Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

Atheist Group Sues Indiana, Demanding Right to Have ‘Secular Celebrants’ Legally Marry Non-Believers

Oct. 25, 2012 11:47am Billy Hallowell

Atheists are suing the state of Indiana, claiming that the state’s current regulations governing nuptials are discriminatory. The Center for Inquiry (CFI), a New York-based secular group, claims that the state’s marriage statute is unconstitutional, as it forbids atheists and non-believers from being married by their own, chosen leaders.

CFI has filed a lawsuit, through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), claiming that Indiana’s marriage law (Indiana Code 31-11-6-1) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, FOX News reports. At the center of the debate are John Kiel and Michelle Landrum, a non-believing couple hoping to marry in the next six months.

Center for Inquiry Sues for Right of Secular Celebrants to Marry Atheists

Photo Credit: AP

The organization is known for training individuals in how to be “secular celebrants” (individuals who are atheists, but who wish to perform weddings for non-believers). A description of the program on the CFI web site reads, “The Center for Inquiry has created a Secular Celebrant Program to train and certify secular celebrants to perform weddings, memorials, and other ‘milestones of life’ ceremonies.”

Here’s more from the organization’s web site (the group admits the program is a chance to sue communities that restrict its right to marry non-believers):

Persons who are not affiliated with any religion constitute 16% of the US population. Unfortunately, the choice of persons to conduct ceremonies for marriages, same sex commitments, memorials, and other rites of passage is usually between religious clergy and civil officials.

For a nonreligious person this can be a traumatic experience. They may be required to go through religious counseling and/or have religious references in their ceremony. They may be prevented from having their choice of music or readings as part of the ceremony. The local minister called on to conduct a funeral/memorial may preach a “come to Jesus” sermon or otherwise use religious references that are not in keeping with the worldview of the person being memorialized. Many of us have seen this done.

Additionally, civil officials are usually not available to do marriage ceremonies at the place and time of the couple’s choosing, but only in a government setting such as an office or the courthouse. Furthermore, these officials are typically personally unknown to the couple. Wedding ceremonies, memorials, and other life passages are extremely important events – they are life’s milestones – and people should be able to have these ceremonies conducted in a manner and by a person of their choosing.

The lawsuit that was filed explains the group’s goals in detail.

“The Center for Inquiry-Indiana has members in Indiana who would like to be married by a person who has completed the secular celebrant program and is therefore authorized by the Center for Inquiry-Indiana to solemnize marriages,” the complaint reads. “Additionally, non-members have requested that secular celebrants perform their weddings because the non-members do not desire to have religious weddings, but wish to have meaningful secular ceremonies.”

Here’s a copy of the Indiana statute (see a larger version here):

Photo Credit: Indiana State Government

According to Indiana state law, marriages must be conducted by clergy or government officials. This, of course, is commonplace, as secular people may choose to have a mayor, judge or other registered professional marry them. Just the same, religious individuals typically select their local faith leaders to do the same.

But because the law doesn’t provide a distinction (it names specific faiths) for atheists and secularists (i.e. “secular celebrants”) or any individual, for that matter, who’s ability to marry is based upon non-belief, CFI is suing. It should be noted, though, that if CFI is considered a “religious” group, then it would surely be permitted to marry. Indiana Public Media further explains the way the state’s marriage law works:

Under Indiana statute, marriage is essentially a two-step process. The state issues a marriage license and then it is solemnized. The state’s marriage statute spells out who can solemnize, including religious organizations and some elected officials.

Solicitor General Thomas Fisher says the purpose of the statute is for the state to regulate marriage while accommodating religious groups and providing alternatives for non-religious organizations.

Photo Credit: FILE

Apparently, non-believers aren’t happy with the options they have for officiants — even if the individuals who fit into the current law are, themselves, atheists. Plus, they believe the government is favoring religious people over those who lack belief in a higher power.

Other issues include limitations on the places where marriages may happen and “unwanted governmental overtone,” FOX also reports. However, atheists are also frustrated over a lack of personal connection that they would have to those secular individuals currently available to marry them (this is clearly something that motivates religious’ peoples choice to select faith leaders they know and adore).

Officials are worried that a CFI win would mean that any and all organizations have the right to solemnize weddings — something that is apparently unpalatable. Indiana’s Attorney General’s Office issues a statement on October 9 and shared the document with The Christian Post. In it, the government said that “there is no constitutional right to solemnize marriages.” Here’s more from the document:

“CFI’s relatively short history and organizational indifference to marriage are instructive in this regard, as they demonstrate that CFI has no traditional association with marriage, and no philosophy that incorporates marriage in any significant way,” reads the brief in part.

“With marriage solemnization, the State has chosen to remain sensitive to the traditional practices of groups for whom marriage is a special, indeed commanded, institution-a rationale that does not apply to CFI.”

Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker heard arguments on Monday and proclaimed that she believes the statute is generic enough and, due to its broad religious definition, it would allow CFI to marry members. But the organization maintains that it is not a religious group and purportedly declined to be recognized as such.

The case is ongoing.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (162)

COFemale
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:15pm
So what they are suing for is the ability of an atheist friend to conduct a marriage ceremony and not a “secular” entity who may or may not be atheist at a location of their choosing in front of a non-existent God. Why can’t they get married legally in front of a judge or Justice of the Peace, then just have a mock ceremony using who they want in the location of their choice?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:56pm
  First, they aren’t getting married in front of a God they do not believe exists.
  
  Second, your suggestion (legal marriage first followed by a ceremony) is plausible, and that’s what my wife and I did. The issue is, however, that this creates an additional step for atheists to legally marry that theists do not have to take, and the additional step is created by a hinderance in the law. As the laws governing this are state (government), it creates an appearance of favoring religion over atheism. If you had to go through an extra step to obtain equality before the law based on you being female (for example), you would have a legitimate cause for redress. You don’t have to like the explanation, and I’m quite certain you don’t, but if you’ll step away and view it from that perspective, perhaps it will make better sense… even if it seems silly to you.
  
  Report this comment
- pavepaws
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:23pm
  Somebody has to find out where CFI buys their weed.
  
  Report this comment
- ciminder87
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:29pm
  But there are many government officials who do travel to locations outside the courthouse to perform these kinds of ceremonies. Granted I live in Ohio so this speaks to my own personal experience, but my fiance and I have found an abundance of options from ministers to a Justice of the Peace to perform our wedding ceremony at an old train station!!! To say that there must necessarily be a two-step process for athiests to have a secular ceremony and celebrate with friends and family at a location of their choice is simply not true! There are definitely options available and they aren’t even difficult to coordinate!
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:45pm
  CIMINDER
  
  And if the couple doesn’t know the Judge personally, but wishes to be married by an important person in their life, like Christians have their pastors/priests marry them?
  
  Again, I did exactly what COFEMALE said myself, and I live down south. I’m just offering the perspective.
  
  Report this comment
- dswynne1
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 5:05pm
  @ChrisDiamond: Your perspective is full of crap. The purpose of have a justice of the peace and county clerk is to allow those people with non-religious affiliations to get married. This suit is designed specifically to knock public recognition of religion and religious values. That’s it. And if the CFI were serious about having representation, they can go through the legislative process to gain representation like all other groups have done in the past. So, once again, your perspective is full of crap.
  
  Report this comment
- 1SmartBCon
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 5:40pm
  CHRISDIAMOND
  
  You and the writer of this article make assumptions based on your own biases. I’ve either been present or involved peripherally with about a dozen weddings in the past 15 years – including my own. And in neither ceremony was the couple intimately acquainted with the person officiating the event. My wife and I were married in a judge’s chambers during a break in trial testimony. An atheist is no more likely to be acquainted with a certified celebrant than an unaffiliated believer is to be acquainted with a religious person authorized to perform weddings.
  
  One has to infer from the suit that atheist view religious institutions as mere social organizations. I think that’s a fair interpretation. So if the leader of club A (i.e. pastor, priest, rabbi, etc) can solemnize weddings, why not one from club B? If you follow their logic why can’t a football coach officiate a wedding for one of his players? Why not a police lieutennant for one of her officers? Does the law discriminate against the ball player or officer who believes, but doesn’t attend church regularly? Of course not. Get a justice of the peace, have your secular wedding, and give it a rest.
  
  Report this comment
- rickc34
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:01pm
  How about atheist pastor that believes in nothing perform the marriage. Marriage is a Biblical thing anyway. Non believers have just lived together throughout the ages because the do not believe in sin. No God no sin, because sin is anything outside Gods will.Hypocrites.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 12:46am
  @RICKC34
  
  No, marriage is the name religion gave to the evolutionary advantage of life mating. And we’re not the only species on earth to pair off. Penguins do, Gibbons do, Swans do, French Angelfish, Wolves, etc.
  
  The fact that you believe you’re God recognizes it should not give you preferential treatment in the eyes of the law. I encourage everyone to read @CHRISDIAMOND’s first response. It lays the argument out very neutrally.
  
  And even if you believe some Christians are hindered by this law, that should only serve to strengthen your resolve to remove it. Punching both parties in the arm isn’t solving a problem. Preventing the punch in the first place is the benefit.
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:35am
  Look if you are so ill-educated and stupid as to believe you, who use 1% (if that) of your brains who think you know everything want “WEDDINGS” (“just like everyone else”…uh, but without GOD) , but you don’t want the tiresome step of being married by a legal official – and of course not by anyone stupid enough to believe in GOD… if you are that dumb try to figure this out: HOW are courts in the future when you dopes decide to split apart, going to ascertain you were ‘legally married’ ?
  
  If you can get anyone to marry you by your regulations – you want to have ‘anyone’ YOU select “marry” you are saying that YOU want a different set of rules. HELL, let’s all have our own rules, okay? I’ll drive 95 mph in a 25 mph zone, uh, because I want to do that; I’ll write my own deeds to property I want to own and I won’t have to follow any of the ‘established’ rules…they don’t fit my life style… I mean – why the hell have any rules?? I mean “there are x percent of my types (like 3.4% of Americans as homosexuals) ” Like Alice in Wonderland, why don’t you have UN-Churches, with UN-Preachers and then you can your UN-PREACHERS officiate on UN-Marriages and issue UN-Marriage certificates and then later you can stand before a real JUDGE with your UN-MARRIAGE and try to fight for a REAL DIVORCE. WHO is going to pay for the supervision of your UN-People? STUPID Get married in CITY HALL and then have your own blasted UN-CEREMONY. NO TAX PAYER $$$
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:02am
  @1SMARTBCON
  
  Why can’t football coaches officiate a wedding for their players? They can. All they have to do is become ordained in whichever religion they want, then they are free to marry whomever they choose. The problem is, no such procedure is available for atheists. And they are not seeking to ban all religion by doing this. Atheists are able to become “ordained” in several states already, they just want to have this in Indiana as well. And yes, atheists could just pick a religion and then become ordained, but I’m quite sure several of you would scream bloody murder if Christianity wasn’t an option for “ordainment” or whatever. We’re quite used to the laws discriminating against us in ways like this, but that doesn’t mean we should or have to live with it.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:05am
  @PATTY HENRY
  
  Stop and take a breath. Take your antipsychotics. When you’ve calmed down, go and read the constitution. Then come back and see if you can join in the conversation as a well-read mature adult.
  
  Report this comment
- Favored93
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:37am
  First Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution NOT a secular one! That being said I could care less who or were an atheist couple wants to have a civil union preformed.
  The issue here is NOT whether or not they have the right to have a ceremony those laws are already in place and they know that!
  What is happening here is that the minority wants to make the majority cow to their militant anti God agenda! Adam and Steve can get ALL of the legal benefits now that those of us who are not depraved enjoy … do the Atheists really think they are being mistreated?!?!
  Atheists and homosexuals are the angriest bunch of foolish people in the country! Everything they do comes from the internal knowledge of their own sin and they are angry at the God who gives the rest of us a peace they can’t get on their own.
  The ONLY thing in this story I agree with is that because marriage is a religious institution I say let them get a civil union preformed by whoever or what ever they want wherever they want to have it!
  Marriage belongs to the family of God so in my opinion let the world do what it wants while they can …just don’t call it marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- daveamania
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 5:13pm
  @VOTEBUSHIN12
  
  So if atheist believe their marriage isn’t a Biblical gift from God and that pairing off is nature, then why not just skip the marriage and live together?! When does penguins, gibbons, swans, angelfish and Wolves go to the courthouse to tie the knot? Under your definition are we no different then these animals? I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just want reasoning.
  
  Report this comment
- kmrod
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 7:22pm
  “Why can’t they get married legally in front of a judge or Justice of the Peace, then just have a mock ceremony using who they want in the location of their choice?”
  
  a better question is “why should they have to have a mock ceremony?”
  
  Report this comment
- binge_thinker
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:24pm
  Atheists cannot live consistently with the logical consequences of their worldview. They have to borrow moral capital from the biblical worldview in order to live at peace with themselves and others.
  
  I want to see a truly consistent atheist make a consistent atheistic case to the world. Stand up for true atheism! Tell us that there is no such thing as murder, theft, or rape. These are moral constructs rooted in religion and a belief in an afterlife.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 4:16pm
  @DAVEAMANIA
  
  The reason they want to be married is for the benefits granted therein under the law.
  
  The real discussion shouldn’t be about whether Gays can or cannot be “married”. The discussion should be whether or not the state should recognize, and give benefits to, married couples. If you believe the state SHOULD recognize it, then you must let gays also participate and participate as freely and equally as heterosexuals. There is no way around this.
  
  @BINGE_THINKER
  Rules of governance and morality are not mutually exclusive. If you think nations are better off built and governed according to the “morals” of the bible, then you are for stoning adulterers. Surely you aren’t. So you must realize that biblical morality is not a perfect model. And once you accept this, it’s too large a step to conclude that religion cannot be the sole origin of what we consider morally acceptable because, if it were, then we would not take issue to stoning adultereses.
  
  And, if religion is not the sole origin of morality, then the consistent atheist could easily leave a wholesome, law abiding, and kind life.
  
  QED
  
  Report this comment
- crazy_N_alabama
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 5:34pm
  Because people like atheists and homosexuals and muslims don’t really want “equality” They have that already.What they want, is to make us “accept” them and not only accept them but “approve” them whether we like it or not. Its about humiliating our values. Our values serve as a reminder that they have none and that is unacceptable to them. Rather than take on morals and values themselves, they seek to undermine and abolish ours. This is why it is important to speak out against people like this, because “evil prevails when good men do nothing….”(not my quote)
  
  Report this comment
- Al J Zira
  Posted on October 28, 2012 at 10:28pm
  If you think nations are better off built and governed according to the “morals” of the bible, then you are for stoning adulterers. Surely you aren’t.
  
  Always love when people make an argument like this, their complete lack of understanding of the bible is amazing.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 12:52am
  @AL J ZIRA
  
  I’ve read the Bible cover to cover. OT, NT, Kuran. (Know your enemy). If there’s one thing I understand, it’s what the Bible says.
  
  Please tell me what God meant when he said,
  “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10
  
  How am I “missing the point” on this one? Please tell me your interpretation of this commandment.
  
  Report this comment
- cptenn94
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 1:32am
  “If you think nations are better off built and governed according to the “morals” of the bible, then you are for stoning adulterers. Surely you aren’t.
  
  Always love when people make an argument like this, their complete lack of understanding of the bible is amazing.”
  I know right…just because something was done it Gods name before doesnt make what they did right…
  the people who know the bible know that it teaches love all be generous kind and treat all people with love….that “he who hath not sinned cast the first stone”….to remain commited to people etc….the list goes on and on about good things and treating people correctly and removeing the things from you life that make you do wrong….but nope they ignore all that stuff and just use the typical arguement of
  of your example
  If you think nations are better off built and governed according to the “morals” of the bible, then you are for stoning adulterers. ”
  
  to bad some of them are so blind that if you said that you were religious and then told them they were loterally in flames they would boil, not believeing you….i have made good well founded arguements to people before and then somewhere i mentioned Jesus or something and then they were like i agreed with you until you said Jesus then i i stopped reading and knew you were just saying bs…
  (basically they might agree fully but then if you say religion they automatically disagree just hearing anything religion based even if its only a
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 9:49am
  Yes, I would be for stoning adulterers if I were a Jew during the Exodus living in the Jewish theocracy 3700 years ago all the way up until the time of Christ. Then the New Testament period grace began after Messiah came. Then I would be (and am) against adultery but not for the death penalty as God will judge them.
  
  You people need to learn Old Testament and New Testament theology. By the way, you can tell God what a bigot He is come judgment day. Although, I think you’ll be too busy dealing with your own sin.
  
  Also, God did command the stoning of adulterers in Leviticus. Don’t water down the Bible to try to appease an infidel. But Jesus ended the law when He came. He did not end God’s hatred for adultery though. They (unbelievers) deliberately take these verses out of context or are just plain ignorant.
  
  Here’s a novel idea, don’t commit adultery.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 2:43pm
  You guys are just too much.
  
  This is the issue I have with Religion. On one hand you take the bible verbatim and literal, and take no issue quoting lessons from the OT when it suits your purpose (gays), but the second someone says “well what about two lines down when it says thus” you immediately fall back to the “well that’s not what God meant” or “that law doesn’t apply anymore, jesus said so”.
  
  You know what MOST people call something that contradicts itself… *********. But you guys take blind faith at its meaning and are literally blinded by your faith.
  
  Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:05pm
I am sorry but can’t they arrange to pay a little extra to a judge or justice of the peace to perform the ceremony outside of the courthouse? I am sure some judges would accommodate that request. Of course, they may not be atheist, but the ceremony is secular in nature.

How do you ordain a atheist?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- johnjamison
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:23pm
  How about the government just get out of the marriage business altogether. They never belonged there in the first place. Get out of the divorse business as well. Marriage both religious and non religious union is an agreement between to partners not two partners and the government.
  Fact is marriage is a religious ceremony that transcends all religion and the first amendment guarantees protect from government officals and regulations in marriage.
  Get the government out of two or more consending adults private lives and let liberty ring freely. Remove all tax loopholes as well.
  
  Report this comment
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:42pm
  JohnJamison, you are making entirely too much sense. How dare you?
  
  Report this comment
- Hanner
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 8:02pm
  Atheists get married………God’s will.
  Atheists show love for each other……God’s will.
  Atheists raise children and love them……God’s will.
  Atheists help people in need……God’s will.
  Atheists work…..God’s will.
  Atheists pay their bills…..God’s will.
  Atheists want to perform God Ordained marriage…..COOL!!
  These Atheists actually do more to obey a God that they don’t believe in.
  I don’t really see the point of their argument. Other than stupidity.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 9:16pm
  I agree John.
  
  Government shouldn’t recognize marriages.
  
  They should only recognize civil unions.
  
  Report this comment
- sacwoodpusher
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 6:43am
  I think that, over time, the states should get out of the marriage business. I want to see states in the civil union business, enforcing a contract between 2 people that also includes protection of children of that union. Then, people can go out and get “married” by any organization they want to. Let’s render unto Cesaer what is Cesaer’s, and render unto God what is God’s.
  
  Report this comment
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:11am
  @SACWOODPUSHER
  
  I’d agree, except the places with civil unions have shown us that when two people have a civil union instead of a marriage, they are not treated the same even though they should have the same rights. And not just treated unequally by society, by government, by hospitals, etc. If they could prove that they would be equal, then that would be an option. At the moment it isn’t though.
  
  Report this comment
An_American_Thinker
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 1:35pm
This suit should be dismissed; it is wrong on more than one level. This group is fighting to “have their cake and eat it, too.” They don’t want a religious ceremony, but do want it to be “solemnized.” What they’re also asking for is to force religious entities to perform ceremonies that they many not agree with. While they’re using the separation clause to support their argument, it applies more to a reason to deny their case.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Max jones
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 1:58pm
  Just another example of anti-christian/anti-god passive aggressive, culture creep.
  For this cause will God send upon them a great delusion, that they should believe a lie….”
  The ’cause’ is to get proglibs exposed for what they are; murderous anti-Christians.
  Somehow, these people are going to get organized, and really start to believe the great evils in their undisciplined lives, are actually caused by Christians…..like homosexuality would magically not be deviant if Christian people would not point out that God, himself, called it an abomination….or that abortion would not be murder if Christians would not maintain conception as the start of human beings. I did not say these people are deluded, God does, and takes responsibility for it.
  Atheism has been used as a political tool, in this country. I don’t care if they marry or not, I’m just against anything that pushes God farther into the background. Any way, what’s wrong with a justice of the peace? That’s not secular enough?
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:52pm
  THINKER
  No one has asked a religious entity to perform a ceremony that they don’t agree with, hence the need for an alternative to the clergy. COFEMALE makes a plausible argument above, but misses that this creates another step in the marriage process that theists do not have to go through. As to the separation clause, it seems to me that government should get out of marriage altogether. Afterall, the solicitor general said “… so the state can regulate marriage…” What authority does the state have to ‘regulate’ two people’s commitment to each other, aside from using it as another revenue stream?
  
  MAX
  Your assertion that atheists are ‘murderous’ is such a broad and nasty generalization as to not merit any consideration whatsoever. You go on to errantly assume that we are undisciplined… based on what? Our audacity to disagree with you?
  
  I agree that atheism, like religiosity has been used as a political tool in this country. You are against anything the pushes God farther to the background, but does this mean that the federal government should sponsor or proclaim the same theistic beliefs you do? That it should legislate as you believe only? Is it fair of you to impose your religion and morals on me through the force of law? Would I have the right to disagree (and disobey) if I find the laws written according to your morals and faith repugnant?
  
  Where the hell is any commitment to liberty here?
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 4:47pm
  Your comment should be dismissed; it is wrong on more than one level. This group is in no way attempting to force religious entities to perform ceremonies that they may not agree with.
  
  Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 1:35pm
Not to stick up for atheists but it doesn’t appear to me what they are suing for will change the definition of marriage or threaten it’s sanctity in any way. Aren’t they suing for authorized secular celebrants other than a religious or government official, judge or magistrate, and a say in the location of the wedding other than in a church, temple, courthouse or government building?

I’ve attended several weddings that took place in a park or at someone’s home and one was even officiated by someone who got their license on the Internet. Aren’t they asking to make such a wedding in Indiana also official?

I don’t have a problem with that. Am I missing something?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chatikh
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 10:18am
  Yeah, basically an atheist couple wants to get married. They could hire a judge, but it could either be more convenient or preferable to those getting married to have a friend or family member ordain the wedding. Like the bride wants her father to officiate it, but all three are atheists so the father doesn’t have an option that matches their beliefs or lack-thereof. It’s also convenient since all you would have to do is take a class on the internet and then poof, you’re an atheist ordained person. It’s already like that with other religions, and this option for atheists already exists in other states. Atheists really aren’t trying to change how Christians get married whatsoever.
  
