A Washington Blade headline: Church rejects couple's bid for ceremony at facility. Subhead: Lesbians file lawsuit in dispute over civil union by the ocean.
According to the Blade report, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has threatened to prosecute the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church for refusing to allow the lesbian couple's civil union ceremony in their seaside pavilion.
"Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative organization defending the Camp Meeting Association, in a prepared statement on the suit. "The government can't force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs. This action by the State of New Jersey is a gross violation of the First Amendment."
So why is this lesbian couple suing, and the state intervening, to force a religious group to allow its property to be used in a way that violates its religious beliefs?
Conservative (that is, anti-gay) religious groups often charge that the ultimate aim of the gay movement is to force them to alter their religious beliefs and, in particular, perform gay marriages. Gay activists routinely call that nonsense. This case doesn't quite go so far as to insist that the Methodist group perform the ceremony, but it comes pretty close. It's the collectivist, "use the state to force our way" grain of truth that energizes conservative claims. And it's entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.
Freedom of choice for gays cannot be premised on denying others, particularly religious groups, freedom of conscience (not to mention respect for their property rights!).
Corvino, John
{ 64 comments }
← Previous Comments
~”Conservative (that is, anti-gay) religious groups often charge that the ultimate aim of the gay movement is to force them to alter their religious beliefs and, in particular, perform gay marriages. Gay activists routinely call that nonsense.” ~ Stephen Miller
That is absolutely right, I’ve encountered this in so many debates about this issue. I’m sure we all have. There is a genuine fear among many that churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples and that those who perform sermons condemning homosexuality will be prosecuted under ‘hate crime’ laws…
It is preposterous that religious institutions, doctrines, sermons and speech in general would be criminalized to benefit homosexuals. I would hope that most of us who believe in true liberty would agree. I think we have to take the fear and appearance of this very seriously. We lose credibility if we don’t make it clear that this is not part of our “agenda” including if we remain silent when certain individuals or even groups go too far. This looks to be one of those incidents and if so I think the gay community overall should be critical of it; at least certainly not to defend it.
“We protect free-association rights in this country even when they manifest themselves in ugly ways.”
No, no, no, and double no! If you operate a restaurant or a boutique in this country, you may NOT refuse service to blacks, latinos or asians just because you do not like them. If you operate a public accomodation establishment, you may refuse service to those who don’t meet objective criteria, such as not being able to pay, not wearing shoes, being disruptive, that sort of thing, But you may not establish a blanket policy of excluding any group, especially if they are part of a suspect class. In NJ, gays are legally defined as a suspect class.
Therefore, any public accomodation establishment must allow any persons to use it. And yes, many whites in the south made the argument of 1st amendment free asociation rights, and property rights, and liberty and all that. What they were really arguing, and what some of you are arguing, is for the freedom to discriminate against a class of people.
The debate was settled since at least the 60s, and your argument failed then, and it fails now. If you own a house, you can refuse to admit anyone you please, because a private house is NOT a public accomodation. Once you open a place of business, however, it becomes a public accomodation. If you don’t like this, then don’t open a business.
That’s the law, and it’s a good law. I don’t know why anyone has a problem with it.
Marriot Hotels are primarily operated by the Marriot family, which are Mormons. Suppose Marriot Hotels had a public policy that they will not serve any gays? Not in their rooms, restaurants or ballrooms.
Apparently, many of you would think this is perfectly fine, since it’s a matter of private property. However, it would most definately violate the law. Don’t like it? Change the law so that you can be excluded from any restaurant in America. Maybe then you will be happy.
Suppose Marriot Hotels had a public policy that they will not serve any gays? Not in their rooms, restaurants or ballrooms.
Then there’d be celebrations at Hyatt, Hilton, Kimpton, and other competitors as massive amounts of business streamed into those institutions that was either turned away or insulted by the Mariott stance.
Major corporations with sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies (which exist independent of the law) would instruct traveling employees to blacklist the Mariott chain.
