Kentucky Judge Tells Atheist Couple They Can't Get Married Because They Don't Believe In God

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Jul 18, 2016 5:35 AM GMT
    KENTUCKY JUDGE TELLS ATHEIST COUPLE THEY CAN’T GET MARRIED BECAUSE THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD

    http://winningdemocrats.com/kentucky-judge-tells-atheist-couple-they-cant-get-married-because-they-dont-believe-in-god/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2016 6:33 AM GMT

    Just remember, this man DID NOT physically kill anyone, this man had others kill for him....the parallel to Christianity is astounding icon_eek.gif


    20130729-charlesmanson-306x306-137511621


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 18, 2016 6:48 PM GMT
    metta saidKENTUCKY JUDGE TELLS ATHEIST COUPLE THEY CAN’T GET MARRIED BECAUSE THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD

    http://winningdemocrats.com/kentucky-judge-tells-atheist-couple-they-cant-get-married-because-they-dont-believe-in-god/


    Sharia law anyone?
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Jul 19, 2016 12:25 AM GMT
    Any chance he's a Republican?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2016 8:03 AM GMT
    These guys are so stupid. Marriage used to be a practical arrangement and union of families/clans and had nothing to do with religion/god. Getting god involved is a relatively new thing. The church just began to handle these things in medieval times, because the church handled lots of different legal matters at that time.
    I looked up some legal facts about marriage in my country (Denmark).
    Up until about 1200, there were basically no laws about marriage (except consent between families), then it was introduced that church courts were to handle cases about marriage (basically paperwork and disputes) but still no ceremonial stuff. Later, mainly to verify who got married and to prevent bigami, the two parties had to meet up physically in church BEFORE the marriage. Up until mid 16th century a law actually stated if a couple had lived together for more than 3 years they'd be considered officially married. It wasn't until late 16th century that the king decided a marriage had to be overseen by a priest and witnesses, and the marriage ritual was introduced in 1685.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2016 12:44 PM GMT
    judoguy said
    These guys are so stupid. Marriage used to be a practical arrangement and union of families/clans and had nothing to do with religion/god. Getting god involved is a relatively new thing.

    Actually in the US ALL marriages are civil contracts. The myth that only a Church can control & define marriage is promulgated by these religions themselves, to increase their power over society.

    All a minister or rabbi can do is confirm that the conditions for a legal marriage have been met, and to sign a marriage license. A license that must be issued by the State or a County. The State can recognize a minister or rabbi to act with legal standing in this regard.

    And note that many marriage ceremonies end with the formula: "By the power invested in me by the State of (Xxxxxx), I now pronounce you man and wife." It's not: "By the power invested in me by God..." or "By the power invested in me by the Baptist Church..." or any other religious entity. I now informally observe, however, that many churches have begun to omit those first words, and now simply say: "I now pronounce you man and wife."

    A Church by itself, lacking that official license, cannot legally marry anyone. Any religious ceremony the Church includes as part of a ceremony prior to completing the license is purely at their option, and with agreement of the couple.

    This is also why the argument that same-sex laws "compel" Churches to violate their beliefs is totally bogus, a false argument used to gain public and State support for their own influence over laws. Clergy already have the right to decline officiating at a marriage of which they do not approve. Catholic priests, for instance, will normally not marry a couple who are both not Catholics (it can be done with a special RCC dispensation). And I don't think you'll see too many rabbis routinely performing a Christian rite ceremony in a Church. The State does not penalize those denials.

    But the State DOES perform civil marriages, which is what this judge has declined to do, an illegal refusal under law. Could a judge also say: "I dismiss this case of infanticide and spousal assault against this man, because my 'deeply held religious beliefs' hold that the Bible permits a father and husband to do what he likes with his family, even unto death." Would that also be permissible?
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3534

    Jul 20, 2016 2:42 AM GMT
    tazzari saidAny chance he's a Republican?

    http://www.kcjea.org/county_judge_executives/trigg_county_-_hollis_l_alexander.php

    nope
  • Dynamo_spark

    Posts: 224

    Jul 20, 2016 7:31 AM GMT
    They should get married in Las Vegas, 'What happens in Vegas, does not stay in Vegas!'. A man recently married his Smart phone. He claimed he has spent more time with his Smart phone than in any other relationship. Wonder what he will do when the Smart phone wants some nookie?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2016 12:36 PM GMT
    Apparition said
    tazzari saidAny chance he's a Republican?

    http://www.kcjea.org/county_judge_executives/trigg_county_-_hollis_l_alexander.php

    nope

    That crazy Kentucky County Clerk who refused to give marriage licenses for same-sex weddings was also a Democrat. Which reflects generations of "Solid South" post-Civil War Democrats. They weren't about to join the Republican Party of Lincoln and the Union victors. Also known as "Dixiecrats" and a black mark against national Democrats that still lingers in some minds today.

    But that began to change after Democratic President Johnson's Black civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and was further influenced by the Southern voter strategies of Republican Presidents Nixon and Reagan. Today most of those segregationist Dixiecrats have switched to the Republicans. As did the crazy County Clerk when she realized the Democratic Party was refusing to support her illegal anti-gay hatred, while the Republicans did.

    This judge may do the same thing, especially if he likewise finds himself going to jail like she did. But those counties often have a deep infrastructure of party politics; it might for counter-productive towards his other goals for the judge to switch party affiliation.