Last summer, the Center for
Inquiry (CFI), a non-profit committed to fostering a secular society, sued the
state of Texas in a civil action suit (NO. 3:18-CV-2943-B) arguing
that the state should allow secular wedding ceremonies. The Texas state law
declares that only members of the clergy and selective government officials are
allowed to lawfully solemnize marriage ceremonies. The CFI argued that this law
is an establishment of religion and is unfair to secular celebrants. This law has
been upheld by U.S. District Judge, Jane Boyle, who argued “the
state has an interest in … ensuring the respect, solemnity, and gravity of
marriage ceremonies” and that only religious leaders and government officials
can be “reasonably expected” to maintain decorum in these ceremonies. Judge
Boyle conceded that the Texas statute may provide a “benefit to religious
groups and their adherents over nonreligious ones” but said no “constitutional rights
are violated” by the law”.
Section 2.202 of the Texas Family Code specifically only
authorizes "persons who are officers of a religious organization and
authorized by the organization to conduct marriages (e.g., ministers, priests,
rabbis) and secular governmental officials (e.g., current and retired state and
federal judges)”. The CFI case was brought up against section 2.202 by two
member of the CFI, Eric McCutchan and Arthur Bratteng. They were declared
“celebrants” by CFI and want to perform secular wedding ceremonies but are
lawfully unable to by Texas law. The Plaintiffs further argued that CFI has
members in Texas who would like to be married by these CFI officiants but are
unable to solely because of this statue.
Although the case was ruled constitutional, the CFI vows it will
appeal the decision. CFI argues that this goes against the establishment clause
as it unfairly prioritizes the rights of religious institutions over secular
ones. Further, CFI claims it is not the government’s job to declare that people
must have solemn weddings. Even if that were to be the government’s right to do
so, CFI argues it is not accurate to suggest that secular celebrants could not
provide that gravity to marriage ceremonies. CFI feels it is an establishment of
and preference to religion to delegate this power to religious leaders but not
to secular officiants.
There are currently 35 states that have limits on who can perform
marriages, but, CFI has successfully changed similar marriage laws in both
Indiana and Illinois. In some states, people who are actually participating in
the marriage can officiate their own wedding as well as instantaneous internet
officiators. CFI
argues that internet officiators can easily get, in their opinion, “fake”
religious licenses, but non- religious people cannot pick someone
meaningful to officiate their ceremonies. Nicholas Little, CFI Vice President
and general counsel, powerfully argues “right now, I can go online and take two
minutes out of my time and go to the ‘Church of Bacon’ or something and
solemnize a marriage in Texas,” Little said. “Do they honestly want people
lying and claiming to be religious like this in order to do a ceremony?”. This begs
the question of the social consequences of this law.
In my opinion, this case goes against the establishment clause
because it unduly prefers religion over non religion given that the alternative
to a religious ceremony is not sufficiently equal. The Texas secular community makes up 1/5 of the population, yet, they are forced to
succumb to a municipal employee to officiate one of the best days of most
couple’s lives. This statue although facially neutral, in
reality, is not neutral as it gives benefits to religious institutions
over secular ones. It is not just to compare a religious marriage ceremony to a
courthouse wedding. I agree that secular citizens deserve the same respect as
the religiously affiliated. Additionally, this case appears hypocritical to
both the decisions of “McCollum vs. Board of Education” and “Lemon vs.
Kurtzman”. In McCollum, the court ruled that the use of tax-supported property
for religious instruction and the cooperation between schools and religious
institution was an establishment of religion. In Lemon, the court ruled that
state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violates the establishment
clause because it did not pass the commonly known “lemon test”. The lemon test
declares that states may go against the establishment clause only if (1) the
primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither
promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement
between church and state. I believe that this statue does not pass the lemon
test because it provides no assistance to the secular side, promotes religious
officiants, and entangles church and state by involving the government in
marriage practice officiants. If these two cases were ruled as an establishment
of religion, the Texas marriage law should be viewed as one as well.
Overall, if the CFI appeals
this case, I believe it will be successful. Although this case claims to be
neutral to religion and non-religion, in reality, it is a state sponsored
practice that unjustly benefits religious institutions. In the words of Little “what if you want to get married by an
Elvis impersonator? that’s not the state’s business!”.
7 comments:
The case that Zoe raises is very interesting and one that I had never considered to be an issue. I understand where the CFI is coming from in their desire to have secular marriage officiators but question what would happen if we opened marriage officiating up to anyone who wanted to do it. Would this hurt the institution of marriage? I believe so. I think Texas’ ruling that the law is constitutional is correct. For a large portion of the population, marriage is seen as a deeply religious institution, these people thus have the option to have the higher power officiate there wedding. Anyone else can have a state official do so. In both cases, a higher power the church or the sate (a neutral entity) is preforming the wedding ensuring the sincerity of the institution.
I agree with the author , with a slight caveat. Religion reigning as the supreme determinant in all marriages is unconstitutional, and absolutely violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. The caveat is the argument brought by the CFI that ANYONE can create a legitimate marriage. There are several issues behind this. The official creation of marriage must be correctly licensed so that tax relations can be changed correctly. It also creates complications if the wedding does end up in divorce, as one of the parties could argue that, under the eyes of the law, they were never officially married. Again, I agree with the establishment issue with religion in marriage processes, but I urge the CFI to understand that marriage must still be confirmed and documented by a civil authority to be legitimate.
I agree with the author's opinion. What suprised me the most was when the judge said the statute may provide a "benefit to religious and their adherents over nonreligious ones," and still ruled that the law was constitutional. Seen in past court cases that we have already discussed, preferencing religion over nonreligion is simply seen as an establishment of religion on the government's behalf. Having government officials involved in marriage is also a problem. In the Christian faith, matrimony is one of the seven sacraments, and if a government official is able to initiate a religious sacrament, could this also be seen as an establishment of religion?
Overall, I agree with Zoe's opinion that this qualifies as an establishment of religion, yet I can also see where Will is coming from when he says that opening marriage officiating to anyone may hurt the institution of marriage. There are more states with marriage laws than there are without, but I think this may be because of the historical role that religion has played in marriage. I have not heard of any issues with the 15 states that do not have such marriage laws, and so I am led to believe that erasing the marriage law will not be that big of an issue. Zoe mentioned that people can already obtain "fake" religious licenses, which is no different from having anyone officiate a wedding.
This is an interesting case because I can see both opinions raised by Zoe and Will. This seems to be an establishment of religion as religion is being preferred over secularism, however, I do agree that it is important for a marriage to be conducted officially. Another interesting thing to consider with this case is the location, Texas. From my own knowledge, Texas as a whole seems to be a fairly Christian state, and this could impact the reason why this is seen as constitutional.
I agree with Zoe's opinion because it is an establishment of religion, giving more power to religious communities over secular ones. While I agree that marriage is not something to be taken lightly, I do not believe that everyone needs to be married by an official religious officiator. The roots of marriage in this country are very Christian, favoring the majority religion. There are many couples who may not want to be married by a religious officiator because their identities (Religious backgrounds, sexual preference, etc) have been discriminated by the majority religion. Being from California, where practically anyone can officiate a wedding, I believe that it does less harm than many people think. I personally think that the couple should be able to decide who marries them on their special day.
I agree with the author's opinion in this case. What stuck out to me the most was the fact that the judge said the statute may provide a "benefit to religious and their adherents over nonreligious ones". This still ruled that the law was constitutional which has seen in past court cases. Preferring religion over nonreligion is looked at as an establishment of religion on the government's behalf. Having government officials involved in marriage is also a problem. It substitutes that divide between the church and the state.
Post a Comment