As I noted, the actress and recent Rachel Maddow guest Jane Lynch married her partner in front of an Universal Life Church minister, though a state appellate court (Ranieri v. Ranieri, 1989) covering 3/5 of New York City and some surrounding areas held that "so casually and cavalierly acquired" ministries does not meet the rules under state law. Jane Lynch married in Massachusetts, but repeatedly, I have seen multiple citations in NYT wedding announcements about these ministers. A 2001 ruling from Queens had the right sentiment, addressing a case involving Hindus:
The original ruling argued that ULC did not have a "church" in New York as such. That is, a meeting place or such. There is such a concrete building in California, but when Christians met in homes back at the start, were these valid meeting places under such dictates? One ruling in another state noted that a "church" can mean various things, including something connected online. The term very well can be metaphorical. There is also a need for a "governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order," whatever that exactly means. I don't think religion should require such hierarchy and the ULC Church is good enough for many states, including Mississippi. Anyways, it has some basic leadership (the very dispute between it and an offshoot underlines this) and thin they might be, but there are "rules" here.
[A person has to obtain a minister's license from a central office which also provides the authority to those who wish to set up local congregations. The cited dispute underlines some concern over who uses the church's name. As to doctrine, the basic idea is that each person has the natural right to determine for themselves what is right but must not harm others in the process or in general break the law. The church promotes various ideas such as marriage, prayer and has an educational component, but such things are not obligatory. It does add flavor to the organization, setting it apart from other religions. Its website and literature also has other "stated beliefs." Suffice to say, there is some content here and some other "church" might find some of it distasteful.]
Perhaps because no recent problem has arose (NYC now even provides marriage officiant certificates to ULC ministers, though again a court ruling covering Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island suggests they should not), there has not been a recent ruling on this matter in NY. I would hope that there would be some way, however, to clarify the matter, be it the proposed legislation or a court ruling. In either case, a full discussion of what is at stake should be made. One that covers all angles, including the vague nature of the terms, free exercise concerns and the problem with selectively giving certain religions the right to marry without a very good reason to do so. Broad principles are at stake here.
---
* It allows those close to the couple to officiate, helps with interfaith situations (there are also various interfaith religious groups that I guess are more "authoritative" for these purposes), is gay friendly and so forth. The issue of "self-uniting" marriages also fits in here.
By the way, for those who keep on saying that same sex marriage is a "war on religion," recently:
This statute must be given a broad interpretation so as not to infringe on an individual's constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Subsumed within this constitutional right is the freedom to be married in accordance with the dictates of one's own faith. Thus, short of finding a religious officiant a charlatan or the religion a mere sham, courts have confirmed the validity of a variety of spiritual faiths and their clergies' authority to solemnize marriages. [cites omitted]The two rulings (a district ruling in 1972 and the cited appellate case; the state's highest court has not ruled upon the issue) in New York covering marriages in particular were imho shallow discussions of this law and decided matters on statutory grounds. A third district ruling (1984) did briefly address constitutional concerns, but ruled that ULC ministers did not have a right to obtain a marriage officiant certificate from NYC in part because there is no constitutional right to perform official marriages. [A religious ceremony would still be allowed, but it would not have any official effect.] A ruling involving prisons was cited, which itself cited an uncontroversial principle that the state has the power to regulate marriages. My problem is giving the power to some ministers:
a duly authorized pastor, rector, priest, rabbi, and a person having authority from, or in accordance with, the rules and regulations of the governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order, if any, to which the church belongs, or otherwise from the church or synagogue to preside over and direct the spiritual affairs of the church or synagogue [see Hindu ruling]So, the original NY ULC Church case noted:
neither had authority from a "governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order" nor "otherwise from the church or synagogue to preside over and direct the spiritual affairs of the church or synagogue."This all seems pretty petty to me. I covered this ground before but again I keep on seeing references to ULC ministers, even without Conan O'Brien and Fran Drescher types becoming one (they might not have joined the original church, but seriously, who cares? some, I bet, but basically, it doesn't matter on principle). People, for various reasons, find it appealing to have a sort of "do it yourself" type religious ceremony here and the idea has a long reach in this country.* People find religion many places and I still do not understand why being a ULC minister (the lead link suggests the serious nature this is to many people; some of the stuff there probably looks stupid to some people, but such is the nature in many religions which teach doctrine that looks stupid) shouldn't count. If that is what provides meaning to your life, it can provide meaning to a wedding.
The original ruling argued that ULC did not have a "church" in New York as such. That is, a meeting place or such. There is such a concrete building in California, but when Christians met in homes back at the start, were these valid meeting places under such dictates? One ruling in another state noted that a "church" can mean various things, including something connected online. The term very well can be metaphorical. There is also a need for a "governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order," whatever that exactly means. I don't think religion should require such hierarchy and the ULC Church is good enough for many states, including Mississippi. Anyways, it has some basic leadership (the very dispute between it and an offshoot underlines this) and thin they might be, but there are "rules" here.
[A person has to obtain a minister's license from a central office which also provides the authority to those who wish to set up local congregations. The cited dispute underlines some concern over who uses the church's name. As to doctrine, the basic idea is that each person has the natural right to determine for themselves what is right but must not harm others in the process or in general break the law. The church promotes various ideas such as marriage, prayer and has an educational component, but such things are not obligatory. It does add flavor to the organization, setting it apart from other religions. Its website and literature also has other "stated beliefs." Suffice to say, there is some content here and some other "church" might find some of it distasteful.]
Perhaps because no recent problem has arose (NYC now even provides marriage officiant certificates to ULC ministers, though again a court ruling covering Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island suggests they should not), there has not been a recent ruling on this matter in NY. I would hope that there would be some way, however, to clarify the matter, be it the proposed legislation or a court ruling. In either case, a full discussion of what is at stake should be made. One that covers all angles, including the vague nature of the terms, free exercise concerns and the problem with selectively giving certain religions the right to marry without a very good reason to do so. Broad principles are at stake here.
Heidi Gail Brody and Franklin Jay Olson are to be married Sunday at the Alger House, an event space in Manhattan. Martin Lowenstein, a friend of the couple who became a Universal Life minister for the event, is to officiate.And, practice reflects it, anyhow.
---
* It allows those close to the couple to officiate, helps with interfaith situations (there are also various interfaith religious groups that I guess are more "authoritative" for these purposes), is gay friendly and so forth. The issue of "self-uniting" marriages also fits in here.
By the way, for those who keep on saying that same sex marriage is a "war on religion," recently:
Jennifer Layne Vanasco and Jennifer Marie Hagel were married Saturday at Trinity Lutheran Church of New York. The Rev. Heidi Neumark, the church’s pastor, performed the ceremony.Yes, I'm a sucker for wedding announcements.