Wicca's New Rights under the Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act

a reply to: Gryphon66
They're dreaming if they think this is going to fly, cause its not.
There's been an identical federal RFRA for ages, and its been severely limited in its power due to similar types of frivolous religious claims over the years. As an example, there was a Rastafarian man who tried to claim RFRA to smoke pot... Didn't work for him, and its not going to work for the frivolous marriage rights claims of some Wicca group either.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Gryphon66

So I gather you don't believe in freedom of religion because you don't believe in religion.

That appears to be the reason behind your OP, to ridicule anyone and everyone who belives in religion, as seen in your made up snail religion.

The constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the Georgia law is an extension of that guarantee.

Does this sum up your idea of how a nation should respond to religion since you oppose the Georgia law?

This life is where we build the eternity of the nation.
What happens to me when I die? I do not know.
One thing I do know. I will return to the earth
and will belong again to the wonderful Mother Earth.
Isn’t that enough? If only a blade of grass of a flower grows from my grave,
that is enough for me. I am happy with what I have done so far.
It was both hard and beautiful, and I am thankful for these 48 years.
And if I remain alive long enough to finish my work, I can die in peace.
Death will hold no terrors for me.

research.calvin.edu...

Sorry I just don't the venomous word about religious people of all kinds. Maybe the person who said the quote above understands you better.

So as a non American asking a genuine question if I may?

If someone creates a new religion and asks for certain exeptions to be added to law then would that be acceptable?

As I say straight up question, does religion overide law in your view?

Don't know if you've been answered and I don't know how new laws like this will affect things. However (and I don't want to violate site rules) but in one specific case Native Americans have the legal right to a certain religious activity that those deemed non-Indian are not allowed even if they profess it as part of their religious beliefs.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Gryphon66
They're dreaming if they think this is going to fly, cause its not.
There's been an identical federal RFRA for ages, and its been severely limited in its power due to similar types of frivolous religious claims over the years. As an example, there was a Rastafarian man who tried to claim RFRA to smoke pot... Didn't work for him, and its not going to work for the frivolous marriage rights claims of some Wicca group either.

Have you been following the actual Georgia law I'm referring to?

Did you look at the argument made by these followers of the religion Wicca?

How does the State have a "compelling interest" to keep Wiccans from marrying each other?

How does a plural marriage threaten the "peace or security" of the citizens of Georgia?


Those are some of the real questions under this new Georgia law.

It would also be less problematic if the various Religious Sects would provide a clear set of principles and rules of which they are organized under. As of now there are so many versions of Christianity and each of them seem to follow different and often opposing set's of rules that it allows for no clear consistent rules for them to be held accountable for. You have some churches who discriminate against Gays, some that welcome them in. Basically you can have two churches both of the same Religion but different denominations following completely different rules depending upon what parts they interpret and cherry pick out of the Bible.

The last thing you need as an organizing system for people to follow is one that has no consistent set of rules to follow. Not to mention that the ultimate authority from which all such rules are said to be from cannot or will not be present to validate them, is unquestionable, unverifiable and not even capable of being understood universally by everyone. So how can any of it be the foundation from which you build something stable?? It changes from person to person from one day to the next and from one interpretation to the next. Sometimes resulting in principles that totally oppose one another.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ahh that makes a lot more sense (it being Georgia's definition)...

& rightly it should be defined.



Good to know about the DoI I thought it had a similar strength, although not so firm, as the Constitution.




I'm back to confusion I guess.
This is an anomaly surely...

Will it be a case of the SC scrapping this completely?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

How does the State have a "compelling interest" to keep Wiccans from marrying each other?

How does a plural marriage threaten the "peace or security" of the citizens of Georgia?

I think that would depend on whether or not Marriage is understood to be under the authority of Religion or State. If it's Religious then the rules are set by that Religion. If it is by the State then it's by their rules.

Where it may get tricky is when you have a Wiccan Religious Wedding and a Christian Religious Wedding. Do they both get to apply their own rules??? Does the state then have to recognize either of them or both or just one or the other??? Do Christians have to recognize Wiccan marriage as valid or Wiccans view Christian Marriages as Valid??

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Have you been following the actual Georgia law I'm referring to?

I don't have to, its identical to all the other existing ones:
Florida Statute 761 Religious Freedom
Federal RFRA
Read them yourself.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Did you look at the argument made by these followers of the religion Wicca?

Doesn't matter, its no different then the Rastafarians claims.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How does the State have a "compelling interest" to keep Wiccans from marrying each other?

Requiring that they follow our marriage laws does not burden their ability to worship their religion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How does a plural marriage threaten the "peace or security" of the citizens of Georgia?

Doesn't matter, its irrelevant to the topic. You are reading the law backwards, believe me, I spoke at length with multiple lawyers about using the RFRA to require my state to issue me a non-Real ID drivers license, and that stood a much higher chance of winning then this groups does. However in the process I got quite an education about the RFRA, and this will not fly.

a reply to: defcon5

Why is the Wiccan claim of Plural Marriage any more or less legitimate than the Christian claim of One Man one Woman Marriage???

From a legal perspective why should the state consider either one of them anyway???

Why not just have Marriage, as in Legal Marriage, determined by the State???

a reply to: mOjOm
State laws set the number of partners in a marriage, not Christian values. As a matter of fact, a large number of people in the Christian Bible had multiple partners. So lets not even go there, it's pretty much off topic anyway.

Why state laws are set that way, I can't tell you. However, if RFRA could be used in such a way, the Mormons, a much larger, richer, and more influential group, would have used RFRA to allow polygamy.

Here's where its going to fall down...
Do you have to be in a polygamous marriage to be a Wiccan? No..
Are you even required to be married at all to be a Wiccan? Again, No...

So the state laws regarding marriage do not burden your ability to worship as a Wiccan, and you've already failed the first test for RFRA.

RFRA does not give you the right to do everything that your religion teaches, that's not its purpose. Its a damn good thing too, because if it did, we'd have people claiming they could get away with doing things like stoning, and human sacrifices.

a reply to: defcon5

I totally agree with what you said. I was asking those questions for real.

So since it's based not on religion, then there should be no argument then about Same Sex Marriage either right???

This whole resistance movement by the Christian Right about it being One Man One Woman shouldn't even apply if the State decides to make Marriage between any two people of legal age as valid, right???

a reply to: mOjOm
According to many religions, not just Christianity (though that's the only one that seems to take heat over it), marriage is between a man and woman only. If for no other reason, because it helps propagate its size and longevity. Governments have historically had similar rules and often for similar reasons. You want your people to reproduce so you have a large population. Also money and power followed marriages, and bloodlines. People wanted to ensure that their hard earned money and businesses went to their descendants. They also used to arrange marriages for the purpose of increasing their wealth and power.

I am sure that the laws in the US have been partially put in place due to religious influence, but that's not the only reason. I believe that there are other factors as well. One of which is where do you draw the line on what you can consider a marriage? Another is financial benefits that can be given to a spouse or spouses. So there are other factors involved in it then just majority religious beliefs.

Let me give you an example of a problem caused by something like this. Lets say this guy has 2 wives, and he dies. Who gets his insurance, and social security money?

Do both spouses split it? Do they both get the full amount even though it was only paid into once? What if one has 2 children and the other has 1, now how do you split things? Also, such arrangements tend to have a larger number of offspring, which further burdens the state over time. As there is an extra spouse that can also work, they don't have to limit the number of children per person as much, and ultimately that costs more tax dollars per person.

a reply to: defcon5

So the answer to my questions is no, you haven't bothered to read the Georgia law, or, the argument in question from the religious group.

In rough order of your comments:

Perhaps you should read up on the decision in the Rastafarian case you're equating everything to:

In an opinion issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, some marijuana-using Rastafarians may be protected under a religious-freedom law passed by Congress in 1993.

The case began in 1991 when Benny Guerrero, returning from a trip to Hawaii, was stopped by officials at Guam's international airport. Mr. Guerrero evidently attracted the eyes of authority because he was carrying a book about Rastafarianism and marijuana. A search of Guerrero's luggage turned up five ounces of marijuana and some Cannabis seeds. He was arrested and charged with importation of a controlled substance.

In his defense, Guerrero argued that he was a practicing Rastafarian and that his use of marijuana was religious. His importation of the herb was, he argued, protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law that blocks the federal government from unjustifiably infringing on a person's practice of religion.

After litigating the case for more than ten years, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday that while the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might protect some Rastafarians who possess or smoke marijuana as part of their religious practices, it does not protect the importation of marijuana, even if that marijuana was intended for religious use. According to the Ninth Circuit, while the practice of Rastafarianism sanctions the smoking of marijuana, nowhere does the religion sanction the importation of marijuana.

So, 1) Your statement is not quite accurate in toto and 2) No, a question of marriage is not equivalent to a question of drug use.

Does requiring that someone follow our public accommodation laws burden someone's ability to "worship their religion" [sic]?

Irrelevant to the topic??? It's part and parcel of the Georgia Constitution and incorporated into the law!!!

