Huzzah!

[xenologer]

MN Society of Friends wins at civil rights.

The congregation will continue to hold both opposite-sex and same-sex weddings at its meeting house, but will no longer sign the legal marriage certificate for opposite-sex couples. Instead, couples will need to have the certificate signed by a justice of the peace.

"Everything else proceeds as it normally has, except that we will not sign the marriage certificate," Landskroener said.

You go, guys.

(ht karjack via rm)

Comments

[e-mily.livejournal.com]

RM links another article: "The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from a Christian student group that had been denied recognition by a public law school in California for excluding homosexuals and nonbelievers. The case pits anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom."

A public opposer (some Reverand from some organization for separation of church & state) puts it very, very well at the end of the article.

“Groups that wish to engage in discrimination should not expect public subsidies."

[a-tergo-lupi.livejournal.com]

Awesome.

The Friends kinda win at everything. You know they even have a nontheist segment?

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

really? Do you have a website or something for that? They're the only church I ever went to, but I kinda stopped when I went from agnostic to atheist...

[a-tergo-lupi.livejournal.com]

http://www.nontheistfriends.org/

Now, they certainly aren't universally accepted, but they do exist.

Approve

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

I will ask Cthulhu to bump them up in the order-of-getting-eaten list the next time I'm all up in my Necronomicon.

[safenthecity.livejournal.com]

A+ to them. ♥ That's awesome.

[angelbird47.livejournal.com]

That's exciting! I like it.

[kaisharga.livejournal.com]

I want to be happy about this, except that according to the article, they're doing this for religious reasons, making it sound more like they're not signing the paper for heterosexual couples because it's not the church's place to get involved in legal matters, and less like they're doing it for the concept of civil equality. Even a busted clock, I suppose.

[virginia-fell.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why civil equality and "religious reasons" have to be mutually exclusive. The fact that they used the word "unjust" suggests to me that--even if their reasons for caring about justice are religiously-motivated--they still do.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

YES!!!