Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2016, 11:42 AM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 10:45 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Why get angry when you can get even?

Bring your entire wedding party to the court to witness your marriage. Have someone inform the wedding party (very loudly, and in front of the judge) that for the purposes of this ceremony, Satan will be referred to by just his formal title, “God.” Every time the judge refers to him as “God”, the wedding attendants should shout out, “Praise his holy name, Satan!”

Make sure to invite the 6:00 news to share in the nuptials.

Indeed. This is a non-issue.

He wants to say "god"? Fine. Just make him add "non-existent" every time.

Everybody's happy.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
17-07-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 11:30 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(17-07-2016 08:47 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... okay, having done a minimal amount of research on this...

This isn't quite a Kim Davis case. It's still bad, but not that bad.

1) Unlike with Kim Davis, marrying people is not part of the judge's job. He is empowered to perform marriages, but it's optional for him. If he decided to never perform a marriage, that would be legit. If he decided to perform marriages only for his daughter and cousin, that would be legit. Nor is this a power tied to the office -- he would retain it even after he retires and leaves public service.

2) Unlike Kim Davis, who had a lock on the county clerk's office, he is not the only provider of this service in the area.

3) Unlike Kim Davis with same-sex couples, he is not imposing a blanket refusal to marry atheist couples. He is quite willing to perform this marriage. He is simply refusing to modify the language he uses in the ceremony to remove all mention of God.

So the legality of this is a lot more questionable than a clear-cut case like Kim Davis. In particular, the fact that it's not a requirement of his job and that this is something the judge has been empowered to do selectively, in his private persona rather than his public office, makes me think it likely IS legal... at least for him.

It would be fairly easy to see if this particular judge performed weddings in the past. if he has, then refusing to marry a couple who doesn't want God to be part of the marriage ceremony is actually against the law.

If he is considered a justice of the peace, then actually it is part of his duties. He also specifically said he wouldn't marry them without mentioning God. The judge in this case didn't simply say he doesn't do weddings. He said specifically he won't marry atheists. Huge difference. According to this article he's the only judge in the area.

http://www.weekendcollective.com/kentuck...-atheists/

Okay, I hadn't gotten the part about how he's the only one qualified to marry in the county. I still don't know if that's legally on him as an individual, but that is a clear-cut, easy win case against the STATE.

.... I do think he's scum, btw, or at least I will if he doesn't go back on this once the problem of access is brought to his attention. (I'm willing to give... not exactly a pass, but some leeway to people who just needed some education and a few days to think about it.) But I'm looking at this as a matter of tactics. Do you get better results going after the individual for breaking the law or after the law for being unconstitutional? I think going after the law and trying to force it to be overturned or expanded has better odds of producing better results in this case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 08:47 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... okay, having done a minimal amount of research on this...

This isn't quite a Kim Davis case. It's still bad, but not that bad.

1) Unlike with Kim Davis, marrying people is not part of the judge's job. He is empowered to perform marriages, but it's optional for him. If he decided to never perform a marriage, that would be legit. If he decided to perform marriages only for his daughter and cousin, that would be legit. Nor is this a power tied to the office -- he would retain it even after he retires and leaves public service.

2) Unlike Kim Davis, who had a lock on the county clerk's office, he is not the only provider of this service in the area.

3) Unlike Kim Davis with same-sex couples, he is not imposing a blanket refusal to marry atheist couples. He is quite willing to perform this marriage. He is simply refusing to modify the language he uses in the ceremony to remove all mention of God.

So the legality of this is a lot more questionable than a clear-cut case like Kim Davis. In particular, the fact that it's not a requirement of his job and that this is something the judge has been empowered to do selectively, in his private persona rather than his public office, makes me think it likely IS legal... at least for him.

That said, there is still a significant issue of access. Only three parties are empowered to solemnize marriages under Kentucky law: Judges/justices (including those who have retired), ministers of the gospel (which does, as a legal category, ironically include secular humanist celebrants), and religious societies without ministers. Judges are the only obvious secular option. Furthermore, your average Christian couple could throw a rock and hit someone who could solemnize their marriage, but for atheists they would have to look pretty hard. While it would be hard to make a case against the judge for denying them marriage, it would be easy to make a case against Kentucky for the unequal access.

Stepping away from what the law says and looking out how the world should be? This is a definite problem. There needs to be a reliably secular way to DO BASIC LIFE without needing to go to a priest or having religion shoved down your throat. Not that it needs to be the ONLY way to do life, but it has to be a clear and easy option. Otherwise religious liberty is a lie.

The reason that the judge gave for not conducting this ceremony was purely religious. That's purely discriminatory. The taxpayers pay his wages so he shuts the fuck up and does his job. If he doesn't like it then he can step aside for somebody competent. Given the way that he's damaged his impartiality I'd say that he should be resigned anyway.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that the judge had been a hardcore atheist and refused to include God in a christian's ceremony. You'd be able to hear the shrieking and howling in Bangladesh.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-07-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 10:45 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Why get angry when you can get even?

Bring your entire wedding party to the court to witness your marriage. Have someone inform the wedding party (very loudly, and in front of the judge) that for the purposes of this ceremony, Satan will be referred to by just his formal title, “God.” Every time the judge refers to him as “God”, the wedding attendants should shout out, “Praise his holy name, Satan!”

Make sure to invite the 6:00 news to share in the nuptials.