As revenue declined and losses piled up, Mariott shareholders and creditors (including major banks) would apply pressure to the management to change. As the chain continued underperforming for three or four quarters and negative publicity piled up, the shareholders would revolt and replace management.
If the management had enough shares to hold on to their seats, the banks would begin hiking interest rates as deteriorating revenue impacted its credit line — eventually calling in loans as hotel after hotel succumbed to poor sales.
With such a massive cash-flow problem, poor profits, a depressed stock, and no lenders willing to finance them at competitive rates, Mariott would shrink into a shadow of itself or simply collapse entirely into liquidation.
No government needed.
many of you would think this is perfectly fine, since it’s a matter of private property. However, it would most definately violate the law. Change the law
That sounds like the far right’s argument against same sex marriage. . . or their prior argument (before the SCOTUS’s Lawrence decision) in favor of sodomy laws making consensual sex with your partner in your own home a crime.
The reality is, bad laws — be they anti-gay marriage laws, sodomy laws, or the special privilege laws you’re promoting — should always be opposed, especially when they violate the rights of a group of people (as all three categories do).
“The reality is, bad laws — be they anti-gay marriage laws, sodomy laws, or the special privilege laws you’re promoting — should always be opposed, especially when they violate the rights of a group of people”
—That has no bearing in this case, even if gay marriage was legal, it doesn’t mean you can marry anywhere you want. Would a gay church want David Duke to get married there? I think not.
Free speech cry could cost Grove tax break
To receive break, area must be open to public
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/31/07
BY BILL BOWMAN
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
Post Comment
OCEAN GROVE ? A pending renewal of a state tax exemption on land including the embattled
boardwalk pavilion could become an issue in the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s ban on same-sex civil unions in the pavilion, and could end up costing the association hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That’s because one of the requirements for land qualifying for the exemption ? administered by the state Department of Environmental Protection’s Green Acres program ? is that the land “must be open for public use on an equal basis,” according to the program’s rules.
And whether the pavilion is open to the public on an equal basis or a religious structure subject to conditions imposed by the Methodist Church Book of Discipline is at the heart of the controversy, which has now spread to a federal courthouse in Trenton.
According to the application, which lists Sharyn Krzyzanowski as the contact person, there are no restrictions on the public use of the boardwalk ? on which the pavilion rests ? while users of the beach must pay a fee in season.
In response to the application’s request to “list what segments of the public use your property, how many visitors and how often,” the association answered, “All segments open to all public. Use estimated at 140,000 per year,” according to the application.
Under the law creating the program, the association’s renewal application must be decided upon by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson by Sept. 15. If Jackson denies the application, the association could be liable for rollback taxes ? which the law creating the program defines as the total of taxes that would have been paid in the current year and each of the previous two years ? that could amount to “hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Neptune tax assessor Bernard Haney said.
“Based on current numbers, taxes on the beach and boardwalk would be about $400,000,” he said. If rollback taxes have to be paid, the amount would “absolutely be in the mid-hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
The pavilion, Haney said, “is within the confines of the Green Acres exemption. The boardwalk and the beach are exempted under the Green Acres exemption, and the pavilion is part of that.”
What is not clear is what affect the association’s winning its federal lawsuit against the state would have on the Green Acres tax exemption.
The association has filed a federal lawsuit against the state Division on Civil Rights, claiming its free speech and religious freedom rights have been abridged by a state investigation into complaints filed by two lesbian couples who were denied use of the pavilion for their civil union ceremonies.
The couples and their supporters claim the pavilion is a “public accommodation” and therefore must be open to them under the state’s Law Against Discrimination.
The association maintains that the pavilion is a religious structure, much like its
Tabernacle, and the Methodist Book of Discipline forbids same-sex ceremonies in its religious structures.
The association maintains this stance even though, as noted by former Neptune Mayor Joe Krimko, the pavilion is located in an area zoned “Historic District Recreation,” which, according to the township’s zoning ordinance, does not permit places of worship.
