the epoch times

Online ordination company wins settlement against Tennessee.

After four years ⁢of ⁤litigation, a company that ordains ministers online ⁣to perform marriages and other ceremonies reached a settlement with the State of ‍Tennessee this week ⁢in a lawsuit‌ they‌ filed against the state in 2019.

The Universal Life Church Monastery ​Storehouse (ULCM), ⁢a Washington-based organization that‌ ordains ministers online, sued the state in 2019 after a law went into effect that aimed to ​prohibit ⁢ministers ordained online⁣ from solemnizing legal marriages in ⁣the state.

ULCM and three Tennesseans ​ordained by the church initiated legal proceedings⁣ to halt the enforcement ⁤of this law,⁣ contending​ the​ legislation infringed upon their constitutional​ rights by showing favoritism ​to specific religious entities over⁣ others.

Tennessee ​Assistant Solicitor⁢ General Jonathan Shaub had ⁤defended the ​law,⁣ asserting‌ that it was essential ⁣to “ensure the integrity of marriage and prevent fraud.” However, U.S. District Judge ⁢Waverly Crenshaw was ⁣skeptical.

What ‌Led to the Suit

In June of 2019, two ‌plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Tennessee statute that prohibited those who received online ordinations from officiating weddings in the state.

The law listed the⁢ people who‌ could solemnize a marriage in the state to include a​ “minister, preacher, pastor, ‌priest, rabbi​ or other spiritual leader” ordained in conformity with the customs of ‌that church or religious group. The‌ law in⁤ 2019 specifically stated ‍that “Persons‍ receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite of matrimony.”

However, the Universal ‌Life Church acted swiftly, securing an ​injunction that paused the law from going into effect while litigation proceeded.

In their suit, they⁣ contended they could be prosecuted under the law if they made a ‌false statement attesting they were‌ ordained in a manner⁢ the law specified. ⁣Defendants attempted to dismiss‍ the suit, claiming they ⁢did ⁣not have standing because “there is no credible threat of ⁤prosecution.”

Couples arrange for Valentine’s Day courthouse wedding services at the ‌Old Orange⁣ County ⁤Courthouse ​in Santa Ana, Calif., on Feb. 14, 2022. (John​ Fredricks/The⁣ Epoch Times)

In a 2019​ hearing,‍ Judge‍ Crenshaw critically questioned Shaub on the state’s rationale behind ⁢regulating how religious groups handle ordinations and how banning⁤ online ‍ordinations ⁣would⁣ benefit⁤ the state.

Gabriel Biser, one‌ of the‍ minister plaintiffs who had been⁣ ordained online ⁢by the ULCM, ‌mentioned that he had ⁣solemnized several weddings since his first in 2015, mainly for friends or acquaintances who found traditional venues challenging, according to ⁤an Associated⁢ Press⁢ article⁣ from that time. He listed his reasons for⁤ ordination as⁤ purely to ⁢help others. “I do it to bring people together,”⁤ Biser ⁣said, according to the AP.

Erin⁣ Patterson, another plaintiff, shared ‌a similar⁤ sentiment. ‌After being ordained online, she officiated⁢ a friend’s ⁤wedding.

“She wanted it‌ personalized ⁣for her, and she wanted someone ​she trusted,” Patterson stated ‌at‍ the time. “I’m a teacher, and this is just another ‌aspect of service. I’m doing something joyous for people.”

The law was‍ updated in 2021 to remove the ⁤language regarding online ordinations‍ from the ​state statute.

Surprising End to Years-Long Battle

In Court documents from the‍ U.S. District Court⁤ for the Middle District of Tennessee reviewed by the Epoch⁢ Times, ​as the bench‌ trial was set ⁤to begin,⁢ the parties announced⁣ to ⁤the​ court ⁤they had reached an agreement to avoid trial.

During⁤ the first day⁤ of the bench⁢ trial,⁢ parties announced their ‍agreement on all issues in the ​case ⁢and directed the suit to be closed and​ all ‍pending motions stricken⁣ as moot.

In the stipulations, state defendants, as well as local county‌ clerks, were dismissed as ‍part⁢ of​ the case, with the⁤ stipulations agreed to, noting that the individuals⁤ were acting on behalf of ⁣the state instead of in ⁤their individual ⁣capacity.

“Defendants ⁢also stipulate and ⁢represent that it has always⁤ been their position that they are not involved ⁣with the issue of whether​ any marriage is valid and​ Defendants will not challenge the validity of marriages officiated or solemnized by ULCM ‍ministers,” court documents state. “Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs ULCM and ⁢its ministers, including Gabriel Biser and Erin Patterson, intend to solemnize⁢ weddings in‍ Defendants’ respective counties in reliance on ​these stipulations.”

State‍ Argues Law Had‍ No Teeth

In court documents, the ‍state ‍argued that it was their position and “always” has been that “that there is no criminal⁤ prosecution mechanism in [the law] and thus Plaintiffs cannot ​be prosecuted under that statute.”

Court documents further state that, “In⁣ addition, Defendants stipulate and represent ​that it has always been ​their position that ‌notwithstanding [the law], by simply making the attestation required ‍by ​ [the law], Plaintiffs are not making a false statement ‌and thus⁤ there is no⁤ prosecutable ​offense under [the law].”

ULCM Said Outcome Is Unexpected

A few weeks ago, the ULCM sent an ​email to its ministers ordained online in ​Tennessee with an update on the lawsuit.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker