Freedom Of Religion/Possible Rights Violation

[tayjenks]

What is the name of your state (Virginia)?

Hello,

I was recently ordained by a certified church online, and after I contacted my city to check on the protocol to perform marriages. They told me since my ordination was awarded online that they cannot award me with the certification to perform marriages. After a little research I found that this was an unconstitutional stance, as they cannot discriminate towards or against how a church operates.

Here is the virginia code I was given by the city:

20-23. Order authorizing ministers to perform ceremony.

When a minister of any religious denomination shall produce before the circuit court of any county or city in this Commonwealth, or before the judge of such court or before the clerk of such court at any time, proof of his ordination and of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is a reputed member, or proof that he holds a local minister's license and is serving as a regularly appointed pastor in his denomination, such court, or the judge thereof, or the clerk of such court at any time, may make an order authorizing such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time by the court or by the judge thereof.

---

Can the city actually turn down my application for the Rites of Marriage?


Thanks

 

[justalayman]

Do you have:

proof of his ordination and of his being in regular communion with the religious society of which he is a reputed member,

proof that he holds a local minister's license and is serving as a regularly appointed pastor in his denomination,

 

[tayjenks]

Yes, I have proof of both. I was told the only reason I was refused was because I was ordained online. I have proof of both, but the only guidance the judge referred the refusal to recognize online ordination.

 

[justalayman]

well, then get out your wallet, hire an attorney and sue them. File for a writ of mandamus.

 

[tayjenks]

ok, i will contact an attorney.

I don't understand, if the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, how does the city or a judge have a say in who a minister can be their religious right to provide matrimony services? That is not separation of church in state, simply stated.

 

[john39]

ok, i will contact an attorney.

I don't understand, if the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, how does the city or a judge have a say in who a minister can be their religious right to provide matrimony services? That is not separation of church in state, simply stated.

I think you assume as evidence for your argument the very conclusion you are yet to prove.

When you say

After a little research I found that this was an unconstitutional stance, as they cannot discriminate towards or against how a church operates.

You assumed that they somehow discriminate how a church operates.I don't see that.

 

[john39]

I mean the assertion you made is obscure - the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion.

When did the Court engage in dictating the Church how to operate?

 

[justalayman]

ok, i will contact an attorney.

I don't understand, if the constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, how does the city or a judge have a say in who a minister can be their religious right to provide matrimony services? That is not separation of church in state, simply stated.

what does your freedom of religion have to do with whom they certify to provide the right to perform marriages?

You are free to perform your religion. You can perform all the marriages you want. They just won't be legally recognized. You see, a marriage really has nothing to do with religion, as far as the state is concerned. It is a legal contract. They can control who is allowed to perform those services.

I'm curious though. What religious affiliation has online ordinations yet has a presence in your area that would allow you to be in regular communion with your church (and of course prove you are also reputed member) or serve as a regularly appointed pastor?

 

[Proserpina]

Edited...

...because I said the same as JAL without reading his post.

 

[justalayman]

Edited...

...because I said the same as JAL without reading his post.

you could have posted it. I always believe anything I say is so important it deserves to be said twice.

 

[racer72]

Marriage as defined by law is a civil, not a religious, ceremony. This give the government the authority to regulate who performs the ceremony. And most have caught on the the ULC and others are just scams when it comes to ordaining "ministers".

 

[tayjenks]

what does your freedom of religion have to do with whom they certify to provide the right to perform marriages?

You are free to perform your religion. You can perform all the marriages you want. They just won't be legally recognized. You see, a marriage really has nothing to do with religion, as far as the state is concerned. It is a legal contract. They can control who is allowed to perform those services.

I'm curious though. What religious affiliation has online ordinations yet has a presence in your area that would allow you to be in regular communion with your church (and of course prove you are also reputed member) or serve as a regularly appointed pastor?

It has to do with religious freedom because the law will recognize a regularly ordained minister/judge to marry but one ordained online does not have the same right.

 

[justalayman]

It has to do with religious freedom because the law will recognize a regularly ordained minister/judge to marry but one ordained online does not have the same right.

no, that is not a freedom of religion issue. You can do whatever you want in your religion. That doesn't mean the state has to legally recognize the act. Your marriages will be seen as marriages in your religion.

 

[john39]

It has to do with religious freedom because the law will recognize a regularly ordained minister/judge to marry but one ordained online does not have the same right.

I think there was never such "right".

**************..may make an order authorizing such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony in this Commonwealth. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time by the court or by the judge thereof.

The meaning of the word may is clear and unambiguous.It is not shall,or will ,it is may.The legislature's intention can be deduced by the language used in this statute.I think,from the bare words from the statute,the Court has discretionary power to grant or not such request.

But,never mind me.I am not a lawyer of any sort and I am just stating my opinion.Go find proper legal advice....

 

[tayjenks]

thanks, appreciate the responses from both of you, very helpful.