Should A Judge Be Allowed To Decline To Marry An Atheist Couple Based On His Individual Religious Beliefs???

[ClearConscience]

I made some posts on reddit and I received quote a few dislikes, but as you may know, reddit is a cesspool of entitled leftist neanderthals.

Here is a link to the conversation: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4t5vtj/kentucky_judge_turns_away_nonreligious_couple/d5f4wbh?context=3

My username is "WolverinesFirst".  I throw insults at those who initiate insults.  Mark Twain said never to argue with stupid people because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.  Well, I used to be stupid.  I used to be really fucking stupid.  And now I'm not.  So I don't fear arguing with stupid people and I enjoy getting dirty.

I want to open up this discussion with a forum that supposedly prides itself on being philosophical and open-minded.

[dsayers]

I want to open up this discussion with a forum that supposedly prides itself on being philosophical and open-minded.

You poor bastard. The degree to which manipulation was modeled for you, coupled with the degree to which you are oblivious to the ways in which you've internalized and normalized it is disappointing to behold.

 

What do you mean by supposedly? You've been a member for almost two years. You don't know whether it is or not? Or are you unable to make a concrete decision because who actively posts shifts as time goes on? The irony here is that YOU are posting and in this post, you are not adding any open-mindedness while demanding it from others.

 

I view this quote as preparation for bias confirmation. If you are told what you want to hear, then the community is philosophical and you are vindicated. Otherwise, we don't live up to our stated goals and you can discard what we say. As evidenced by:

 

I made some posts on reddit and I received quote a few dislikes, but as you may know, reddit is a cesspool of entitled leftist neanderthals.

If you believed that to be true, you wouldn't post there. But you did post there. What I see here is the exact same marginalizing an entire group because they didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. Bias confirmation.

 

@title: Should a judge be allowed to [do something nobody has the right to do]? The answer is always no.

[Wuzzums]

How is marriage done in the states anyway? What does a judge have to do with religion? I thought it was supposed to be a secular country.

In my home country the way you get married is you go by the official civil union court thing where you sign the marriage contract then you're married. Nobody asks anyone what's their religion or beliefs, it's just a legal procedure.

Then people can have a religious ceremony which is just a glorified tradition. You can get married by a priest but the state won't ever recognize it as a civil union unless you signed the previously mentioned documents.

[Will Torbald]

I think you're right. The judge didn't deny them the right to marry, he just declined to be to one to do so. Now, if there is a law that says that judges can't decline, that's another issue.

[AncapFTW]

I think you're right. The judge didn't deny them the right to marry, he just declined to be to one to do so. Now, if there is a law that says that judges can't decline, that's another issue.

Well, if it was a preacher refusing to marry a gay couple because of his religious beliefs the government would say it was illegal.

[junglecat]

I thought marriage was a right? If it is a right, why should anyone need a license? A license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. It's a privilege.

[dsayers]

A license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.

A license is proof that you've paid your protection money and that the mafia shouldn't attack you for that particular reason.

[rosencrantz]

Should A Judge Be Allowed To Decline To Marry An Atheist Couple Based On His Individual Religious Beliefs???

 

No. If a judge isn't willing to uphold the law of the land he should resign. Nobody is forced being a judge. If you don't like what you are legally obliged to do you can stop being a judge. 

[WorBlux]

This judge is way out in left field here, separated from any serious Christian theology,  which finds marriage a natural institution.

[junglecat]

This judge is way out in left field here, separated from any serious Christian theology,  which finds marriage a natural institution.

Is marriage a natural right or is it a privilege granted by the state?

[EclecticIdealist]

Is marriage a natural right or is it a privilege granted by the state?

Marriage, fundamentally, is a voluntary association between two (or more) individuals, and is typically considered a contact recognized by society if or when such a voluntary association is dissolved. Most societies will not recognize certain voluntary associations as marriage and thus protect the interests of such parties when such an association is dissolved or decisions must be made on the basis of such an association (such as medical decisions, custody of children, inheritance, etc.).  The freedom of association is a natural right. The societal recognition of such an association is, at best, a civil right.

 

No society purporting to be fair and just can recognize the freedom of association of one couple or group in a voluntary association of consenting adults that considers their relationship to be a marriage and not recognize the voluntary association of consenting adults of another that considers their relationship to be a marriage.

[junglecat]

Marriage, fundamentally, is a voluntary association between two (or more) individuals, and is typically considered a contact recognized by society if or when such a voluntary association is dissolved. Most societies will not recognize certain voluntary associations as marriage and thus protect the interests of such parties when such an association is dissolved or decisions must be made on the basis of such an association (such as medical decisions, custody of children, inheritance, etc.).  The freedom of association is a natural right. The societal recognition of such an association is, at best, a civil right.

 

No society purporting to be fair and just can recognize the freedom of association of one couple or group in a voluntary association of consenting adults that considers their relationship to be a marriage and not recognize the voluntary association of consenting adults of another that considers their relationship to be a marriage.

I'm not sure I understand you. I think you are not making sense. Marriage is a voluntary association considered a contract WHEN it is dissolved? Not during the contract?

 

What societies don't recognize marriage as a voluntary association? How else could they recognize it?  Are you then saying that recognition by society of marriage needs to be something you pay for, that would otherwise be illegal (needing a license).

 

Could you perhaps word your last paragraph differently? It sounds like you are saying essentially nothing. And do you believe a right, whether it is natural or civil, to be something that requires a license? Why?

[EclecticIdealist]

I'm not sure I understand you. I think you are not making sense. Marriage is a voluntary association considered a contract WHEN it is dissolved? Not during the contract?

Generally, though not always, society only becomes involved in the contractual portion of the relationship when it is dissolved; and for clarity sake, it's more properly regarded as a contractual partnership in most instances.

 

What societies don't recognize marriage as a voluntary association? How else could they recognize it?  Are you then saying that recognition by society of marriage needs to be something you pay for, that would otherwise be illegal (needing a license).

Certain societies do not recognize marriage as a voluntary association on both parties, but only on the party of the husband. The wife is his property, his chattel, whether she chooses to be or not.

 

Furthermore, some societies do not recognize certain associations as marriage (e.g., gay marriage, polygamous marriage, group marriage, consanguineous marriage, etc.). In these cases, when there is a dissolution of the relationship either by death, the distribution of property is called into question by surviving heirs in a manner that would not occur if the marriage were societally recognized. In the case of voluntary separation, the division of assets may be challenged by the person in whose name the assets were purchased or registered with any governmental agencies

 

Could you perhaps word your last paragraph differently? It sounds like you are saying essentially nothing. And do you believe a right, whether it is natural or civil, to be something that requires a license? Why?

Probably.  What I'm suggesting is that a society that claims to be fair and just must equally recognize as legitimate all voluntary partnerships (i.e., gay marriage, polygamous marriage, cousin marriage, etc.).  As to licensing, I believe licensing is nothing more than the management of privilege and has no business in a fair and just society. Marriages and such may be registered, and a nominal fee charged for maintaining such a registry... but even such need not be handled by any government institution.

[junglecat]

Generally, though not always, society only becomes involved in the contractual portion of the relationship when it is dissolved; and for clarity sake, it's more properly regarded as a contractual partnership in most instances.

 

Certain societies do not recognize marriage as a voluntary association on both parties, but only on the party of the husband. The wife is his property, his chattel, whether she chooses to be or not.

 

Furthermore, some societies do not recognize certain associations as marriage (e.g., gay marriage, polygamous marriage, group marriage, consanguineous marriage, etc.). In these cases, when there is a dissolution of the relationship either by death, the distribution of property is called into question by surviving heirs in a manner that would not occur if the marriage were societally recognized. In the case of voluntary separation, the division of assets may be challenged by the person in whose name the assets were purchased or registered with any governmental agencies

 

Probably.  What I'm suggesting is that a society that claims to be fair and just must equally recognize as legitimate all voluntary partnerships (i.e., gay marriage, polygamous marriage, cousin marriage, etc.).  As to licensing, I believe licensing is nothing more than the management of privilege and has no business in a fair and just society. Marriages and such may be registered, and a nominal fee charged for maintaining such a registry... but even such need not be handled by any government institution.

No offense intended, but it's just as I thought. Your first point is logically incoherent. A union can't be dissolved unless it was first formed. And there is no society (as a whole but excluding government institutions) that recognizes gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, I don't know a single society that gives a rat's ass about how property is divided up by surviving heirs- beside the government of that society. And maybe the close relations of the deceased, but that's it. After that, what's the point of 'registration'? Nothing but "proof that you've paid your protection money and that the mafia shouldn't attack you for that particular reason."

[EclecticIdealist]

No offense intended, but it's just as I thought. Your first point is logically incoherent.

Again, unsupported assertions are gratuitous, not arguments, and are dismissed as being without warrant. If you believe my first point to be logically incoherent and you wish your assertion to be regarded seriously, you must demonstrate how it is incoherent. I admit I may not have stated it as clearly as other things I have stated, but I believe the point I made still stands unless you can show why it does not.

 

A union can't be dissolved unless it was first formed.

I agree. The point I ineptly endeavored to make is that most do not view marriage as a contractual partnership until it comes time to dissolve it. Instead, they view it as a socially sanctioned cohabitation and typically sexual relationship between two (or more) adults.

 

And there is no society (as a whole but excluding government institutions) that recognizes gay marriage, polygamy, etc.

Which demonstrates the falsity, if not abject hypocrisy of such societies claims of being fair and just.

 

Furthermore, I don't know a single society that gives a rat's ass about how property is divided up by surviving heirs- beside the government of that society. And maybe the close relations of the deceased, but that's it. After that, what's the point of 'registration'? Nothing but "proof that you've paid your protection money and that the mafia shouldn't attack you for that particular reason."

Again, the whole point of registration in a truly free society would be nothing more than to establish the existence of such a relationship in order to clarify any claims of authority or ownership when one or both parties are incapable of doing so themselves. Medical directives, settlement of an estate's property, etc. are all aided by such a registration and is NOT the same thing as license and has nothing to do with metaphorically "paying protection money to the mafia".

[junglecat]

Again, unsupported assertions are gratuitous, not arguments, and are dismissed as being without warrant. If you believe my first point to be logically incoherent and you wish your assertion to be regarded seriously, you must demonstrate how it is incoherent. I admit I may not have stated it as clearly as other things I have stated, but I believe the point I made still stands unless you can show why it does not.

 

I agree. The point I ineptly endeavored to make is that most do not view marriage as a contractual partnership until it comes time to dissolve it. Instead, they view it as a socially sanctioned cohabitation and typically sexual relationship between two (or more) adults.

 

Which demonstrates the falsity, if not abject hypocrisy of such societies claims of being fair and just.

 

Again, the whole point of registration in a truly free society would be nothing more than to establish the existence of such a relationship in order to clarify any claims of authority or ownership when one or both parties are incapable of doing so themselves. Medical directives, settlement of an estate's property, etc. are all aided by such a registration and is NOT the same thing as license and has nothing to do with metaphorically "paying protection money to the mafia".

I stand corrected. It's not logically incoherent, it's just not true. Society is involved from the get go. Even if it's only the two who are married- they are most definitely involved and they are most definitely members of society. Usually the immediate and extended family is involved, friends and workmates, the government gets involved with taxes. Who are these 'most people' who only regard the contractual relationship only when it is dissolved?

 

Some sort of mass national registry sounds good but only in a utopia (no-place). In real life marriage by the state turns the children of that bond into chattel. People used to  simply record the marriage in their family Bible. The way it's changed is not an improvement in my opinion.

 

Today, marriage is a privilege granted by the state. It's not a right or you wouldn't need a license. That's what I hate about the 'gay marriage' issue. Gays have always had the right to marry. You could marry your horse. You may not have many people recognize it or take you seriously but it's still your right. If you want the government to recognize it you have to pay the fee and get the permission. That will grant you certain privileges. The government can never grant rights, they are inherent.

[EclecticIdealist]

I stand corrected. It's not logically incoherent, it's just not true. Society is involved from the get go. Even if it's only the two who are married- they are most definitely involved and they are most definitely members of society. Usually the immediate and extended family is involved, friends and workmates, the government gets involved with taxes. Who are these 'most people' who only regard the contractual relationship only when it is dissolved?

My apologies for being so imprecise. What I meant to convey is that most people do not consider the contractual partnership nature of marriage until it comes to an end, either through the death of one or both parties, or through divorce. Only when terminating such a partnership (or the possibility exists and one must speak on behalf of the other to convey their wishes, such as making medical, financial, or legal decisions) does the contractual partnership nature of the relationship ever really come up. Instead, they see it typically as intimate companionship and cohabitation.

 

Some sort of mass national registry sounds good but only in a utopia (no-place). In real life marriage by the state turns the children of that bond into chattel. People used to  simply record the marriage in their family Bible. The way it's changed is not an improvement in my opinion.

I tend to agree that how it has changed as a result of anti-miscegenist statists has not been an improvement. 

 

Today, marriage is a privilege granted by the state. It's not a right or you wouldn't need a license.

Agreed

 

That's what I hate about the 'gay marriage' issue. Gays have always had the right to marry. You could marry your horse. You may not have many people recognize it or take you seriously but it's still your right. If you want the government to recognize it you have to pay the fee and get the permission. That will grant you certain privileges. The government can never grant rights, they are inherent.

Again, agreed about everything except the part about the horse. The horse is incapable of giving informed consent to the union. Without informed consent, it's only one-sided, not marriage.

[junglecat]

My apologies for being so imprecise. What I meant to convey is that most people do not consider the contractual partnership nature of marriage until it comes to an end, either through the death of one or both parties, or through divorce. Only when terminating such a partnership (or the possibility exists and one must speak on behalf of the other to convey their wishes, such as making medical, financial, or legal decisions) does the contractual partnership nature of the relationship ever really come up. Instead, they see it typically as intimate companionship and cohabitation.

 

I tend to agree that how it has changed as a result of anti-miscegenist statists has not been an improvement. 

 

Agreed

 

Again, agreed about everything except the part about the horse. The horse is incapable of giving informed consent to the union. Without informed consent, it's only one-sided, not marriage.

People take marriage oaths very seriously. Maybe less so today with ubiquitous no fault divorce. Still, couples don't go through all the rigamarole of blood tests, licenses, extravagant parties, oaths, etc. and come away unaware of the contractual nature of marriage.

[WorBlux]

Is marriage a natural right or is it a privilege granted by the state?

 It (marriage and the raising of children), is a natural right. It necessarily is present as an institution before the state, and as such cannot be abrogated by the state.  This is at least the mainstream thought of Christian philosophy and theology.

[junglecat]

 It (marriage and the raising of children), is a natural right. It necessarily is present as an institution before the state, and as such cannot be abrogated by the state.  This is at least the mainstream thought of Christian philosophy and theology.

Why do you think so many Christians get state licenses?

[shirgall]

Why do you think so many Christians get state licenses?

 

Because of the special status of "legally married" in the law.

[junglecat]

Because of the special status of "legally married" in the law.

Are the benefits that great? Especially when Jesus warned specifically about not taking oaths? Honestly, I can't see the good in any of this. Why would anyone fight for worthless state granted privileges? If there is some good in all this, please somebody point it out.

