The overall objections to same-sex marriage were based upon religious beliefs where the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. There were no secular objections to same-sex marriage, only religious objections.

__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.

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

And I commend you for that.
But what you give still needs to be pertinent and relevant. The example of the Roy Moore case doesn't fit here, because that was one religion over ANOTHER. There is no competition here between two religions, or one religion being chosen over other religions. There is simply the utterance of the word "god" in this case--when we're to the point where the very mention of a word that is all in government as the least 'religious' and watered down term is considered by some to be an "establishment of religion", we've gone off the deep end, frankly. The Declaration of Independence mentions "Nature's God" and our "Creator". By this ridiculous standard you guys are pushing, we should nullify THAT too.

You aren't actually serious with this argument, are you??? Please tell me you're not. What polytheistic religions do you think are seriously even a noteworthy thing, out there in the U.S., Foundit?

But that was the flak over the Roy Moore case--I'm just addressing YOUR example. The arguments over that were that he could not favor one religion over others, such as Muslims.

No, I don't think we can conclude that. As I've pointed out, the word "god" is all in government. It's really not feasible to do this whitewashing you seem to think is called for.

The reason the analogy of the utterance of the word "white" is relevant is that they are both examples of ridiculous OVERREACH and whitewashing. Getting hung up over the word "god" in a govt. event is, frankly, stupid. There's no other way to put it. There are so many examples in govt. events from prayers to govt. documents, that it's just a silly concern. No one is harmed by it. There are indeed REAL examples of religion being an intrusion and govt. going too far with it that should be addressed, but this sure isn't one.

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

And so is this.
The judge is demonstrating exclusive preference for mono-theistic religion over the exclusion of atheist views.

Again, remember the first amendment talks about "establishment of religion".
Not preference for any specific religion.
THINK about the fact that they made the terminology vague enough so that "I don't prefer an individual religion" is not a defense.






Getting back to the fact that we're only asking for THE ONE ATHEIST WEDDING.

The thing you don't seem to grasp is that for many situations there are concepts of SHARING PUBLIC SPACE which allows people to have their religion represented, but no religious view is excluded.
For example, prayer before Congress. Pastors get invited. Rabbis get invited. Muslim clerics get invited.
This satisfies the first amendment because no religion is denied. No preference is shown.

But what you're doing is establishing a preference for a monotheistic approach while denying all other representations.
And that's where this fails the simple smell test.


Your personal opinion condemnation is your own personal opinion.
The government is not allowed to have such a position.

And you're overlooking the actual example in front of you.
Monotheism vs atheism.


Considering you just tried to throw out the "you aren't actually serious with this argument" comment, it's rather obvious you are NOT addressing my example.

The fact that Roy Moore violated by favoring ONE RELIGION does not mean that isn't a subset of what I am talking about...
Favoring one religion is a popular violation.
It's not the only violation.


So, because apple, you claim can't be orange.

The fact that "god" is mentioned in government does not repudiate the first amendment. There have been a variety of recognized exceptions granted to the law including historicity of the monument.

Allowance for ALL presences (excluding NONE) is also a tenant of the first amendment recognition.

For example:

The depiction referred to here is a sculpture entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Hermon A. McNeil, which appears on the eastern pediment of the Supreme Court building. (The eastern pediment is the back of the Supreme Court building, so this sculpture is not something one would see "walking up the steps to the building which houses the Supreme Court." The front entrance is on the western side.) The sculpture was intended to be a symbolic representation of three of the Eastern civilizations from which our laws were derived, personified by the figures of three great lawgivers: Moses, Confucius, and Solon (surrounded by several allegorical figures representing a variety of legal themes)

Religious Symbols in the U.S. National Capital : snopes.com

If it's a PERSONAL choice / PERSONAL representation, then it may be allowed.
But what you need to get is that EXCLUDING one religious view while ALLOWING another religious view is a no-no.


Your replies are stupid. At this stage I'm simply repeating stuff I already said that you aren't addressing.

NOBODY is saying that all mentions of "god" from this judge have to stop.
The atheist couple are having vows for their wedding. This approach of yours is like mandating an atheist swear in on a bible he doesn't believe in.
Which is stupid and actually something we wouldn't want.
Swearing to a deity that you don't believe in is a meaningless oath. Allow them to have an oath that actually MEANS SOMETHING to them.

That's all that's being done here for THEIR wedding. Not anybody else's...

__________________
“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

So then you should be happy if a judge, instead of saying "God" says "God, or Gods, or Nature, unless there are no Gods" as his phrase, at an atheist ceremony. Because THAT meets every criteria you've put forward so far. It covers monotheism, polytheism, and atheism. But you and I both know you won't be happy with that, because the real issue is that you're just hung up over the word "God."

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

bold emphasis was added by me...