  Thanks for your open-mindedness.
  Chatikh
  
  Report this comment
ciminder87
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 1:00pm
This is absolutely absurd! I’m a Christian currently planning a wedding, but I’m not getting married in a church, and I’ve not once had anyone enforce any regulations as to the type of ceremony I can or cannot have at my venue. Granted, we plan on being married by a minister and including several sacred traditions in our ceremony structure. However, we have actively made the choice to include other non- religious elements (including secular music and non-biblical readings) because we feel they speak more to our relationship and our commitment to each other than some of the more traditionally Christian elements. The only time I have ever heard of any restrictions being imposed regarding a wedding ceremony have happened with weddings that take place in a religious institution (which I assume athiests would avoid to start with!) Anybody who has spent hours planning the “perfect” wedding should know that there are about a million different options available, many of which allow for the complete avoidance of references to any religion! In my eyes this is just a sad excuse for people to force their point of view upon the rest of us and demonize religious individuals.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
iceblast
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:52pm
I’m sure Atheists don’t won’t to be married in a Church. They don’t want anything to do with God. So, they can get married anywhere, just like anyone else. Except, they can have anyone marry them. They don’t need a man of God.

Or are Atheists saying, they want to be married in a Church, but you have to remove anything Religious from the building?

Everyone has the Right, right now, to be married in anyway they want. The Captain of a ship could marry them. If they get married in a Church, it’s their own fault. If they use a Priest it’s their own fault. No one is forcing them to marry using anything they disbelieve in.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 4kidsandacat
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 12:16pm
  I absolutely agree. I have no idea what this argument is about. I would submit that a lot of people are married in religious ceremonies that also don’t have more than a passing acquaintance with the minister or priest or rabbi or other religious official performing it. And if it’s about having something formal in an attractive location, then why wouldn’t you be able to get a justice of the peace to come to the location of your choosing and perform the service? This is seriously making a mountain out of a molehill. Like taking “In God We trust” off the money (really do you look at your money that closely that it offends you?). The ceremony is one day out of your whole married life. I think we as a society put altogether TOO MUCH EMPHASIS on what happens on that one day and not enough on the rest. No wonder our divorce rate is so staggering.
  
  Report this comment
drphil69
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:39pm
Uhh, isn’t a Justice of the Peace able to perform marriage ceremonies? And isn’t that secular?

So they already have a choice, WTF is their problem?

Oh, right, their agenda is to bankrupt every state and the whole nation with lawsuits… and then?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 2:31am
  “civil officials are usually not available to do marriage ceremonies at the place and time of the couple’s choosing, but only in a government setting such as an office or the courthouse.” — so says the article
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:19pm
“For a nonreligious person this can be a traumatic experience. ”

I cry myself to sleep every single night over the trauma inflicted upon atheists.

All the radical activist groups are operating at a fever pitch now because they
know their messiah is going down in a huge fireball of a crash.
We need to pass legislation that prevents lawsuits filed for harrassment purposes
and forces the plaintiffs to shoulder 100% of the cost.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:30pm
  You could create a drinking game by taking a sip every time your see “Atheists sue….” in the news.
  
  Report this comment
- Max jones
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:01pm
  Me too. I do really. both of my younger brothers are way out there….
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:09pm
  That is what Jeff Lewis did at Jenny’s wedding on Flipping Out. Everytime someone mentioned God, as Jennie is Greek Orthodox, Jeff took a sip of alcohol. After about 15 minutes he was nearly plastered as he put it.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 10:05am
  That would be because God instituted marriage. In fact, God created and sanctified 3 institutions, marriage, government and the church. In that order. Marriage is a symbol of Christ’s relationship with the church. Christ is the husband and the church is the bride. That is the main reason Christians are against gay “marriage”. It is a blasphemous mockery of that relationship.
  
  As an American, I think if two consenting adults want to have some legal commitment to each other then fine. It’s a free country. People make legal contracts all the time and power of attorney. But it’s not marriage and should not be equated with marriage. I believe they only want to call it “marriage” out of their wicked desire to mock God.
  
  Report this comment
DeavonReye
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:19pm
Not really following what is behind this story. . . . . and am not sure what even to say about it. Not sure why atheists would want a ceremony in a church setting. Maybe I’m missing something.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- momrules
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:22pm
  Agree Deavonreye, that’s why I didn’t comment on it either.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:30pm
  Hey, Momrules! We agree on something! hehehe :-)
  
  Report this comment
- momrules
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 1:00pm
  Hey, it’s a start!………..smiling………
  
  Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:18pm
I guess we are eventually going to have to round up all atheists and send them to the ‘camps’. They have gone crazy and we do not need their stupidity mucking up a good country. Send them to the camps with the communists we will send there eventually. They should get along.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AndYetItMoves
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:29pm
  I’m sure you’re already aware of this, but I can’t imagine how painful it must be to hate and fear atheists as you do and be reminded many times every day that they essentially have a monopoly on basic intelligence when faced with the masses of religious believers in this country. Don’t take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
  
  The reference to concentration camps is interesting. I’ve noticed that this kind of thing often passes for edgy humor in the trailer park, but who knows? Perhaps you really do want to see all atheists and communists killed, the religious believer will never lack justification for his murderous impulses.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:28pm
  Funny, CARNAC… A Catholic named Hitler had a similar thought about the Jews.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:40pm
  Andy – Yet it’s you atheists who have killed more people than any religion has.
  
  Report this comment
- binge_thinker
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:36pm
  Andy, andy, andy…time to get a clue.
  
