Huh. This is still a thing? Really???

[Czernobog]

So, let's get the source dismissal out of the way, now. This story originated with Patheos, so, since this is not one of the "acceptable" mainstream media sources, I fully expect a good many to simply insist "It never happened". For those of you who decide to react in that way, thanks for stopping by, I hope you'll understand when I don't respond personally, as this is my blanket response for all of you.

Now that we have that out of the way, I thought we already handled this with Kim Davis:

Last week, I heard from a reader named Mandy Heath who is planning to marry her fiancé Jon later this month. Because a friend without any legal credentials was going to perform the ceremony, they planned to visit a local courthouse in Trigg County, Kentucky the day before the wedding to take care of the official paperwork under the watch of a judge. It’s something couples do all over the country.
She just had one request for County Judge Executive Hollis Alexander: Because she and her fiancé were both non-religious, they didn’t want any mention of God in the ceremony.
The judge wouldn’t do it. He told them, “I will be unable to perform your wedding ceremony… I include God in my ceremonies and I won’t do one without.”​

Notice the part I highlighted. So, unless you let him wax poetic about "God Almighty", this judge refuses to do his sworn duty?!?!? Really???? A lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation has written to the juidge to remind him of exactly why he's not supposed to do this:

As a government employee, you have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral on religious matters while acting in your official capacity. You have no right to impose your personal religious beliefs on people seeking to be married. Governments in this nation, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, are secular. They do not have the power to impose religion on citizens.
The bottom line is that by law, there must be a secular option for people seeking to get married. In Trigg County, you are that secular option. The default ceremony offered by your office should be secular and people wishing to add in religion should be able to do so upon request. Not the other way around and certainly not to the exclusion of a secular option.
The bottom line is that by law, there must be a secular option for people seeking to get married. In Trigg County, you are that secular option. The default ceremony offered by your office should be secular and people wishing to add in religion should be able to do so upon request. Not the other way around and certainly not to the exclusion of a secular option.​

Just to add insult to injury, this judge, apparently, has confirmed that he won't perform ceremonies for those icky gay people, either. Now, let's be clear; I do not, nor have. I. Ever suggested that clergy should ever be required to perform marriage ceremonies for any particular couple, or that it should be dictated to them how they perform their ceremonies. After all, the former is a matter of personal conscience, so long as we are talking about private individuals, and the latter is rather a matter of religious convention - a member of the clergy is going to perform a marriage in the manner that is suitable to the faith of which they are ordained.

However, a public official does not have the luxury of extending their private convictions to the exercise of their official duties

I thought we handled this already. I thought Kim Davis going to jail over this shit rather made the point - if you are a public official, Do. Your. Fucking. Job! That, or feel free to step down, and let someone who will take your place.

 

[g5000]

For your marriage to be recognized by God, your marriage ceremony only has to be performed by someone God recognizes.

But if you want government cash and prizes for being married, that is an entirely separate matter outside of religion. To be eligible for these worldly materials, your union has to be sanctioned by a state official. It has NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with meeting the qualifications to collect government gifts.

It seems the judge and quite a few other ignorant people fail to grasp this simple concept.

 

[Czernobog]

For your marriage to be recognized by God, your marriage ceremony only has to be performed by someone God recognizes.

But if you want government cash and prizes for being married, that is an entirely separate matter outside of religion. To be eligible for these worldly materials, your union has to be sanctioned by a state official. It has NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with meeting the qualifications to collect government gifts.

It seems the judge and quite a few other ignorant people fail to grasp this simple concept.

Well, I would submit that marriage, even sans "God", is about more than just "government cash and prizes". It doesn't require any god to recognize the value of commitment, fidelity, and a life partner.

However, beyond that, I think you, and I were coming to the same conclusion. Thank you?

 

[g5000]

For your marriage to be recognized by God, your marriage ceremony only has to be performed by someone God recognizes.

But if you want government cash and prizes for being married, that is an entirely separate matter outside of religion. To be eligible for these worldly materials, your union has to be sanctioned by a state official. It has NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with meeting the qualifications to collect government gifts.

It seems the judge and quite a few other ignorant people fail to grasp this simple concept.

Well, I would submit that marriage, even sans "God", is about more than just "government cash and prizes". It doesn't require any god to recognize the value of commitment, fidelity, and a life partner.

However, beyond that, I think you, and I were coming to the same conclusion. Thank you?