Joe, why do you say specifically "at an atheist ceremony"?
Shouldn't that be the phrase for EVERY ceremony then? Unless you're just trying to pull some sophomoric crap on specifically and solely atheists...
That wouldn't be your real goal, would it Joe???


For a couple that believes in God, just say God.
For a couple that believes in Gods, just say God.
For a couple that doesn't believe in God, don't mention God.

When an atheist swears into court, they don't pull some nonsense like you just threw out there.
Example:

"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

No. It really doesn't.
I have repeatedly stated it's their wedding, and as such just leave a reference to God out of it, per their choice.
Like, for a couple that believes in God and wants the reference, let them have that.


Your approach is just absurd.
But let's take your approach to its absurd conclusion.

Let's require the exact same phrase be used in every wedding.
So, Christians who were okay with the previous reference to God now have to sit through the nonsense you just threw out there...
Do you think anybody would complain?

And to just put this in context, Christianity had some people byatch and moan because some companies chose to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
The same religion that brought us that stupid "Starbucks Red Cups" complaint.
Ergo, it's rather obvious Christians wouldn't accept this nonsensical approach you concocted.
So why should atheists.


For anybody who wants that phrase, then that's their prerogative.
I find Joe's approach needlessly politically correct applied to all.
But his phrasing indicates he wants this JUST applied "at an atheist ceremony", which exposes his true motivation...

################################################## ########################
################################################## ########################

On another note, on separation of church and state situations, sometimes people propose that we could just allow an equal diversity approach.
For the governmental segment...
Allow the Christians their action. And we'll also allow the Jew his similar action. And also allow the Buddhist his similar action.

And I think it works for some examples.
For other examples, it's a b.s. pipe dream because equality is not allowed.
There was an example in Florida where Christian material was allowed to be distributed.
Another religion popped up and also wanted to be able to do the same thing? Nope! Denied!
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/featu...210-story.html

Here, NOBODY is asking for all mention of God to be removed from ALL of the judge's officiations.
Just the one.
And like in the above example, those guys who refuse an equality approach?
You just may find that results in the religious action being removed for all...

__________________
“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

I'd be fine with that if you all would leave it at ASKING people to do that rather than FORCING them to. So don't pretend your position is just one of being polite ... You want to legally force people from using the "G" word, not just hope they won't. And the irony is that if you WOULD just ask people nicely instead of turning everything into a lawsuit, you might find you'd catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ...

Why? Nobody but you atheists are filing lawsuits and whining about it.

Well duh .... it's an atheist CASE. Why wouldn't that be what I'm talking about? Geez, sometimes your points are just inane.

Your position here is naively over-simplistic. You don't take into account that such rulings set a precedent and therefore they RARELY EVER stop at "just the one" case, this one. And stop pretending you're just out for the good of the atheist couple. No one in their right mind here thinks that's really what you're about with this obsession over the "G" word.

Oh there's no doubt that's what your side is trying to move things toward. But the idea it's Christians' fault (your implication here) is just absurd.

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

It's the government.
It's required to be secular. At the very least equal in matters of religion.
You whining about "force" when an employee of the government doesn't want to abide by the constitution is irrelevant.


This is a grotesquely inadequate description of my position.
I have no problem with the judge using the word "God" for marrying couples who WANT God mentioned.

It's the fact that he refuses to abstain when he has an atheist marrying couple.


Who do you think you're kidding with this crap?
He was asked nicely.
He refused.
THEN it turned into something else.


And thus you reveal your motives are actually to vex atheists...

The "why" is because the government is required to be equal in matters of religion.


Don't play dumb.
You've given an absurdly generic phrase that suits all religious situations.
But now you want to turn around and pretend that the reason you only want to apply that generic religious phrase to the atheist wedding is because it's an atheist case???


Come on Joe.
As if people can't smell what you're trying to pull here.


No. I'm being accurate.


Who said anything about a "ruling" Joe?
The stupid thing is you and the judge would force it to a ruling.

The rest of us who have spoken up do not want to limit the non-atheist situations.
But you want to act stubborn and then whine about the outcome of your stubbornness???



Joe.
Stop pretending you're plural.
You are the only one here who thinks this judge has a legitimate argument.
MULTIPLE PEOPLE have pointed out the flaw in your approach.

And you keep trying to pretend this is about an "obsession over the 'G' word".
YOU ARE THE ONE obsessed with it. So obsessed that you can't imagine letting go of it for one atheist wedding.

Like I said. I do not want other non-atheist wedding to be changed out of this.
Whether or not you can comprehend that fact is your own failure.



A compromise is proposed by the atheists.
You refuse for one wedding to abstain from mentioning God.

And you think it's the atheist's fault?
ROFLMAO!

Like I said,
Here, NOBODY is asking for all mention of God to be removed from ALL of the judge's officiations.
Just the one.
And like in the above example, those guys who refuse an equality approach?
You just may find that results in the religious action being removed for all...

__________________
“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