Ocean Grove site
fights performing
same-sex marriages
By BILL BOWMAN, Home
News Tribune Online May 14, 2007
OCEAN GROVE, NJ -- The
question of whether same-sex civil union ceremonies must be allowed in the Ocean
Grove boardwalk pavilion could come down to the definition of "church."
If the open-air pavilion — located right off the boardwalk — is considered a
church by the state, it may qualify for an exemption from the state's
anti-discrimination law, which would otherwise require the association to allow
civil union ceremonies there.
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association — the nonprofit, Methodist organization
that owns all Ocean Grove property — asserts the pavilion is, indeed, a church.
The association's chief administrative officer, Scott Hoffman, noted Friday that
last year, 188 "official" events were held in the pavilion, with 168 of them of
a religious nature.
But state Public Advocate Ronald Chen said Friday that based on the information
he has seen so far, the association may have a hard time proving that point.
"Certainly there is nothing I've seen that indicates it's not a public
accommodation, or that they would have available to them the religious
exemption," Chen said.
Chen said his office is considering the issue from the perspective of the state
law against discrimination.
Chen said last week the association's policy banning same-sex civil unions at
the boardwalk pavilion "appears to violate the law" and should be reversed.
The issue has sparked a controversy in this Victorian-style religious enclave as
several same-sex couples have been denied permission to use the pavilion for
their ceremonies.
The prohibition has angered some gay and lesbian residents, since it came after
New Jersey legalized same-sex civil unions. Some residents and business
owners say they're troubled by the policy because of Ocean Grove's reputation as
a welcoming community.
Before approaching the association, Chen said he would continue gathering
information on the issue, as he has in the several days since the matter was
brought to his attention by the Asbury Park Press, a Gannett New Jersey
newspaper.
"Maybe we can talk to them and reach an agreement," he said.
The pavilion, Chen said, "is not marked in any way as a religious structure ...
and if it appears to be essentially part of the public thoroughfare, that's
usually not what we think of when we think of a church or religious structure."
"Members of the public go upon it daily," Chen said. "I'm suspecting the
public wouldn't even know it's private property. There's a lot to indicate
that it's a public accommodation."
Hoffman said the pavilion is "unquestionably treated exactly as a church
building, but it just happens to be on the boardwalk because that's where we
are. We've never considered it anything less than that."
Since its inception, Hoffman said, the pavilion has been used "virtually
exclusively for worship-oriented events."
Reacting to earlier statements from Chen regarding the pavilion's status as a
public accommodation, Hoffman said: "Anybody from the state who makes an
off-the-cuff statement about Ocean Grove is probably not wise, because you need
to study it as a very specific entity. Anything you would say generically
about Jersey Shore towns doesn't necessarily apply to Ocean Grove."
Hoffman said association President Scott Rasmussen has been speaking daily about
the controversy to the association's board of trustees, some of whom live in
other parts of the state. He said he did not know if the board was
planning to meet to discuss the situation.
The trustees generally meet only four times a year, with the next scheduled
meeting in July, he said.
"We're not taking this lightly by any stretch of the imagination," he said.
"We just want to move judiciously."
Chen said he does not have any "formal time frame" in which to make a decision
on what to do.
"We'll take the time it needs to make sure we have all the facts," he said.
"The first thing I may want to do when we have them is talk to them.
There's no need to rush into a formal proceeding."
Chen said he does have the option of initiating legal action against the
association, but said it was far too early to talk about that option.
Hoffman has said the association's four approved locations for weddings and
other ceremonies could not be used for the same-sex unions because the
association "adhere(s) to the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline in the
use of our church facilities," which does not recognize the unions.
Hoffman said earlier published reports about the controversy that stated the
association bans same-sex civil unions from the beach or boardwalk proper —
while allowing other wedding ceremonies there — are inaccurate because the
association does not allow any weddings or similar ceremonies except in four
specific locations.
The sites are the boardwalk pavilion, the Bishop Janes Tabernacle, Thornley
Chapel and the Youth Temple. Event coordinators help with the planning, he
said.
"If people had them on the beach or the boardwalk, that's not something that we
have orchestrated," Hoffman said. "There has never been a sanctioned
wedding on the boardwalk" or the beach.
When asked what the association would do if a same-sex couple simply appeared at
the pavilion and took part in a civil union ceremony, Hoffman said, "I don't
think I probably should answer that. I just don't know."
He said the association asserts that it has the authority to ban same-sex civil
unions by virtue of the "unique" legislation that sets aside the beach and
boardwalk areas "for the camp meeting and the mission of the camp meeting."
But Frank Askin, head of the Rutgers Law School's Constitutional Law Clinic in
Newark, said the association would have a stronger argument if it limited the
use of those facilities only to members of the community.
"As long as they open it up to the public, it becomes a public accommodation,"
he said. "I don't think they can discriminate, and New Jersey is pretty
strict on that."
|