Why do you need the state to recognize your commitment? You don't.

You do it for no other reason than to qualify for government cash and prizes.

 

[Hossfly]

Because the current trend in America is to deny God Almighty, America is being punished severely and are experiencing disasters and calamities daily. For being heathens and devil worshipers.

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

 

[Hossfly]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

Not so. They are more God fearing on the right. Do you know what our national motto is?

 

[Czernobog]

For your marriage to be recognized by God, your marriage ceremony only has to be performed by someone God recognizes.

But if you want government cash and prizes for being married, that is an entirely separate matter outside of religion. To be eligible for these worldly materials, your union has to be sanctioned by a state official. It has NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with meeting the qualifications to collect government gifts.

It seems the judge and quite a few other ignorant people fail to grasp this simple concept.

Well, I would submit that marriage, even sans "God", is about more than just "government cash and prizes". It doesn't require any god to recognize the value of commitment, fidelity, and a life partner.

However, beyond that, I think you, and I were coming to the same conclusion. Thank you?

Why do you need the state to recognize your commitment? You don't.

You do it for no other reason than to qualify for government cash and prizes.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I did it for two reasons. First, it is traditional that committed couples get married, and there is something to be said for honouring traditions that have nothing to do with religion. Second, I did it to clarify health, and custody issues. Should my wife become grievously ill, or suffer an accident, i would like to have the legal authority to make decisions about her care, so that I will know her wishes are being met, and, if she passes, I would like to have some legal standing to try to insure that my step-son has an alternative to being shipped off to a "father" he has not seen in 5 years, has not spoken to in 4, and wants nothing to do with.

Now, you can call that "government prizes" if you like. I call it ensuring that I can care for the family I love.

 

[Fueri]

So what, they're doing it as a formality. Get the rubber stamp and go to the actual wedding they intend to have for themselves.

He didn't refuse to do the job. He refused to do what they wanted. Tough crap.....

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

Not so. They are more God fearing on the right. Do you know what our national motto is?

Historically; E Pluribus Unum. It is the one on the Great Seal. It is the one approved by the founders of this country. Then, some religionist nuts in 1956 decided they knew better

 

[Hossfly]

Because the current trend in America is to deny God Almighty, America is being punished severely and are experiencing disasters and calamities daily. For being heathens and devil worshipers.

Floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, murder, terrorism,etc, etc. Some people aren't paying attention and I get a couple of funnies. Ain't that a blast?

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

Not so. They are more God fearing on the right. Do you know what our national motto is?

If you're referring to "In God we Trust"? Yeah...that's been the national motto since all of 1956, when Eisenhower needed a rally against the "atheist communists". For most of this nation's history, it was the much more inclusive, and rational - considering the nature of our nation - e pluribus unim - Out of many, one.

But, you know, you make a valid point, if we ignore history.

 

[g5000]

For your marriage to be recognized by God, your marriage ceremony only has to be performed by someone God recognizes.

But if you want government cash and prizes for being married, that is an entirely separate matter outside of religion. To be eligible for these worldly materials, your union has to be sanctioned by a state official. It has NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with meeting the qualifications to collect government gifts.

It seems the judge and quite a few other ignorant people fail to grasp this simple concept.

Well, I would submit that marriage, even sans "God", is about more than just "government cash and prizes". It doesn't require any god to recognize the value of commitment, fidelity, and a life partner.

However, beyond that, I think you, and I were coming to the same conclusion. Thank you?

Why do you need the state to recognize your commitment? You don't.

You do it for no other reason than to qualify for government cash and prizes.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I did it for two reasons. First, it is traditional that committed couples get married, and there is something to be said for honouring traditions that have nothing to do with religion. Second, I did it to clarify health, and custody issues. Should my wife become grievously ill, or suffer an accident, i would like to have the legal authority to make decisions about her care, so that I will know her wishes are being met, and, if she passes, I would like to have some legal standing to try to insure that my step-son has an alternative to being shipped off to a "father" he has not seen in 5 years, has not spoken to in 4, and wants nothing to do with.

Now, you can call that "government prizes" if you like. I call it ensuring that I can care for the family I love.

Yes, visitation is a government prize you get for being married.

As are Social Security survivor benefits. That's some of the cash you get.

Why do you need the State to recognize your commitment other than for these reasons?

 

[g5000]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

Not so. They are more God fearing on the right. Do you know what our national motto is?