Paragraph III. Freedom of conscience. Each person has the natural and inalienable right to worship God, each according to the dictates of that person's own conscience; and no human authority should, in any case, control or interfere with such right of conscience.

Paragraph IV. Religious opinions; freedom of religion. No inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or property or be prohibited from holding any public office or trust on account of religious opinions; but the right of freedom of religion shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

Thanks for your opinions, but with due respect, I think we'll find out that as this law makes its way through the courts, there are all kind of unforeseen nooks and crannies.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: mOjOm
According to many religions, not just Christianity (though that's the only one that seems to take heat over it), marriage is between a man and woman only. If for no other reason, because it helps propagate its size and longevity. Governments have historically had similar rules and often for similar reasons. You want your people to reproduce so you have a large population. Also money and power followed marriages, and bloodlines. People wanted to ensure that their hard earned money and businesses went to their descendants. They also used to arrange marriages for the purpose of increasing their wealth and power.

Christians take the heat because at least in the US they are the ones on the forefront of it. Mormons are in it too as are Muslims and maybe others but you don't hear from them as much, that's all.

I agree that Government uses Marriage for a variety of reasons. Mostly for things like wealth and property arrangements and a sort of social cohesion kind of thing. Although I don't see why Population growth has much to do with it since people reproduce with or without marriage. As for the rules about distribution of money or whatever after death it seems that unless otherwise specified before the time of death just simply dividing it equally across everyone who qualifies would seem easy enough.

But I don't see the reasoning behind not allowing same sex couples. They aren't going to breed anyway. Yet their partnership still can provide the same social bonding rewards as any other couple and a persons sex shouldn't make a difference as far as compensations after death for those involved.

I am sure that the laws in the US have been partially put in place due to religious influence, but that's not the only reason. I believe that there are other factors as well. One of which is where do you draw the line on what you can consider a marriage? Another is financial benefits that can be given to a spouse or spouses. So there are other factors involved in it then just majority religious beliefs.

Again, why would the line be different for a contract between a man and woman or two men or two women as far as their duties or obligations of Marriage??

As for the compensation given to Spouse or Spouses it seems you could just divide equally between all parties involved. Although in some cases it might be more difficult. But then again Plural Marriage and Same Sex Marriage are two completely different arguments.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Although I don't see why Population growth has much to do with it since people reproduce with or without marriage.

Well today that's not a factor, I was talking about it historically being a factor.

originally posted by: mOjOm
As for the rules about distribution of money or whatever after death it seems that unless otherwise specified before the time of death just simply dividing it equally across everyone who qualifies would seem easy enough.

Its not quite that simple. If they have a lot of children, and there is not enough there for them to live on, who pays for them until they reach 18 (or sometimes even older if they are students)? Tax payers usually will end up bearing the burden of that expense.

originally posted by: mOjOm
But I don't see the reasoning behind not allowing same sex couples. They aren't going to breed anyway. Yet their partnership still can provide the same social bonding rewards as any other couple and a persons sex shouldn't make a difference as far as compensations after death for those involved.

Both the government and insurance companies will grasp at any excuse to not pay out benefits. However, you also get into the “where do you draw the line” issue as well. As an example, there was just some guy that wanted to marry his virtual girlfriend. Stuff like this has a lot of legal and financial ramifications that may not be readily apparent.

a reply to: Gryphon66
These are not opinions, as I stated, I looked into using RFRA, and went through many discussions with attorneys on the subject over the course of 5 years. The only thing preventing me from pursuing it was that I was told I would draw a lot of public attention, and that it would have cost me upwards of $120K to proceed. However, as I was using the law the correct way, there was a very good chance that I would have won. Again, this is all BS because their marriage status does not produce any burden on their ability to worship as they please.

As to your specific law, you posted it in the first page and its identical, so there is no reason to further read about it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: defcon5

Why is the Wiccan claim of Plural Marriage any more or less legitimate than the Christian claim of One Man one Woman Marriage???

From a legal perspective why should the state consider either one of them anyway???

Why not just have Marriage, as in Legal Marriage, determined by the State???

The Wiccan claim of plural marriage
is as valid as Gay Marriage
one can not defend one
and deny the other because it has religious origins

Once the definition of marraige was changed and opened to interpretation of "love" alone being the criteria.
Then one must recognize plural marriage as valid.

Actually, the state has no business in marriage, the state long ago abandoned any interest in the family unit when it declared that welfare could only be given to the unmarried and split up families, thus negating interest in the family unit remaining intact.