Among the accessory uses for the zone, according to the ordinance, are “pavilion(s), not fully enclosed, for passive recreation use only.”
The ordinance specifies that, “All uses not expressly permitted in this Ordinance are hereby prohibited.”
DEP spokeswoman Karen Hershey said she could not comment on whether the association’s position on the pavilion’s use would have any effect on Jackson’s decision to approve or deny the tax exemption renewal.
Lee Moore, a Division on Civil Rights spokesman, would only say that the division “is aware” of the pending renewal application.
The Rev. Scott Hoffman, the Camp Meeting Association’s chief administrative officer, could not be reached for comment.
Following the above story from the Asbury Park Press is a comment section. The writer here appears to be a lay minister and as I suspected, the Methodist Church does support its gay members. As I said, people in this town are tolerant and respectful and the methodists in the tent homes we pass on the way to the beach see me and my partner walking down the street together and always greet us warmly.
Further, as I suspected, it does appear that the CMA is a business arm and has used the church affiliation to claim exemption status. I have copied the blog commentary as it appears after the story.
I think mrd is correct this has nothing to do with the United Methodist Church. I’m an active Methodist lay minister, not an expert, but it’s my understanding the Camp Meeting Association has no actual tie to the church. It was founded by some Methodists long ago (more than a century right?), but it formed its own legal entity to do business including selling real estate (including to gay couples, so its stance on the pavilion is rather schizophrenic).
The only tie I can think of to the UMC is if the CMA uses its own advocacy of Methodism as purpose to get the 501(c)(3) tax exemption. I don’t know if you have to get sanction from the church to get the religious exemption. In my experience, the IRS wasn’t picky about the church vouching for the group for it to call itself religious.
With all due respect to reporter Mr. Bowman, I think he overstates the Methodist tie in his articles and seems to lead people to think something that I don’t think is true. It’s not resolved in the UMC how to deal with gay members, even gay ministers. Defrocking of the lesbian minister in Pennsylvania remains in dispute.
The preamble to the Discipline says we accept gays in every way with all equality. There is a line in the text that was added at a general conference in recent years that can be interpretted as contradicting that, but the correlation of those conflicting passages is still debated within the UMC.
The United Methodist Church, in fact, has quite a few reconciliation churches, which are UMC churches that do perform civil union ceremonies of some sort (maybe or maybe not in the sanctuary and perhaps with ecumenical guest ministers, I don’t know exactly). So the claim the UMC forbids gay unions isn’t absolute.
To be blunt, I think the CMA is making up its own draconian “rules” and blaming it on us Methodists. And shame on them for bearing false witness, IHMO. Most of us are not bigots and follow the words of Christ, not Leviticus, and I believe Jesus would be fine with marrying gay couples if he were with us in flesh today.
Posted by: justaguy on Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:17 pm
The OGCMA has a public meeting on Monday morning and Ocean Grove United has called upon the community to show up at that event. I will report afterwards as to the events.
As I drove into the Grove this evening, I was really heartened to see the equality flags flying on so many of the Main Street homes. As I said, this community loves us and we love it. We have worked hard to be good neighbors and it is so nice to see so many of our neighbors flying the flag in a show of support.
Here is another post from NJ.com from one of the members of the Ocean Grove Methodist community.
Posted by JaneR on 08/26/07 at 12:21PM
“I am an active United Methodist in Northern NJ, and I also own a vacation home in Ocean Grove. I am very disappointed in the leadership of the Camp Meeting Association, which turned fellow residents away when they requested use of the Boardwalk Pavilion on the same basis that other secular couples and event planners have in the past. The OGCMA is Methodist only in its history, being founded by Methodists, and requiring that the voting members of the board be a member of a Methodist church somewhere. It IS NOT a Methodist church, and the Bishop and leadership of the “Greater New Jersey Annual Conference” (the Methodist version of a Diocese) have no authority over it. The controversy has brought various groups in the section of Neptune Township known as Ocean Grove together like nothing else in the past few years. I thank God for this blessing in disguise and pray everyday the leadership here will recognize how destructive recent nationwide headlines have been, will call off the out-of-state deep-pocketed Alliance Defense Fund, and unite with the rest of the town.”