  Is it any wonder that the atheistic regimes of Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Pol Pot— devoid as they were of any significant Christian influence— were responsible for the mass murder of over 100 million people in their quest for dominance, more lives destroyed than in all of the religious wars in the history of the human race? These regimes were not discordant with an atheistic basis of morality; they were consistent with it.”
  …….Chad Meister, Ph.D. professor of philosophy
  
  Report this comment
- The_Knower
  Posted on October 27, 2012 at 10:00am
  @Binge
  
  Um, I don’t remember their atheism influencing their behavior. I don’t remember Stalin saying, “In the name of my grand Atheism, I will slaughter those who oppose me!” In fact, I was made aware that their atheism really didn’t factor into any of their decision making. It was mostly their greed for power over their respective peoples that caused them to do the things they did. Can you show me where their atheism caused them to do the things they did? I can’t understand how. I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God. That’s it. No murderous agenda. No lust for power. I just don’t believe in God. How do you get from that to the complex social reforms that Lenin, Stalin, and Mao implemented?
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 5:58pm
  Hitler ?
  So far as we know, Adolf Hitler was validly baptized in the Catholic Church. That means he was a Catholic. Baptism is, literally, a new birth that makes the person a Christian in his very being, no matter how well or how poorly he lives out his faith. Just as physical conception means that a person will always be a human person with inherent human dignity, no matter how detestable the crimes he may choose to commit, so a baptized person, no matter how evil he becomes, remains a Christian. In Hitler’s case though, and in the cases of those Christians who also entirely abandon the faith into which they were baptized, it can be said that they no longer believe in Christianity and that their theological beliefs cannot be considered Christian. If they completely abandon their Christian faith, then they are apostates (cf. CCC 2089), though objectively they remain among the baptized.
  
  I’ll let someone else address the once saved always saved issue
  
  Report this comment
- binge_thinker
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 11:38pm
  @ Knower
  Do a little research.
  This hostility or indifference toward Christianity in Europe, and especially in Germany, led naturally to a profound anti-Christian sentiment in Nazi Germany. Nazis, more than most Germans, were indifferent or hostile to Christianity. Hitler originally appeared to just ignore Christianity. Dark and Essex write in their 1938 book that Mein Kampf has few passages which in any way refer to religion, none that refer to Hitler’s own personal religion, or to the teaching of the Bible, nor any branch of Christian teaching. Jacob Marcus in his 1934 book by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations notes that “Though his parents were both Catholics, Hitler himself has apparently no interest in any organized religion.” Marcus also has an entire section in his book about Nazi “anti-Christian anti-Semitism.” Rauschning in 1938 wrote
  “The purpose of the National Socialism fight against Christianity is the same: the total destruction of the last and most deep-rooted support of the forces of conservation. The destruction of the spirit of Christianity in Germany is certainly more far-reaching than appears on the surface…Such vestiges of living Christianity as remain are steadily degenerating in the direction of a superficial and unthinking deism” and that ultimate goal as “…the total abolition of Christianity, which is not a mere philosophical fad of the National Socialists but an iron necessity of their system.”
  
  Report this comment
- binge_thinker
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 11:41pm
  Within a year of taking power, Hitler was saying:
  “Christianity was incapable of uniting the Germans, and that only an entirely new world-theory was capable of doing so.”
  
  Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi theoretician, said that there was no place in the Third Reich for Christianity in any form. Christian ceremonies surrounding births, marriages, deaths and other solemnities ceased to be performed by Christian clergy. His ponderous tome, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, not only called for banning crucifixes from churches but also from village streets, and also for banning medieval images of Christ as the Lamb of God. In the training camps of the Nazi Party it was repeatedly stated that National Socialism has three enemies: Judaism, Masonry and Christianity. Martin Bormann hated Christianity even more than most Nazi leaders. Goebbels frequently made fun of Christian morality. Nazis in general considered Christianity a “soul malady,” “foreign” and “unnatural.” Heinrich Himmler despised Christianity and members of the SS had to formally renounce their Christian faith and formally become agnostic in order to become a member of the Schutzstaffel.
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_and_christianity.html
  
  Report this comment
Cincybearcatfan
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:13pm
Marriage is an institution that was created by God. This is the reason that the government should have NEVER gotten involved in a religious practice. Tax breaks are not worth the headache of being dictated to how my faith is to be practiced. Please remove all government incentives to marriage. Separate church and state here. Allow the government to recognize “legally” two people deciding to join financially together and therefore protecting them from each other when they inevitably decide to leave one another but PLEASE get out of my faith. Religion and MARRIAGE is a GOD instituted ceremony. If I were an atheist, I would NOT want to be married. I may want the benefit of taxes, a partner or companionship but why a marriage? Please separate church and state here. The state has no business in my church. Take away my tax breaks for tithing and donating, take away filing my taxes jointly for marriage, just get out of my religious freedom and take your atheists and the ACLU with you. I don’t get married for tax breaks, I don’t tithe to have a write off in April. I married my spouse because God has brought us together and we want the world to see the picture of Jesus and His bride in our life as a testimony for what God has done through Jesus Christ. I tithe to give a portion of all that God already owns back to Him out of obedience to Him. This makes me sick.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:16pm
  Do yuo think people of other faiths can get married or only Christians? Im assuming yuo believe that muslims and hindus worship false gods correct? So their “marriage” is not before God either….so in your eyes they should only be allowed to have a civil service but not call it marriage?
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:37pm
  Doseofstupidity – Ever heard of getting married by the justice of the peace? You hatetheists are some of the dumbest people on the planet. As well as the biggest crybabies.
  
  Report this comment
- GeneSplicer
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 8:01pm
  The state does not recognize marriage as a protected establishment of religion. Quite the contrary. the fact is that marriage is nothing more than a civil contract.
  
  The fact that I can get marriage by simple signing a contract and having no ceremony other than a judge stating “your married” proved that the state see it as nothing to do with any religion.
  
  And to correct you on another point, marriage predated the creation of the xian god and religion. Humans have been conducting such bonding ceremonies as part of human nature, not at the dictate of any god or gods.
  
  What the atheists are fighting for is for the right to have more than a highly limited, and in some and this case undesirable, limited choices to be used.
  
  For the most part, the xian responses here are so typical hate-filled and, more importantly, fear-filled.
  
  And what do religious people do when they are filled with fear? All I have to do is quote one particular fear-filled and cowardly xian poster here:
  
  “thegreatcarnac
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:18pm
  
  I guess we are eventually going to have to round up all atheists and send them to the ‘camps’.”
  
