Online Ordination Company Gets Win Against Tennessee in Settlement

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

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 and impending trial, noting they did not expect a decision until at least the end of this year.

“For more than four years, the state of Tennessee has used just about every legal trick in the book to delay justice, but we’re excited and nervous to announce that our trial finally begins tomorrow in Nashville,” they wrote in the email. “Since then, we’ve been whipped back-n-forth and up-n-down by state and county attorneys seemingly desperate to avoid accountability on this issue. We believe the anti-ULC law is blatantly unconstitutional in its mechanism of specifically ripping rights away from ministers of the Universal Life Church while maintaining them for ministers of more “traditional” churches.”

This week, the email to its ministers claimed victory instead of the hoping-for-the-best tone of their email at the start of the trial.

“...just a few hours into our trial, an unexpected series of events occurred that led to us reaching a federal consent order with the state of Tennessee,” they wrote in their email. “We’ve never believed the anti-ULC law was valid, and we are pleased that these Tennessee officials ultimately backed down when their day of reckoning arrived.”

The company said they are sending copies of the court order to all of the state’s 95 county clerks so they are aware of the decision.

“We believe this victory effectively cements your rights to fully practice your faith as you see fit across the entire state,” they wrote. “If any other Tennessee county chooses to argue otherwise, we’ll be more than happy to head back down to the beautiful Volunteer State to serve up another heaping plate of barbecued justice.”

While the order is a win for ULCM, they note the order protects only their ministers and possibly not those ordained through other online organizations.

“We do not think this is likely, but if you are planning to perform a wedding in Tennessee as a ULC minister and encounter any challenge to your ordination from any government official, please reach out to us as soon as possible so that we can determine how we might best intervene on your behalf to protect your rights, again.”