Marriage was in the past simply a religious precept.
The state only took interest because it felt that the state had an interest in preserving the family unit.
The state no longer holds the view that it is in anyone's interest to preserve the family unit.
Therefore, the state should remove itself from deciding or making legal/illegal marriage in any form.
It would certainly remove the problem of divorce and the legal entanglements.
Custody of children would not change, as unmarried couples fight over custody all the time.
Unmarried and divorced parents also take care of medical insurance without a partner.
Perhaps, it would be best if the state no longer defined marriage, sanctioned marriage, or recognized marriage.
All the reasons for doing so in the past are long gone.

Let it be simply a religious ceremony
or personal ceremony indicating
a decision to share living space
or simply a personal decision between those involved
leaving out church, ceremony and state entirely.

Perhaps the institution of marriage as a state institution is no longer needed
and let anyone define it as they wish, religious or otherwise,
and leave the state out of it.

Anyway, if the Wiccans want to have multiple marriage partners
I see no difference between that and gay partners which are not religiously or traditionally defined,
as far as the state should be concerned.

It hurts no one how one defines marriage. It interferes in no one else's rights. If it is part of their religion and harms no one, interferes in no one else's rights, then why not.

If Wiccans choose to drink or do legal drugs at a ceremony or Indians choose to use drugs at a religious ceremony, and the drugs/alcohol are legal for use. As long as they don't drive under the influence. Whose business is that? Not mine.
Once they enter the arena of harming others, DUI (which is like shooting a loaded gun while running down the street), they must obey state law. But as long as what they do is within the confines of their religious arena and harms no one else, either potentially or actually, then MYOB.

Freedom OF religion, extends to every area where it does not harm anyone else. And teaching children about various religious cultures or ones own religion is not harmful. If you scream, wait the religious are well known for child abuse, that is harming another and not to be tolerated by the state and the state has an interest. But teaching a child about religion is not abuse, it is a parental right. Telling someone about your religion is not harming anyone, they can walk away, chasing after them is hurting someone else, but just talking about it doesn't harm others, no one is forced to listen.
This is the reason that Georgia choose to write this law.

Taking ones religion in the "gasp" open, is not harmful to anyone else. Carrying a bible, Koran, etc or having it at your desk where others can "oh no" see it harms no one and should be no one else's business. Discussing ones religion in public harms no one, they don't have to listen. Wearing religious symbols harm no one else, if someone is offended that does not reach the level of harm. To be offended is not the same as being harmed.

To offend another should never be a crime, as it is subjective and can be applied to nearly everything.

I get offended when I see others picking their nose, should we then outlaw nose picking in case I should happen to see it and be offended?

To injure someone else, no matter what you are doing, should always be a crime if done intentionally or knowing the activity had the potential to hurt someone else.

Our society has become so wrapped up in "if it offends me you can't do it"
and attempting to codify it in law
that the result was this over the top Georgia Law

a reply to: Gryphon66
BTW that's not the case I was talking about, it was this one...
en.wikipedia.org...
Sorry, it was a native American and peyote, same basic concept though.

Here's the most important bit:

But Oregon's ban on the possession of peyote is not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a "neutral law of general applicability," in the Court's phrasing. The Court characterized Smith's and Black's argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon's neutral, generally applicable ban on the possession of peyote. The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.

a reply to: defcon5

I can see where plural marriage might be a factor based on division of benefits and property. Perhaps one way to solve it would be to apply them only to the primary couple as far as that goes. That or simply equal division for all. That's tricky because you're dealing with a contract between parties and the number of parties involved changes the entire arrangement of that contract.

However, I still can't understand the problem with same sex marriage other than it being one of personal preference. At the core of it what Marriage is, is just a contract between two consenting adults. Regardless of their physical sexual identity it's still going to be two consenting adults and so it seems it should apply as long as that is met.

The guy and his virtual girlfriend would apply if and when it is determined that the girlfriend qualifies as a consenting adult person. The "person" part being what would have to be defined carefully at that point I guess. Assuming that AI will ever be considered truly able to consent or having independent life has or could be established already.

Marriage does not have to be state defined for property rights.

All the people have to do is put both names on property with a contract giving them the right to sell the property and split the proceeds at the request of either party. No marriage necessary.

Same with drawing up personal contracts which cover all personal property before cohabiting, be it man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or multiple partners.

The state being involved in marriage is an anachronism whose time has come to an end.

So, really Wiccans marrying as many partners as they wish in any configuration they wish should be no problem when it comes to property either or division of wealth, and division of children. Prenups if the state remains involved would take care of all of that.