Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in thei at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by winston53660 Why should they have to? They are legal tax paying citizens engaged in a legal activity. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 11:11 AM
zoriolus's Avatar
Banjo qd
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,104
Thanks: 3,032
Thanked 2,222 Times in 1,540 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
Why should they have to? They are legal tax paying citizens engaged in a legal activity.

I just thought it would be kind of "friendly".
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zoriolus For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 11:12 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,131
Thanks: 9,704
Thanked 8,027 Times in 4,773 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Once again, this leads us into the current quagmire mess that is religion, the state, and officiants. If we allow religious ministers to not officiate a wedding they disapprove of, why not a judge as well? Who are we to decide what is religious or not here? When the state lets religious ministers serve as officiants, but yet allows them to discriminate, why shouldn't a judge get to do the same? This is all yet more evidence of how having the state and religion mingled on the issue of marriage is a mess. Get the state out of marriage altogether.
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 11:17 AM
winston53660's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,229
Thanks: 1,853
Thanked 4,274 Times in 3,197 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoriolus View Post
I just thought it would be kind of "friendly".
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to winston53660 For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 01:58 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Once again, this leads us into the current quagmire mess that is religion, the state, and officiants. If we allow religious ministers to not officiate a wedding they disapprove of, why not a judge as well? Who are we to decide what is religious or not here? When the state lets religious ministers serve as officiants, but yet allows them to discriminate, why shouldn't a judge get to do the same?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
This is all yet more evidence of how having the state and religion mingled on the issue of marriage is a mess. Get the state out of marriage altogether.
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat View Post
It is still religious objection, so yes. The judge is being consistent with his values.
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
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.

What he said...
__________________
ďLabor 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.Ē
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 07-17-2016 at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 02:40 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,589 Times in 1,079 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Because ministers may act as "officiants"
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???
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 02:51 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,589 Times in 1,079 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
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.
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 fiancť 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???

Last edited by Joe Shoe; 07-17-2016 at 03:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joe Shoe For This Useful Post:
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 03:06 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Post Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
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.
I welcome you to point out anywhere where I denied this.
Hint: I never did.
__________________
ďLabor 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.Ē
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 03:09 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,589 Times in 1,079 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I welcome you to point out anywhere where I denied this.
Hint: I never did.
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???
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 03:13 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,608
Thanks: 10,108
Thanked 15,284 Times in 9,267 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Did I ever say you ever 'DENIED' it? That's different than whether or not you ever admitted it.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
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?
__________________
ďLabor 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.Ē
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2016, 05:07 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,131
Thanks: 9,704
Thanked 8,027 Times in 4,773 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky judge refuses to marry atheist couple because they donít mention God in

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
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 fiancť were both non-religious, they didnít 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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
atheist, because, couple, donít, god, judge, kentucky, marry, mention, refuses, thei, they

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0