Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v. Bobrin

    Just last week, February 16th, The Universal Life Church Ministries (ULCM) filed a Federal suit against Bucks County, Pennsylvania claiming that the county had placed a burden on their minister’s free exercise of religion. This is because their ministers had been denied the right to perform legally binding religious wedding ceremonies by officials at the county’s Clerk office. Specifically, this case is headed by one of the ordained ministers of the church who claims that County officials told him he could not officiate legal weddings because he was ordained through the internet. In their suit, ULCM and a few other unnamed plaintiffs “ask the court to confirm that ULCM ministers may solemnize legal weddings under Pennsylvania law” and prohibit the Clerk’s office from discriminating against ULCM ministers.

    The Universal Life Church Ministries is one of the largest religious organizations with more than 20 million ordained individuals. One of the defining features of this organization is its provision of religious ordinations over the internet. Ministers from this church, who were ordained online, have performed thousands of legal marriages in Pennsylvania, and regularly do the same in many other states. ULCM Ministers can and have performed weddings, baptisms, funerals, other types of spiritual ceremonies, and conduct general church services similarly to any ordained official of any faith. Furthermore, in 2008 a judge in Bucks county found “that ordinations from the Universal Life Church were legal and the marriages performed by its ministers valid”. In Bucks county, at least, this ruling has held strong, but this newest suit aims to get stronger affirmation for the previous ruling and extend its affirmations to a statewide level.

    The Bucks County, Pennsylvania Clerks office has taken the position that ministers who were ordained online cannot sanctify marriages under Pennsylvania law. This is because the Pennsylvania law 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1503 attempts to codify who in the state is authorized to solemnize marriages between persons. The law primarily focuses on secular officials that can ordain a marriage such as justices or mayors, but also has a small section at the end stating, “Every religious society, religious institution or religious organization in this Commonwealth may join persons together in marriage”. Additionally, there is an extra section of the law which establishes that those getting married must obtain an official marriage license before anyone, religious or secular, officiates the marriage. The reason the Bucks County Clerk’s office has taken its stance is that in the law it says one must be of a “regularly established church or congregation” in order to solemnize marriages and the county officials claim those who are ordained online are not clergy of a “regularly established church or congregation”. In this case, the state appears to have a compelling interest because marriage is a legal contract within the state, however, the law still requires an official marriage certificate and only effects who can perform the religious aspects of a marriage. Due to this I argue the state does not have a compelling interest because those seeking to be married still have to go through the state. Therefore, the state’s interests have been met and the state should not be allowed to interfere with who an individual desires to perform the religious ceremony as this infringes upon an individual’s free exercise without there being any state interest to do so.

    There are two underlying constitutional issues in this case. The first asks has the Bucks County Clerks office violated ULCM’s Free Exercise by discouraging ULCM ministers from exercising their rights to solemnize marriages, which had been afforded to ministers of other religions. The second, focuses on the church’s claims that the counties policy unconstitutionally prefers certain religions over others violating the Establishment of Religion.

    In regard to both questions, I believe that ULCM’s is in the right. It is clear that by denying ULCM ministers the same right as any other faith based on the method these ministers are ordained is a violation of Free Exercise of religion because it is discriminating against who can perform certain actions based on the internal workings of the organization. Additionally, this denial of the rights of these ministers by state officials is a violation of the establishment of religion because it puts the burden on the state to decide what is a “regularly established church or congregation”. In Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, the court ruled that instances that “determination by state authorities as to what is a religious cause” is unconstitutional because it lays a forbidden burden on Free Exercise, and that is what is happening in this case. One aspect of this case that stands out to me is the fact that this case is not challenging the law itself but instead is challenging the interpretation of the law by Bucks County officials. Additionally, ULCM already won this case at the county level and this newest suit is only affirming the previous ruling and attempting to expand its influence to the state level. These two factors make this case different from many of the others we have looked at because there already is a ruling and this case is not a challenge to the ruling but is seeking to affirm the ruling at a higher level. So in a sense this case is not debating a question and instead is debating if the answer to the original question was reached for the right reasons, and if the ruling should be applied at a higher level or would applying this ruling at a higher level violate something else.