  Really?!
  
  And the fundamentalist Muslim and Pastor Fred Phelps are so much more terrible than you why exactly?
  
  Report this comment
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 8:07am
  Git-R-Done…when did i say that? i wasnt commenting on atheists being forcing churches to marry them. I agree that is silly when there are other options. i was merely commenting on the idioitic post above me that insinuates that only people who belive in the bible should marry. You people seriosuly lack reading comprehension and logic. Thankfully most of you idiot rednecks are far far away from me. I wish we had allowed you had seceded…
  
  Report this comment
BerettaM9
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:11pm
Why do non believers believe in marriage?Ain’t marriage bible fairy tales like they say it is. What a bunch of Hypocrites by wanting to marry each other.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DoseofReality
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:17pm
  Worldwide people have been marrying eachother in virtually every culture, its not just biblical.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:23pm
  DOSE is correct. Moreover, the state uses marriage as another revenue stream (licenses etc), but legal marriage offers tax breaks to the couple. Were it not for this and other legal considerations (wills, guardianship, custody of children, estate planning etc) there would be no need for ‘legal’ marriage. Just because one doesn’t believe in God doesn’t mean they do not wish to commit themselves to one person out of love, respect and a desire to build and share a life together.
  
  Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:09pm
obama’s atheists have really gone off the deep end.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mattmo79
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:07pm
Let’s see they don’t believe in god or religion, however they what the ceremony that was long established by religious organizations. Maybe they should just elope to Vegas! Makes more sense!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 1:01pm
  Religions embrace marriage, they don’t own it.
  
  Report this comment
- mattmo79
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 2:40pm
  Marriage is a long established religious ceremony that bonds a couple under god! So my point still is you stupid atheists don’t want god in your life, but want the ceremonies and trappings religions created.
  
  Report this comment
- CRAPGIVER
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 4:30pm
  How long will it take for christians to understand, that glenn beck is not a christian and none of its employees,a mormon is not a christian is a religious person no diferent than a buddist or a catholic, they the mormon and the catholic love to call temselves christians but are just relgious people, which means they follow men instead of following the invisible living god, and that can only be done if the individual has been spiritualy filled with holy spirit otherwise is just a religious person who don’t read the holy bible but goes to church, to lisen to what a man reads of a bible,with out beliving what is says, the 12 deciples were tought by christ the ways of the father, and after jesus left they had no need to go to the synogoge, to learn from any rabi they followed christ exemple and preached the message god had gived them wherever they were,no matter if it was by the sea or in the desert,mountains,rivers etc. Now if the religious person don’t have music and have air condition, a nice counftble sit. Won’t go in to hear god’s word. And belive it.So all these articles glenn never tells that the ones doing all this atheist sueing are the jews, because he is a jew lover, and no other group on the face of planet earth hates jesus christ than the aclu. The adl and individual jews who are atheist and willing to wipe out christianity from america, and turn it into another living hell like israel that is what their aim is
  
  Report this comment
- God_Is_Not
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:17pm
  It won’t be long for people like you to claim that religion has rights on all parties, celebrations, presents, charity, and anything else that human beings do with and without religious affiliation. Marriage is not exclusive to religion. Do your research and stop making you and your faith look bad.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 29, 2012 at 6:01pm
  Whoever named CRAPGIVER, got that one right
  
  Report this comment
yougottabekidding
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:05pm
Irrelavent people trying to be relevant

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:16pm
  For being irrelevant, they sure have accomplished a whole lot in destroying our Christian culture.
  
  Report this comment
The Jewish Avenger
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:05pm
16%

Once again, the few wishing to control the many…

Communism anyone?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Pointy_End
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:44pm
  You have hit that nail on the head.
  I see this article as the first of many steps. First they want a secular ceremony at the courthouse, once they get this, then phase two begins and they will scream discrimination and demand to be married in a church, synagog, or temple with THEIR belief system, not the church’s belief system. Thus taking the religious ceremonial marriage rights away from all believers, under the premise that WE religious folks are the discriminators. The gays are trying the same thing, both minorities do not want equal rights, they want superior rights.
  
  Report this comment
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 7:53pm
  Ahem. Please stick to the facts of the story.
  
  Report this comment
AmericanStrega
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:04pm
My husband and I, both Catholic, were married by a County Judge. (We chose to use a Judge simply because we didn’t want a long-drawn-out church wedding and didn’t care about a blessing from a priest. So, we’re not GOOD Catholics, whatever). Our ceremony was written by the judge and included a prayer and the standard vows one would find in a religious ceremony (we approved these prior to the ceremony). My point? Why can’t people not wanting a religious ceremony use a County Judge and request vows as to the couples liking? Also, we chose to be married in a nice city park under a gazebo with a brook and small waterfall next to it. If people of no faith wish to be married without a religious ceremony, they can in any state of the union. Just call a county judge and set up what you want. Oh, it only cost us $100 for the judge and $0.00 for the use of the gazebo at the city park. Or one could just go to Vegas and have “Elvis” conduct the ceremony.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
voting-for-romney
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:04pm
You can dispense with that legal language that is written to intentionally confuse people with the following simple sentence? The state recognizes marriage, a protected establishment of religion, the act of recognition does not interfere with the establishment, unless that recognition alters the establishment in a way that deprives it of its value within that establishment of religion such as redefining the definition of the establishment, or demanding that the establishment follow rules enacted by the state, and the establishment itself?

If atheists were really atheists, then why are they concerned about an establishment of religion, clearly such an establishment is of no value or consequence to them through their own denial?
Clearly political actions by “atheists” against an establishment of religion prove that the motive for such behaviors is but an attack on the first amendment rights of an establishment of religion?

