-equality forces.

[SCVDem]

10. Dear Arizona corporations

The elected officials will never learn.

Please move to a people friendly state.

That includes the NFL and Superbowl.

[theHandpuppet]

17. Yep. That have proven they cannot be trusted.

Let us hope that business has already taken note.

[daybranch]

13. No judge has to do it now.

If he or she wants to abdicate their responsibilities, he or she should resign. If judges have so much religious fervor, then they should stand up for your values. Like the Pharisees who hated Jesus for mingling with those who did not meet their definition of good people, they should not get involved. They should withdraw from evil society and return to their household yelling loudly what everyone else should do. But yes, I do not believe they should be forced to go against their conscience and if they cannot serve two masters, they should resign. Certainly Arizona would be better off without these bigots in positions of power. How about we start working for an anti-theocratic government- you know like the one spelled out in our Constitution. Please quit if you do not want to do your job. The same should be said of the GOP all over the country.

[uppityperson]

14. Separation of Church and State anyone? wtf

[Jack Rabbit]

15. I'm a little confused

I'm not sure what this bill is trying to accomplish. Like the original bill, it's not going to make one do anything he doesn't have to do now.

I do not believe anyone should, or could, force a minister to perform a service that he finds unconscionable, regardless of my own views on the matter. To make the matter clear: a minister in this context is a religious official acting in that capacity.
[center]
[font size="6" color="red"]HOWEVER . . .[/font]
[/center]
A public official, such as a justice of the peace, doesn't get to pick and choose. When any couple comes before him desiring to be married are eligible to be married under the statutes of the state where they are gathered for this purpose, then it doesn't matter if the justice of the peace is also the president of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-Day Saints and the couple is of the same sex or if the couple is of a different race and the justice of the peace doubles as the local Imperial Wizard. He must see to it that the ceremony is performed.

[SCVDem]

16. I like your "However"

The next step is dropping the tax exempt estatus on these churches and religiones.

They are NOT serving ALL the the citizens and taxpayers.

[WinkyDink]

18. Ha. This is funny to me. Why? Because my late F-i-L, a minister, refused to "solemnize" his own

son's marriage---to me!---because said son would not declare a belief in Jesus (FF 40 years: Said son not only believes; he's an Anglican.).

And no govt needed to get involved! Well, except for the judge who DID perform the ceremony.

[struggle4progress]

21. "Gay marriage, it should be noted, is not legal in Arizona"

In fact, it's been illegal since 1996, and in 2006 the Arizona Constitution was amended to forbid it

[geomon666]

22. Seriously...

[blkmusclmachine]

25. BOYCOTT ARIZONA!!!

[merrily]

26. Government officials, including judges-especially judges-are not allowed to discriminate.

If it's your position that your religion requires you to discriminate and therefore you must discriminate, you should resign your government job. You have no God-given right to a government position.

Given the position of pro football, Apple, the Chamber of Commerce, et al., I don't see this bill passing anyway.

[olddad56]

30. The US needs to do the right thing and give that territory back to Mexico.