I just thought it would be kind of "friendly".

Simple. A judge is a public official, paid by the public. All the public.

A religious leader is a religious leader. Paid by the congregation. There is a difference.

Or the Judge could be "kind of friendly" and do his duties.

__________________
Originally Posted by TiredRetired View Post
Damn shame it couldn't have been a father / son event. IMHO.

Because ministers may act as "officiants", but they are not government employees. They are not a government representative.
A judge is serving and proclaiming they will judge impartially. A government employee and government representative.


Throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But you fail to recognize that your solution doesn't even address the underlying problem.
If we proclaim the above is a problem (when it isn't ), does removing marriage from governmental involvement really FIX the problem.
Because there are other governmental actions as well. Other actions that a religious governmental employee can proclaim goes against their religion.
So we've eliminated one thing from the mix, but there are still OTHER things in the mix.

What about the government employee who doesn't want to serve a woman at the DMV for religious reasons?


Judges aren't employed to be "consistent" with their values.
They're employed to uphold the constitution.

Would you say the same thing if a Muslim judge was consistent with their interpretation of Muslim values?



What he said...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

At least you're now admitting finally that ministers DO act as officiants of the state, and that THAT in fact is how it works ...
I'll remember this for future discussions.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

You're missing the issue here.
The judge was willing to do the ceremony--it was the couple that refused it because the judge always mentions GOD in his ceremonies.

Kentucky Judge Refuses to Conduct Secular Wedding Ceremony for Couple

"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."

There is every reason to believe that the judge would have indeed done it if they hadn't been so hung up on the wording. The issue here is REALLY about whether a judge has to abide by every single aspect of wording of those wanting to get married.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

I welcome you to point out anywhere where I denied this.
Hint: I never did.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Did I ever say you ever 'DENIED' it? That's different than whether or not you ever admitted it.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Shoe At least you're now admitting finally that ministers DO act as officiants of the state, and that THAT in fact is how it works ... I'll remember this for future discussions.

Intimating that I was denying it. Otherwise, your comments are boring and meaningless.


But to throw your tactic back at you...

At least you're now admitting finally that I never said that ministers don't act as officiants of the state, ...
I'll remember this for future discussions.

See how stupid these tactics of yours are?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

No, you're missing the issue. Mentioning God by a government official in his official capacity or denying services based on any religious preference is a violation of the first amendment. It was the judge that was hung up on the wording. The judge does not have to abide by the couples preference, but he does have to abide by the law.

An anecdote and a possible solution. My first marriage took place in Heidelberg, Germany. Two ceremonies. The first by the German government. That's the only one that legally mattered. The second by a military chaplain. For show only, but a certificate was issued. The Germans didn't give a crap about this one. But it made the parents feel better.