[shirgall]

Are the benefits that great? Especially when Jesus warned specifically about not taking oaths? Honestly, I can't see the good in any of this. Why would anyone fight for worthless state granted privileges? If there is some good in all this, please somebody point it out.

 

They aren't worthless to the people that want them... I'm not saying it's the right way to do things, just pointing out that people do respond to incentives. To my eye, the benefits are far greater for women than they are for men, and that women insist on marriage for cultural *and* economic reasons. Yes, there are those more attracted to welfare benefits and that has diminished the drive of late, but getting married and having kids was a given in my generation.

[junglecat]

They aren't worthless to the people that want them... I'm not saying it's the right way to do things, just pointing out that people do respond to incentives. To my eye, the benefits are far greater for women than they are for men, and that women insist on marriage for cultural *and* economic reasons. Yes, there are those more attracted to welfare benefits and that has diminished the drive of late, but getting married and having kids was a given in my generation.

Sure, I understand that, but why here on a page that is populated by Christians and anti-statists?

[EclecticIdealist]

People take marriage oaths very seriously. Maybe less so today with ubiquitous no fault divorce. Still, couples don't go through all the rigamarole of blood tests, licenses, extravagant parties, oaths, etc. and come away unaware of the contractual nature of marriage.

A marriage vow (or oath) is not a contract. Blood tests are to help provide informed consent - they help reveal potential issues which might occur with childbirth and incompatible blood types that might otherwise be avoided (i.e. mother developing antigens for the father's Rh factor causing issues for maintaining a pregnancy), licenses because the state mandates them in order to afford certain legal privileges such as immunity from prosecution for failure to testify against one's spouse, presumed ability to speak for the other in the event of their incapacity, automatic rights of survivorship including full control over jointly held property if not otherwise contested, etc. Extravagant parties should go without saying...  As to coming away unaware of the contractual nature of marriage, I never said this or intended to imply it; I meant only to convey that the contractual (legal) aspect of the partnership is not in the forefront of anyone's mind in most cases unless or until one must take the aforementioned decisions of dividing property, etc.

[dsayers]

anti-statists

Such poisoning of the well. It's like saying anti-Santa Clausist. People who reject the validity of the State do so because they rightly are "anti" aggression. "Anti-statist" makes it sound like an opinion AND as if statism was the origin.

[shirgall]

Sure, I understand that, but why here on a page that is populated by Christians and anti-statists?

 

People respond to incentives, whatever their origin.

[WorBlux]

Why do you think so many Christians get state licenses?

 

Because of the special status of "legally married" in the law.

 

It prevents bigamy, gives children and spouses rights in inheritance, makes an official disputed record... The Christian thought is the state can add to and give a specific form for marriage, just as it may give specific form to the unites of measurement used in commerce, or common conventions to reduce contention between motor vehicles on the roads. What the State may not do is prevent marriage of those eligible under natural law.

[Troubador]

My view is that this judge is being incredibly small minded, and potentially not very good at their job. I say this as a religious person, albeit one who sees the critical importance of living within a secular society. Marriage has a spiritual connotation for those of us of faith, which obviously an athiest couple will not share. However there are many aspects of marriage that secular and religious people share, and I am incredibly reluctant to give primacy to one view in the public sphere especially, because of the crucial separation of church and state that must exist.

 

In a role such as a judge one's own personal and religious views should not be inflicted on those who do not share them. This should be easy to square with a Christian theology as in tune with rendering unto Caesar one must respect the non-religious rules of the society one lives in. It should be a statement of supreme obviousness that a non-Christian marriage is not subject to Christianity. This whole thing is an argument that strictly speaking doesn't need to exist nor waste everyone's mental energy on.

[whirlingmerc]

A secular judge,  no

 

A christian minister in a church marriage,  yes.