Carol Rizzo:
Thanks for all your insight and commentary on this. Interesting stuff. My hope is this will work out for the best….I always loved “The Grove” when I lived in NJ. I can only imagine what NJ 101.5′s (conservative) Jim Gearheart is flapping and fuming about regarding this one during drivetime.
Bobby:
I didn’t intend to “correct” you (sounds too harsh) just to point out it’s different than a condo ass’n but yours was a fair comparison I think.
I am amazed that you do not understand the situtation with this post. Let me explain it to you, from the article that you cited.
The Chamber of Commerce web site for Ocean Grove dates the seaside town back to the 1800s, when it was used as a setting for open-air religious revivals. The town is still owned by the Camp Meeting Association, which uses the pavilion and other buildings for worship services, Bible programs and gospel music ministry programs, among others. But the Association also leases its land to business and property owners
It is business property. I’m amazed that you apparently cannot understand that. The vermieter (sorry, the lessors) are constrained by the non-discrimination laws of the state.
Hello to all.
Well I guess it is no surprise that the meeting did little to change the demeanor of the OGCMA but much to Scott Hoffmans credit he allowed everyone to stand up and speak. After all was said and done,it is wonderful to know that only 6 people got up to speak out for the OGCMA position. There were over 100 people who spoke against it and I would say it was 50/50 gay straight. So basically I am as proud of my neighbors as before. And I still love this town. So I guess its onto court. By the way, everyone with an HRC equality flag got a letter from Deb who told us she was praying for our souls and that she loved us.
Here is a report from the Asbury Park Press.
Hundreds protest Ocean Grove civil union stance at annual meeting
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 09/3/07
BY TRISTAN J. SCHWEIGER
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
OCEAN GROVE: Hundreds of protestors turned out at this morning’s Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to call on the association to change its policy of banning same-sex civil unions from the boardwalk pavilion.
The association has contended the pavilion is a religious structure, and subject to conditions imposed by the Methodist Church Group of Discipline. Same-sex couples filed complaints earlier this year after their requests to have civil unions performed at the pavilion were denied, and the couples contend that the pavilion is a public structure and must be open to all.
The meeting held this morning is an annual tradition of the association, at which the group’s leadership gives the community an update on its finances, programming and other mattters. Association leaders touched on the civil unions issue only briefly, and Scott Rasmussen, president of the group’s board of trustees, said the association had filed a federal lawsuit against the state to “ensure that the Camp Meeting can continue to use our facilities in a manner that’s consistent with our history and our religious beliefs.”
But during the public portion, association leaders faced a long line of questioning and criticism by protestors for the civil union stance. Couples at the heart of the debate were in attendance.
Emily Sonnessa, 77, who is seeking a civil uinon with her longtime partner Jan Moore, said it was the couple’s dream to have the union performed on the boardwalk.
“The dream has turned into a nightmare, and we hope you will reverse your decision and allow us to celebrate almost 38 years together,” Sonnessa told the leadership. “Please don’t tell us there is no room for us at the inn.”
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., spoke briefly at the meeting, arguing that the
association has received federal and state money for the boardwalk and other maintenance, and thus should follow the rules pertaining to other public places.
I am an Ocean Grove homeowner and active member of a northern NJ United Methodist Church. I sing in the Great Auditorium Choir during the summer months. Carol Rizzo included some of my comments as posted on another forum previously.
I agree with most of what she says, except for one thing, her comments about “Scott” actually appear to be attributable to Mr. Scott Rasmussen, the President of the OGCMA Board of Trustees, rather than to the Rev. Scott Hoffman, the hired “Chief Administrative Officer.” Not that their opinions really differ, or that both aren’t out to look good to the national “Christian Right.” But it was Mr. Rasmussen who ran the meeting. He was elected to chair the group a few years age by a very slim margin.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.