I have been interested in some religious matters of late, including the place of humor and various alternative religious movements. I noted that a columnist at this interesting legal website inspired one of my posts, involving the power of Universal Life Church ministers [Rev. Amy Long provides a nice intro to the church here] -- who can get ordained on request at their website as Conan O'Brien did [actually, he did it via an offshoot of which there is some confusion] -- could officiate weddings. A follow-up to the original article, particularly addressing NY (one of the states where doing so was challenged, NYC having different rules at the moment) has not yet been posted.
I favor an ecumenical approach to "religion" and the focus on "ultimate concern" appeals as it does to various scholars and lower courts who dwell on the subject (suffice to say, Allah has about as many alleged qualities than the various tests for religion out there). To cite Universal Life Church v. Utah:
Ascertaining the sincerity of a belief generally involves assessing whether an activity is the good faith observance of religious belief. See International Soc'y of Krishna Consciousness v. Barber, 650 F.2d 430, 438-41 (2nd Cir. 1981). ["ultimate concern" cited] The goal, of course, is to protect only those beliefs which are held as a matter of conscience."
A few courts don't think too much of the ULC, though even those who rejected their ministers' right to officiate marriages pursuant to state law ultimately tended to rely on statutory arguments on basic requirements for officiants, not religion in general. Such was the case in another context in Jones v. Bradley, which suggests the barebones nature of its doctrine makes its "religious" component debatable, but ultimately noted that the prisoner at issue had no case on other grounds:
The ULC has no traditional doctrine. We, the organization, only believe in that which is RIGHT. Each individual has the privilege and the responsibility to determine what is RIGHT for him as long as it does not infringe on the RIGHTS of others.
The ULC concerns "beliefs which are held as a matter of conscience." In fact, the basic point of the church is that each individual has the right to determine what is "right" based on just that. The website references a "natural" right of this sort. This to me has shades of standard Protestant thought in which the individual believer is able to determine the meaning of the Bible without use of hierarchical instruction from priests or ministers. Even members of churches with such leadership repeatedly feel a right to determine various major issues on their own, such as use of contraceptives by active Roman Catholics, even if their religion forbids it. At least as a matter of religious belief, individual discretion is wide open. And, the church itself is rather lax in practice, by inaction in effect at least accepting this sort of thing.
The decision to give wide discretion and equality to each person is "doctrine" ("taught principles or positions"), traditional or not. Various other religions do not allow that. This is one difference in ULC doctrine. Also, the church does not actually have an "anything goes" policy. First, unlike let's say the "Church of Satan" (one supposes), what is "right" is promoted. Second, even if you think it is right, if it infringes the rights of others, it is no go. So, a Nazi might think it "right" to target Jews, but the ULC Church doctrine refutes it. The fact this sense of equal concern is in place is one reason why many like it, suggesting why same sex couples in particular was attracted to it.
Finally, the church takes a special stance on the issue -- it is a "privilege" and "responsibility" for "each individual" to determine what is right. This is not a trivial matter. Many religions do not have such a mission statement -- in fact, it is not the job of the individual as such to determine moral questions or if it is, such leaders (like rabbis, priests, imams etc.) should be particularly respected. Cf. Quakers or other religions more individual focused. The church's brief doctrinal statement is sure to include a type of educational concern. It speaks of an obligation to determine something and sets parameters for so doing. Like a right to privacy based on personal concerns that do not harm others, the ULC Church had a specific doctrinal principle to follow. You are not just to believe anything you want.
The church also "ordains" ministers. There is an actual church and leadership there who do this. Any old ULC minister doesn't have the authority to do that. A person does not merely announce to the world that s/he is a minister. I realize the barrier to entry here is basically nil, but again, the church has some content. The person requests to be ordained and it is made official and recorded. The church notes that actual human persons have to be involved, even if people play jokes or perhaps seriously submit names of pets. ULC is "ordaining" (appointing by religious authority) you and there is an at least implicit agreement that you honestly intend to follow the doctrine of the church. That is, you will determine what is right and not infringe on the rights of others. This is again your "responsibility." And, the church promotes those who become ministers to do what ministers generally do, such as perform marriage and other religious type rituals. Their website suggests as much. A religion very well may not support such things, perhaps like Paul in the New Testament, advising -- if possible -- not to marry.
The websites connected to ULC suggest other things that not all religions have, such as encouraging prayer and even signs of a schism. Overall, seriously, the church does not seem to me a joke. It is a way to each individual who desires to express their religious bent to do so. The basic doctrine is egalitarian, which is notable given so many religions are not. It focuses on matters of personal conscience and promotes various religious type activity and rituals. It suggests an obligation to good behavior and a duty to continuously examine just what that entails. This is more than many people do and I'm sure a case can be made that many who join do not follow such duties, but such is the case for many religious followers. The lack of a hierarchy is not too hard to imagine. The idea is also found in other areas, such as anarchists who wish to govern by agreement, not established government based on specific leaders. And, at times expressly, the ULC Church basically assumes limits, such as what is required by the civil law. Again, certain religions are not so restrained.
If a person is willing to announce to the world that they are a minister and have the church record said fact, it makes sense to allow said persons to serve as officiants at marriages per civil law. That is, if both wish such a minister to preside and they understand the religion the minister has joined. The specific value or realistic ability to draw some reasonable line that denies this is very questionable. See, e.g., "Marriage in the Time of Internet Ministers: I Now Pronounce You Married, But Who Am I To Do So?" The couple aren't marrying themselves, though this might be legal some places [later found it is], but chose someone else to solemnize the occasion.
And, if having the likes of Conan O'Brien doing the honors seems not special enough or something, again who's to say? If some elite group in some nefarious religion puts up higher barriers to entry, how impressive is it? If the couple doesn't believe in such hierarchical standards is not forcing them to accept it counterproductive? Would a Catholic priest be more likely to know the state rules of marriage? If that matters, require a test or something. The state doesn't have to let ministers be officiants, after all. They can simply hand out licenses and require the couple to show up at city hall or something. *
But, it's fine to let the couple so decide -- the state doesn't require it, it is just an option. Just like the choice whether to "swear" or "affirm" in court or for other official reasons. Some special "ceremony" is there to underline the importance of the occasion to the state. The problem is depriving certain people of the right to choose. Those who want broad based beliefs with more organization can focus on Unitarian Universalism or some such organization. Religion is ultimate a personal thing and some don't find the need to be associated even with the minimal institutional aspects present here. As with calling only certain people "value voters" as if others don't have any, it is presumptuous to say they really aren't religious or theirs don't really count. A well rounded understanding of "religion" -- again Wikipedia is a good place to start (see also, the "spiritual" entry) as any really -- would so determine.
American history will show many cases of individual believers determining what is right based on their conscience and using toward certain "religious" type things both with and without much institutional support behind them. Overall, the ULC fits well in other democratic traditions in this country and I say to them and many other religions out there, more power to you toward doing what is right. **
---
** The article cited above lists a few more newer online churches (ULC started in the day of mail order), but two appear tied to the Bible, the third explicitly tied to "God," the ULC therefore still more open-ended. To each their own, ultimately.