Benefits extended by the State are incidental to the establishment of religion, neither are they exclusive, through the creation of civil laws extended by the power of attorney or other partnership agreements, it is only the legal term “marriage” is introduced, that special constitutional protections are triggered that involve the civil right of citizens and this establishment of religion, which existed before the formation of the United States itself?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- deskjockey
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:23pm
  Very good reply. This is what I have never understood. My sister who is an atheist celebrates Christmas (at least the Santa Clause part) and Easter (at least the eggs and bunny part). She doesn’t celebrate Hanukkah. The Jews haven’t secularized their religion. Christians have and this is what you get for it. Even the marriage ceremony. You don’t see many non-Christians breaking a bottle or being tossed around on chairs, but they want the other secularized parts of a “wedding”. We’ve done this to ourselves. If we want our religious ceremonies to be preserved we can’t dilute them.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:41pm
  Reply to DESKJOCKEY:
  The Christian holidays were formed around the Pagen holiday of old so the Christian faith was easier for the Pagens of old to swallow.
  
  Report this comment
- ChrisDiamond
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:43pm
  @DeskJockey
  ” If we want our religious ceremonies to be preserved we can’t dilute them.”
  
  As an atheist, I have no problem with preserving traditional religious ceremonies and functions. When it comes to cermonies that results in recognition under law, religion has no place dictating to me through law how I can obtain legal recognition. Otherwise, how is there equality under the law for non-believers?
  
  You’re right though… the traditions have been diluted. We do the Sanata Claus part of Christmas (and yes, I call it Christmas in my home), and we create and hunt colored eggs in the Springtime, or will until the girls grow out of it. I know fundamentalist churches who tell their congregations to not have Christmas trees, and on Easter, they distribute packets of seeds instead of hosting an easter egg hunt. Among their tenets are:
  
  Women cannot cut their hair.
  Women can wear no make-up, and cannot wear pants.
  Men must remain clean shaven w/short hair.
  Clothing must extend beyond the knees and elbows.
  No TV in the home.
  No internet (though they’ve relaxed that rule recently).
  No secular music.
  No jewelry (including wedding rings).
  They expect the tithing of 10%, and remind you each service that if you REALLY want a blessing you should give 15%.
  They built a $24 million church instead of doing as Jesus commanded them.
  And if you do not receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues, you go to hell.
  But boy are they traditional.
  
  Report this comment
- binge_thinker
  Posted on October 26, 2012 at 11:55pm
  I wonder sometimes how much money and man hours have been spent by fringe atheist groups to comb through every statute in every state to find something they can complain about. Makes me laugh. Such a worthy endeavor. Such a great use of one’s time and life. The Constitution was established to protect God-given rights in this country and the first one the founders decided to pen first was the freedom OF religion. Seems an odd pursuit for atheists. I know – they are just draining states’ treasuries and peoples’ patience by being the burr under the saddle. Really, not much of a life, And for what? A God free society? A society to emulate them? That’s a noble goal? Phew!
  
  Report this comment
larmijo
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:03pm
This issue is becoming very complicated, but to me, it’s so simple. Marriage is a sacrament, and by default, religious. It is counter-intuitive to ask for a “secular celebrant” to perform what is a religious ceremony sanctified by God. What these atheists want is called a civil union, and the “secular celebrant” is actually a judge or Justice of the Peace. Look, if atheists or gay couples want to have a civil union “ceremony” performed in a “church”, so that it looks like traditional marriage, sans God, then I’m sure there will be someone who will either rent them a generic chapel or actually build a chapel-lookalike building specifically for this purpose. If atheists and gay couples think that true religious celebrants will be forced to marry them in a sacred place, they are not only mistaken but would be committing a sacrilegious act themselves, even if technically they do not believe. If there is an opposite to a blessing, this would be it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:06pm
  “… through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),…”
  
  “Rabbi Daniel Lapin, in America’s Real War, by Mutnomah Publishers, 1999 said: … The ACLU’s leadership is almost reminiscent of a temple board meeting.”
  
  Look, one can deny the cause, but the disease will continue to destroy.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:13pm
  I see your point, but really, getting legally married is to be state sanctioned. Why should anyone have to have a state sanction a marriage when it should really be between the couple? My state sanctioned husband of 3 months and I were living together for 17 years before we decided to have the state sanction us. We only married because it was cheaper and easier that going through a lawyer and the court system to set up wills and powers of attorney in case one of us dies. We did this so the state couldn’t take ones property from the other in case one died. I see state sanctioned marriage as b.s. My state sanctioned husband and I believe we have been married since the day we commited ourselves to each other (17 years ago). Why should the state have tell me if I’m married or not?
  p.s. I believe state sanctioned marriages should be between one man and one woman.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 4:39pm
  Sanctified by God? Which God, the Christian God? What about people who believe in other Gods or in no God at all? Can they never marry?
  
  Report this comment
rockymtngal
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:01pm
How utterly fricking ridiculous! The ACLU should be doling out some cheese go with those who have nothing better to do with their time than to whine. Instead, they use their money to sue cash strapped states over idiotic complaints.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sta
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:01pm
Get the government out of marriage and you can have anyone marry you.
Because no matter what, we actually marry each other.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
oldguy49
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:00pm
boy……these people are really going to regret forcing christianity out …………………anyone want to guess what will replace it

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Cavallo
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 11:56am
Looney toons. Is their high priest Elmer Fudd?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 11:56am
These dingbat Atheists need to understand – there already exists a secular way to be married in many states: before a justice of the peace, a judge, or any who is endowed and qualified in that particular state by the state legislation to perform legal marriages.

This is one more assault on the part of atheists to erode and finally destroy all religion in any shape, form or function. Look to the bloodbath of the French Revolution and the Terrors of said period to see where we can all too easily go.

I have to take umbrage with the atheists, for in their continuing, slanderous assaults on my own holding of faith, they seek to deny me the very right of religious expression they already enjoy but claim not to do so.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UpholderOftheConstitution
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 11:53am
wow they are whiners, move to another state. Or did that offend you too? pathetic.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.