- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
A woman who said she was an ordained minister was arrested on Tuesday and charged with disorderly conduct while trying to perform a same-sex marriage at a courthouse in Alabama.
The Autauga County Sheriff’s Office told the Montgomery Advertiser that Probate Judge Al Booth observed Anne Susan Diprizio offering to perform same-sex marriages, and so he called for deputies to arrest her.
Booth decided to stop performing marriages after Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore advised all probate judges in the state not to comply with a federal judge’s orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Booth has insisted that the decision to stop performing marriages had to do workload, not an opposition to LGBT rights.
Remember a few months back when the right wing exploded in fury when it was alleged that two ordained ministers in Idaho had been threatened by fines and jailtime by a local city anti discrimination ordinance. It turned out that they had reorganized their business into a religious corporation and had altered their website to indicate they no longer performed civil marriages so they never did face any real legal threat. But I remember the outrage by so many that an ordained minister could face arrest for practing their faith. As such I bring you this...
Alabama judge refuses to perform gay marriages, then arrests minister when she tries to do it
Let us see how many defend this judge and his sudden influx of work right when same-sex couples earned the freedom to marry, but not so overloaded to have deputies arrest a minister offering to marry a same-sex couple. This truly harks back to the days of interracial marriage bans being struck down.
How is an offer to marry someone against the law?I've always considered it to be silly to think of gay marriage as any kind of civil rights issue. But the law is the law and a judge of all people ought to follow it.
This story seems a little strange...I wonder if there's not more to this story than this.
How is an offer to marry someone against the law?
EDIT: Nevermind, I think I might have misunderstood your post. You're criticizing the judge, right?
This story seems a little strange...I wonder if there's not more to this story than this.
How is an offer to marry someone against the law?
EDIT: Nevermind, I think I might have misunderstood your post. You're criticizing the judge, right?
Good, because that would not have been grounds for arrest.The minister didn't just offer to marry someone.
If that's the case (and I simply don't care enough to look anything about this instance up), then I don't see any problem here.She decided she'd make a public spectacle of the ceremony by trying to do it in the courthouse. She was charged with disorderly conduct, presumably because she created a scene at the courthouse.
Not really. You don't have to have a place of worship or a congregation to perform a wedding. You can get ordained online and perform a marriage ceremony at a park, if you so choose. In fact, it's a business some people have.As a minister, one must assume she has a congregation and a place of worship where such a marriage ceremony could be preformed, without the spectacle.
I doubt it, since they are officers of the law and any weddings they perform would be of a legal nature. But, if I understand correctly, the state's chief justice put a stay on same sex marriages in the state, so officials have to decide if they are following federal or state instructions.As for the judges decisions themselves not to preform same sex marriage, I wonder if they will also have the same level of religious rights as Catholic hospitals/staff regarding the issue of preforming abortions.
The minister didn't just offer to marry someone. She decided she'd make a public spectacle of the ceremony by trying to do it in the courthouse. She was charged with disorderly conduct, presumably because she created a scene at the courthouse. She was not charged with performing a marriage illegally. People may have rights but they don't necessarily have the right to exercise them whenever and wherever they choose. As a minister, one must assume she has a congregation and a place of worship where such a marriage ceremony could be performed, without the spectacle.
As for the judges decisions themselves not to perform same sex marriage, I wonder if they will also have the same level of religious rights as Catholic hospitals/staff regarding the issue of performing abortions. Abortion may be constitutional, but not all doctors or healthcare workers are required to perform them.
Remember a few months back when the right wing exploded in fury when it was alleged that two ordained ministers in Idaho had been threatened by fines and jailtime by a local city anti discrimination ordinance. It turned out that they had reorganized their business into a religious corporation and had altered their website to indicate they no longer performed civil marriages so they never did face any real legal threat. But I remember the outrage by so many that an ordained minister could face arrest for practing their faith. As such I bring you this...
Alabama judge refuses to perform gay marriages, then arrests minister when she tries to do it
Let us see how many defend this judge and his sudden influx of work right when same-sex couples earned the freedom to marry, but not so overloaded to have deputies arrest a minister offering to marry a same-sex couple. This truly harks back to the days of interracial marriage bans being struck down.
They have a right to equal protection, so if she does the same for hetero couples, she is constitutionally mandated to do so for gay couples. If they would not arrest her for marrying hetero couples in this way, they cannot do so for marrying gay couples.
I mean this is alabama we're talking about. I recall a clip from the show "What would you do" when they had a gay couple just holding hands on a bench in birmingham, and some bigot bitch CALLED 911!! And yes, a cop showed up to order them to leave, until the cameras appeared and then he got the hell out of there.
I would not trust an alabama sheriff any more than i would the sheriff of nottingham in "robin hood"
That all may be true - I simply responded to the detail outlined in the OP. I wasn't there, so I don't know the details - I suspect you weren't there either. I'm not prepared to condemn all of Alabama because of this incident. And I'm not so naive as to think that gay activists, just like any other activists, don't occasionally make a scene.
the 2 ministers in Idaho weren't at the courthouse purposefully defying a judges edict.
I think the judge is wrong in what's he doing in terms of SSM... but a minister who actually goes down to the friggin courthouse to defy a judges edict is simply begging to get arrested...
I have a frend who once lived in Alabama with her partner and their child. They were not married and when the locals found out they used to shield their faces with a hand when passing their house so as not to see the sin going on in that house of evil. Nothing about the bible belt surprises me.
They have a right to equal protection, so if she does the same for hetero couples, she is constitutionally mandated to do so for gay couples. If they would not arrest her for marrying hetero couples in this way, they cannot do so for marrying gay couples.
I mean this is alabama we're talking about. I recall a clip from the show "What would you do" when they had a gay couple just holding hands on a bench in birmingham, and some bigot bitch CALLED 911!! And yes, a cop showed up to order them to leave, until the cameras appeared and then he got the hell out of there.
I would not trust an alabama sheriff any more than i would the sheriff of nottingham in "robin hood"
I have to disagree with that. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow the government to tell a church leader what ceremonies to perform and for whom.
The opposite is true.
However, the minister's congregation might have something to say about her actions.
Or her church's hierarchy if such exists.
Well i thought that was obvious enough it didn't require clarifying but yes, the same amendment protecting (if adhered to) gay couples from religious interference in secular law is meant to protect churches from being forced to perform gay weddings. Nonetheless, a huge segment of america wants to remove separation of church and state. They should be careful what they wish for...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?