If you're referring to "In God we Trust"? Yeah...that's been the national motto since all of 1956, when Eisenhower needed a rally against the "atheist communists". For most of this nation's history, it was the much more inclusive, and rational - considering the nature of our nation - e pluribus unim - Out of many, one.

But, you know, you make a valid point, if we ignore history.

Every Congress has opened with a prayer since the days of the Continental Congress.

The Creator was invoked in our Declaration of Independence.

To pretend God was not an important part of daily American life and an important part of our Founding is to be beyond retarded. It is to be willfully ignorant.

 

[Hossfly]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

Not so. They are more God fearing on the right. Do you know what our national motto is?

Historically; E Pluribus Unum. It is the one on the Great Seal. It is the one approved by the founders of this country. Then, some religionist nuts in 1956 decided they knew better

Religious nuts my ass. They were applying the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And the more people who deny God, the better. Soon there'll be less people clogging up the highways and Walmart. Ain't that right Jeremiah ?

 

[Czernobog]

Because the current trend in America is to deny God Almighty, America is being punished severely and are experiencing disasters and calamities daily. For being heathens and devil worshipers.

Floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, murder, terrorism,etc, etc. Some people aren't paying attention and I get a couple of funnies. Ain't that a blast?

Floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes...huh. Those all sound environmental. What's another word for that? Oh yeah...climate. But, let's not go there, right? Let's just call it "God's Will", because that is soooo much more rational.

Are you suggesting that murder is a new thing? And you get that the whole point of terrorism is because one religion doesn't like the way another religion worships the "Magic-Man-in-the-Sky", right? That's not a sign of godlessness. If anything, it's a sign you're doing it right, because the extremists of other religion hates you.

 

[g5000]

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, and we may almost say neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without families; the immigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality; they landed on the desert coast accompanied by their wives and children. But what especially distinguished them from all others was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; it was a purely intellectual craving that called them from the comforts of their former homes; and in facing the inevitable . sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.

The immigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency that had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 2

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah, it seems that judicial activism is much more common on the right.

Not so. They are more God fearing on the right. Do you know what our national motto is?

If you're referring to "In God we Trust"? Yeah...that's been the national motto since all of 1956, when Eisenhower needed a rally against the "atheist communists". For most of this nation's history, it was the much more inclusive, and rational - considering the nature of our nation - e pluribus unim - Out of many, one.

But, you know, you make a valid point, if we ignore history.

Every Congress has opened with a prayer since the days of the Continental Congress.

The Creator was invoked in our Declaration of Independence.

To pretend God was not an important part of daily American life and an important part of our Founding is to be beyond retarded. It is to be willfully ignorant.

To pretend that "Creator" and the Christian conception of God are synonymous is the only willful ignorance. The fact that many of the founding fathers were non-christian deists has been demonstrated time, after time, yet the advocates for theocracy constantly insist that the "founding fathers" were all christians.

 

[g5000]

Religion and freedom and democracy were the ideas brought to America by the Puritans.

The South, on the other hand, was settled by people seeking material wealth. Gold and silver.

And so right from the beginning, the seeds of discord were sown between the North and South.

Virginia received the first English colony; the immigrants took possession of it in 1607. The idea that mines of gold and silver are the sources of national wealth was at that time singularly prevalent in Europe; a fatal delusion, which has done more to impoverish the European nations who adopted it, and has cost more lives in America, than the united influence of war and bad laws. The men sent to Virginia were seekers of gold, adventurers without resources and without character, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony and rendered its progress uncertain. Artisans and agriculturists arrived afterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race of men, they were hardly in any respect above the level of the inferior classes in England. No lofty views, no spiritual conception, presided over the foundation of these new settlements. The colony was scarcely established when slavery was introduced; this was the capital fact which was to exercise an immense influence on the character, the laws, and the whole future of the South. Slavery, as I shall afterwards show, dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress. It enervates the powers of the mind and benumbs the activity of man. The influence of slavery, united to the English character, explains the manners and the social condition of the Southern states.

 

[Agit8r]

Because the current trend in America is to deny God Almighty, America is being punished severely and are experiencing disasters and calamities daily. For being heathens and devil worshipers.

Floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, murder, terrorism,etc, etc. Some people aren't paying attention and I get a couple of funnies. Ain't that a blast?

Just one step removed from dropping virgin down volcanoes aren't ye