Amusing but probably not how you want to remember your wedding day. Confused

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
17-07-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 01:27 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(17-07-2016 10:45 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Why get angry when you can get even?

Bring your entire wedding party to the court to witness your marriage. Have someone inform the wedding party (very loudly, and in front of the judge) that for the purposes of this ceremony, Satan will be referred to by just his formal title, “God.” Every time the judge refers to him as “God”, the wedding attendants should shout out, “Praise his holy name, Satan!”

Make sure to invite the 6:00 news to share in the nuptials.

Amusing but probably not how you want to remember your wedding day. Confused

I'd be okay with it. But then again, I'm not very sentimental. I'd make quite the stink over this just because I think what they're doing in Kentucky is wrong, and it does need to be corrected.

Besides, they're going to the courthouse to fill out a paper. The "ceremony" (however they choose to define that) can be conducted elsewhere, or even on a totally different day all together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 01:21 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(17-07-2016 08:47 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... okay, having done a minimal amount of research on this...

This isn't quite a Kim Davis case. It's still bad, but not that bad.

1) Unlike with Kim Davis, marrying people is not part of the judge's job. He is empowered to perform marriages, but it's optional for him. If he decided to never perform a marriage, that would be legit. If he decided to perform marriages only for his daughter and cousin, that would be legit. Nor is this a power tied to the office -- he would retain it even after he retires and leaves public service.

2) Unlike Kim Davis, who had a lock on the county clerk's office, he is not the only provider of this service in the area.

3) Unlike Kim Davis with same-sex couples, he is not imposing a blanket refusal to marry atheist couples. He is quite willing to perform this marriage. He is simply refusing to modify the language he uses in the ceremony to remove all mention of God.

So the legality of this is a lot more questionable than a clear-cut case like Kim Davis. In particular, the fact that it's not a requirement of his job and that this is something the judge has been empowered to do selectively, in his private persona rather than his public office, makes me think it likely IS legal... at least for him.

That said, there is still a significant issue of access. Only three parties are empowered to solemnize marriages under Kentucky law: Judges/justices (including those who have retired), ministers of the gospel (which does, as a legal category, ironically include secular humanist celebrants), and religious societies without ministers. Judges are the only obvious secular option. Furthermore, your average Christian couple could throw a rock and hit someone who could solemnize their marriage, but for atheists they would have to look pretty hard. While it would be hard to make a case against the judge for denying them marriage, it would be easy to make a case against Kentucky for the unequal access.

Stepping away from what the law says and looking out how the world should be? This is a definite problem. There needs to be a reliably secular way to DO BASIC LIFE without needing to go to a priest or having religion shoved down your throat. Not that it needs to be the ONLY way to do life, but it has to be a clear and easy option. Otherwise religious liberty is a lie.

The reason that the judge gave for not conducting this ceremony was purely religious. That's purely discriminatory. The taxpayers pay his wages so he shuts the fuck up and does his job. If he doesn't like it then he can step aside for somebody competent. Given the way that he's damaged his impartiality I'd say that he should be resigned anyway.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that the judge had been a hardcore atheist and refused to include God in a christian's ceremony. You'd be able to hear the shrieking and howling in Bangladesh.

Legally? How much performing the marriage is a part of his job is questionable. He's paid to conduct trials and issue court orders, but conduct marriages. I really don't know what his employment contract looks like. That might be purely optional for him.

In terms of outrage? I'm outraged, or I would be if repeated instances of this sort of crap hadn't reduced me to a baseline Eeyore-like state of "oh, these bigots again".

In terms of public outrage? Fuck no. This is Kentucky we're talking about. If anything, people are likely to be outraged that he's willing to perform the service for atheists even WITH the god-language in it.

And if he took the god-language out and refused to put it in for Christians... legally, that's a lot LESS problematic than refusing to take it out for atheists. There's no element of the marriage service that requires mention of a god, and non-mention is a neutral stance. If his service stated that there was no god, Christians might have ground for complaint, but simply not mentioning a god doesn't cross the line.

But yes, Christians would be outraged. It's the fucking Bible Belt. Being outraged that someone dares to not believe their religion and practice it the way they demand it be practiced is pretty much what the Bible Belt does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 04:27 AM)Ace Wrote:  here we go again

we need outrage here
I don't have a problem with it.
The guy is acting as a celebrant, and he doesn't want to perform a wedding without "god" mentioned in it.
It's his choice. You can't make him perform his celebrant duties saying ONLY the words you want him to say.
Get yourself some other celebrant. FFS.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
17-07-2016, 08:36 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
(17-07-2016 01:46 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Legally? How much performing the marriage is a part of his job is questionable. He's paid to conduct trials and issue court orders, but conduct marriages. I really don't know what his employment contract looks like. That might be purely optional for him.

Do airline pilots really need to know how to land and take off? They spend so much of their time at cruising altitude...

He's the only secular gig in town. So either he or Kentucky, probably both, isn't providing proper coverage and should have their asses kicked.

Quote:But yes, Christians would be outraged.

You'd be able to hear their little heads popping for miles around.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
17-07-2016, 10:39 PM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
[Image: 59885980.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2016, 01:00 AM
RE: Kentucky Official Refuses To Marry Atheist Couple
Oh look the new Kim Davis. Yippie!, what?, you think just because she did it that you could as well? You haven't earned what she's earned buddy! Also, because it already happened no one cares anymore and won't pay attention to you.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: