Ministers or other persons authorized to celebrate rites of matrimony; no oath required. (HB19)

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.

DAY,. HOUSE BILL 558 WILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY. HOUSE BILL 19. A BILL RELATING TO MINISTERS OR OTHER PERSONS TO CELEBRATE RIGHTS OF FMATRIMONI NO RITES REQUIRED. I MOVE THAT THE BILL PASS. SPEAK PO THE BILL. IN BILL SIMPLY REMOVES THE OATH REQUIREMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN LAW AND REQUIRED OF A MINISTER OR OTHER PERSON WHO SEEKS AUTHORIZATION TO PERFORM THE RITES OF MARRIAGE. THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY, SENATOR EDWARDS. MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T KNOW MOW MANY MORE BILLS WE WILL HAVE DEALING WITH THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AUTHORIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES BUT HERE IS ANOTHER ONE AND ANOTHER VERSION. MR. PRESIDENT, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT MINISTERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PERFORM A RELIGIOUS SERVICE IF IT VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS TENETS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PERFORMING A RELIGIOUS SERVICE BUT RATHER A CIVIL CEREMONY TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE ARE IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS INTERPRETED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS SAY IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES. WELL, I GUESS THAT IS TO SAY I AM NOT -- I DIDN'T SWEAR TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION WHEN I AM PERFORMING MY DUTIES AS AN OFFICIAL OF THE STATE TO PERFORA CIVIL CEREMONY. AGAIN, THEY ARE PROTECTING THE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY BUT CIVIL THEY ARE AN ACTOR OF THE STATE. THE SECOND THING IT DOES IS TRY TO SAY THAT THEN SUCH PERSON IS CONSIDERED AN OFFICER OF THE COMMONWEALTH. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THEY MEAN BY OFFICER BUT THEY ARE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BECAUSE ONLY THE STATE CAN AUTHORIZE A PERSON TO PERFORM A CIVIL CEREMONY OR TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE. MR. PRESIDENT, THIS BILL I WOULD HOPE WE DON'T HAVE ANYMORE OF THESE KINDS OF BILLS TRYING TO GET AROUND THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN KENTUCKY WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT KIM DAVIS. SHE SAYS IT IS AGAINST MY RELIGION TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SITUATIONS AND THE JUDGE MADE IT VERY CLEAR SHE HAD TO FOLLOW THE LAW. SHE HAD TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. IF SHE WASN'T GOING TO DO IT HE LOCKED HER UP. AND MR. PRESIDENT I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD NOT CONTINUE GOING DOWN THIS LINE AND REJECT THIS BILL. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDOUN, SENATOR WEXTON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING AGAINST THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I DO FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A LOT OF NOTINGS WHO PROBABLY ARE GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL ARE THE VERY FIRST ONES CALLING FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF OUR CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL WHEN HE REFUSED TO CONTINUE ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURSE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA WITH REGARD TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. I WOULD ASSOCIATE WITH THE REMARKS FROM THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE AND POINT OUT THESE ARE FOLKS ACTING UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW AND PERFORMING A STATE FUNCTION AND TO CARVE OUT THOSE CIVIL SELL BRANTS WHO PERFORM AND REQUIRE THAT THEY NOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW IN THE CONSTITUTION IS UNPRECEDENTED AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE BODY VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN. MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING TO THE BILL. YOU KNOW, I FIND THIS DEBATE FASCINATING AND REALLY QUITE DISTURBING IN A UP COUPLE OF WAYS. FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, THE SUGGESTION THAT IF A MINISTER IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES THAT IF THEY ARE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEY OUT TO BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES, I MEAN IT IS PREPOSTEROUS AND WE SAT IN COMMITTEE AND TALKED ABOUT IN THIS ISSUE AND IT WAS AGREED TO THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE DIVERSITY AMONG THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ON THIS THIS ISN'T ANTIANYTHING. ISSUE. THIS IS PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION OF DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BODIES. AND IT WAS -- IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES CURRENTLY IN LAW. AND AS A RESULT YOU LOOK AT THE VOTE I THINK THAT THERE WAS BROAD BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEVER INTENDED TO REQUIRE EVERY CELEBRANT AND EVERY MINISTER TO CONDUCT EVERY CEREMONY. WE A SUPREME COURT RULING AND LAWS AROUND REQUIRES THAT REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES AND THE RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGES. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT IN ANY WAY. IT DOESN'T ADDRESS IT IN ANY WAY MORE IS IT INTENDED TO ADDRESS IT IN ANY WAY. THE SUGGESTION THAT WE OUT TO BE THROWING BAPTIST MINISTERS IN JAIL I FIND PREPOSTOR CONDITIONOUS. THIS WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THOSE BAPTIST MINISTERS. AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WISH TO CELEBRATE MARRIAGE ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTED. DOESN'T UNDERMINE THAT. MR. PRESIDENT,. IT SIMPLY PROVIDES THAT A BAPTIST MINISTER CAN CONDUCT WHATEVER MARRIAGE CEREMONIES IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS DENOMINATIONAL BELIEFS. MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR FROM ROANOKE CITY. WITH THE SENATOR FROM HARRISONBURG YIELD FOR A QUESTION. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. ROCKINGHAM, SORRY. WOULD THE SENATOR AGREE THAT I YIELD. PART OF THIS PARAGRAPHS 23 THROUGH -- LINE 22 THROUGH 33 DEAL WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN MINISTERS WHO MAY PERFORM RITES THAT IS THE JUDGE MAY AUTHORIZE A PERSON TO PERFORM A CIVIL CEREMONY SOMEONE WHO IS NO THE A MINISTER AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WOULD THE SENATOR AGREE THAT THIS BILL INCLUDES THOSE MEME. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I DO AGREE WITH THAT. THIS IN NO WAY DIMINISHES THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS. IT PROVIDES THAT A CELEBRANS CAN MAKE HIS OR HER DETERMINATION AS TO WHICH MARRIAGES THEY WISH TO CONDUCT. MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR FROM BATH COUNTY. YIELD FOR A QUESTION. WOULD THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I YIELD. AND THE GENTLEMAN WOULD AGREE THERE IS NOTHING IN STATE OR FEDERAL LAW THAT REQUIRES A RELIGIOUS FIGURE A PASTOR OF ANY CHURCH TO CONDUCT ANY MARRIAGE THAT HE OR SHE DOESN'T AGREE WITH. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. HOWEVER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WERE REMARKS MADE HERE ON THE FLOOR JUST FIVE MINUTES AGO SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO PERFORM MARRIAGES CERTAIN MARRIAGES OUGHT TO GO TO JAIL. AND THE REASON FOR THIS BILL IS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. MR. PRESIDENT,. AND AS A RESULT IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS IN CONFORMITY AND IS DIFFICULTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY CONSTITUTION. MR. PRESIDENT,. THE SENATOR FROM BATH. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION. I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. THE GENTLEMAN WOULD FURTHER AGREE THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS SAID ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT AREN'T WORTH THE INK THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO PRINT THEM AND SHOULDN'T BASE ALL OUR ACTIONS ON THE HYPERBOLE THAT COMES FROM THIS FLOOR OR ANY DEBATE? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I SUPPOSE THE NO ARE IS SUGGESTING THAT THIS BILL DOES NO HARM SO AS A CONSEQUENCE I WOULD RENEW MY MOTION THAT IT PASS. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSEN. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. I HAVE BEEN WATCHING THIS DISCUSSION THE PAST FEW WEEKS AS SOMEONE WHO I A TENDS A CHURCH AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION IN WHEN YOU ARE A MINISTER YOU MARRY PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF YOUR PROFESSED RELIGION AND THIS SECTION DEALS WITH NONPUBLIC PEOPLE. NOT THE CLERK OF COURT. THIS IS NOT KIM DAVIS. THAT IS A POOR ANALOGY. PEOPLE THAT EITHER ARE MINISTERS TO A CHURCH OR PERSONS OTHER THAN A MINISTER THAT MAY PERFORM RITES WITHIN THEIR CHURCH OR CAME IN AND WANT TO OFFICIATE A MARRIAGE AND DO SO PROBABLY FOR A FRIEND OR MAYBE TO FILL IN WHERE THERE IS A BASE THAT THEYY ARE NEEDED. THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND RAN ON A BALLOT AND ARE IN CHARGE OF APPLYING OUR LAWS AND THE BOTTOM IS ARE WE GOING TO PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL OR HOLD THEM CIVILLY LIABLE BECAUSE THEY SAY I DIDN'T TAKE THIS OATH AND AGREE TO PERFORM MARRIAGES TO DO EVERY MARRIAGE UNDER THE SUN. I DON'T WANT TO DO MY MARRIAGE OR THE MARRIAGE IN MY CHURCH. SOME OF THE RHETORIC I HEAR IS GOSH, IF YOU DON'T PERFORM ALL MARRIAGES THEN YOU OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED BECAUSE YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. I AM UNCOMFORT WITH SOME OF THE RHETORIC FRANKLY COMING FROM MY SIDE OF THE AISLE. MAYBE THIS BILL IS MORE NECESSARY THAN I THOUGHT. ALL IS IT SAYS IS IF YOU ARE A NOT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND COME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY TO OH FIRST OFFICIATEMARRIAGES YOU DON'T BEN OFFICER OF THE STATE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES. THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. SPEAKING BRIEFLY TO THE BILL. THERE IS A PARALLEL. THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1978 THAT SAYS THAT IF IT IS PARTS OF YOUR RELIGION YOU MAY USE PEOTS. IF ANYONE ELSE DOES IT IS ILLEGAL. THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE WAS RESPEND AND WE PASSED A -- RESPECTED AND WE PASSED A FEDERAL LAW SAYING IT WAS OKAY AND HERE, TOO, TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITH RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS. THERE IS AN INCREDIBLE DOUBLE STANDARD WHEREAS I THINK UNIFORMITY WOULD BE GOOD FOR JUSTICE AND EQUITY ACROSS THE BOARD. THANK YOU. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAKING BRIEFLY TO THE BILL. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. JUST A CLARIFICATION ABOUT 20-25 AND WHAT IS CIVIL CELEBRANT IS. I AM PERFORMING A MARRIAGE FOR A GOOD FRIEND AND HIS FIANCEE LATER THIS YEAR AND ILE TAKE AN OATH TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF THE STATE. THAT IS NOT THE PART I AM MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IN 20-25. WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PEOPLE WHO THE JUDGES DESIGNATE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE A MARRIAGE IN THE LOCALITY. IF YOU GO TO THE WEBSITE FOR THE LOCALITIES IN MY DISTRICT THEY RECOMMEND PEOPLE FOR CIVIL MARRIAGES AND I SPOKE TO ONE OF THEM A FEW WEEKS AGO WHO SAID THIS WAS A BAD IDEA AND IN SOME LOCALITES THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE DESIGNATED AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE MARRYING CERTAIN KINDS OF PEOPLE IT DOESN'T SAY YOU ARE TAKING AN THEY WOULDN'T. OATH TO MARRY EVERY PERSON AUTHORIZED IN YOUR CHURCH OR FOR A RELIGIOUS PERSON TO DO THAT. I HAVEN'T TAKEN THE OATH YET BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT I WOULD TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW IN TERMS OF HOW YOU PERFORM A MARRIAGE. I DON'T SEE THERE BEING ANY PROBLEM RIGHT NOW. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CATHOLIC PRIEST IN VIRGINIA FORCED TO MARRY A DIVORCED PERSON OR A RABBI FORCED TO MARRY AN INTERFAITH COUPLE AND THIS IS JUST MORE EFFORTS TO WORK OTHER WAY AROUND THE SUPREME COURT. WITH THAT, I ASK THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THE BILL.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL HOUSE BILL 19 PASS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILLO TES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 22, NOS 16. AYES 22, NOS 16.

---