Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roth asked the couple about their religious beliefs and upon hearing that he would be performing a ceremony for an atheist and an agnostic, turned the couple away. Why? Because they “didn’t know where God was.” That’s right, Roth refused to marry the couple out of sheer religious bigotry.
Quote:
The couple contacted the county clerk, who was floored by their story. She suggested they contact the judge who appointed Roth in the first place. So they wrote a letter to Judge William Alexander who didn’t see any problem at all with a court officiant refusing to marry a couple simply because they don’t share his religious beliefs. The judge referred the couple to the other court appointed officiant who agreed to perform the civil ceremony this coming Monday.
But this incident raises serious concerns. First, a civil servant is supposed to serve the public. That means anyone. As long as a couple has a marriage license, there shouldn’t be any problem. Second, religious discrimination is wrong no matter the venue, but for it to occur at a courthouse by a court official is totally unacceptable. People go to get married at a courthouse to avoid religious pomp and circumstance and because it’s quicker. They don’t go there to have religion shoved down their throats. That’s why my wife and I married at a courthouse. Not because we didn’t believe in a god, but because we didn’t want religion to dominate our day.
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
Why do these people feel the need to make a big deal out of it? Why not just move on with life and go find someone else?
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
The Supreme court has declared it a fundamental right, not once, not twice, but 14 times...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
I did a bit of digging, and what I found is this. In VA, a minister can become an officiant by providing their credentials and receiving authorization. In addition, there are court appointed officiants who are not ministers appointed to officiate over civil ceremonies. Roth is not a minister and was appointed as a civil officiant. He was willing ot perform a secular ceremony, but insisted it be at his church, and once he found out the participants wee non-believers he refused to officiate. I would argue that if he wants to be protected by the religious exemptions that protect your right to discriminate, he should be a minister.
A second issue I have with this is the excuse given by the judge who appointed this guy. The rationale was that for civil ceremonies there was an officient for religious ceremonies, and one for non-religious ceremonies. Why is the state offering sectarian religious ceremonies!?!? That is what ministers are for. It isn't like there are not enough preachers in VA to go around...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why do these people feel the need to make a big deal out of it? Why not just move on with life and go find someone else?
Because they had a representative of the state of VA unconstitutionally discriminate against them on the basis of religion. It was wrong, the state is wrong to try to cover for it. What is next, police officers can choose not to investigate crimes against people who are the wrong religion? Fire departments check your church membership before they put out a house fire? It is not out of line to expect to be treated with fairness and equality under the law, even from Christians...
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
Why do these people feel the need to make a big deal out of it? Why not just move on with life and go find someone else?
They did find the other officiant after talking to the judge. This officiant is a government appointee. He is supposed to marry anyone who has the license at the courthouse.
Presumably, you don't work for the state. He does.
The Supreme court has declared it a fundamental right, not once, not twice, but 14 times...
OK, I will cede this point. Although the Constitution does not guarantee it, the SCOTUS has seen fit to include it.
Quote:
I did a bit of digging, and what I found is this. In VA, a minister can become an officiant by providing their credentials and receiving authorization. In addition, there are court appointed officiants who are not ministers appointed to officiate over civil ceremonies. Roth is not a minister and was appointed as a civil officiant. He was willing ot perform a secular ceremony, but insisted it be at his church, and once he found out the participants wee non-believers he refused to officiate. I would argue that if he wants to be protected by the religious exemptions that protect your right to discriminate, he should be a minister.
Is this a case of him using a religious exemption? Can he simply refuse to marry whomever he wants?
Quote:
A second issue I have with this is the excuse given by the judge who appointed this guy. The rationale was that for civil ceremonies there was an officient for religious ceremonies, and one for non-religious ceremonies. Why is the state offering sectarian religious ceremonies!?!? That is what ministers are for. It isn't like there are not enough preachers in VA to go around...
So what? Is there a reason they just don't go to a different guy?
Quote:
Because they had a representative of the state of VA unconstitutionally discriminate against them on the basis of religion.
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
Why do these people feel the need to make a big deal out of it? Why not just move on with life and go find someone else?
At least you own up to your Moderator cut: deleted .
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-05-2014 at 05:42 PM..
Reason: personal attack
Why should the judge appoint two officiants - one for religious and the other for non-religious ceremonies? That does not seem to be in accord with our Constitution. If this is true, then why are couples not told this rather than being pointed to both officiants. Not only that, but he wanted them to be married in *his* church at first. What if they had belonged to another faith - Jewish or Hindu or Muslim, for example. Would he have refused to marry them too?
Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist reached out to the clerk of Franklin County to learn more about the incident, and the clerk reportedly emailed Mehta back, explaining that it was Roth's right to deny service based on his belief.
"I spoke with Judge [William N.] Alexander pertaining to this and he said that he appointed one person that performs religious ceremonies (Mr. Roth) and one person that performs civil ceremonies (Mr. Young)," the email from the county clerk read.
"I don't know if they told the staff that they did not want a religious ceremony or not. He said this was Mr. Roth's belief and there was nothing wrong about that."
Strong and Courtney have found a new officiant to perform their marriage ceremony, and they will reportedly wed this week
The first official they called, Bud Roth, said he would not perform the ceremony at the courthouse, although he didn’t specify why, but said he would marry them at his church.
Although neither of them believes in God, the couple agreed to go through the legal portion of the ceremony at Roth’s church and then planned to celebrate later with friends and family.
After they agreed on the cost, location, date, and time, Roth asked Courtney about their religious denomination.
She admitted she was agnostic and Strong was an atheist, and she said Roth told them they didn’t have the right to marry because they “didn’t know where God was.”
According to comments on the story, Roth is not paid by the state, but still, it's weird, imo. Interestingly, I don't believe that a minister has to petition the state to be able to perform a marriage. Every minister or priest I know of already has that ability. Would a ceremony performed by a Catholic Priest not be legal in Franklin County? However, apparently, this guy is paid by the couple, not by the taxpayers, so I guess he is not a state employee.
I am always surprised by the extent of human bigotry that still exists in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
A few things:
1) Marriage is not a "right", as the article says. It's nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
2) He's a wedding officiant. He has the right to refuse to officiate any marriage he wants. I have a wedding policy that states the same thing. If I do not want to marry someone, I won't. I personally don't have an issue with marrying 2 atheists or agnostics, but I won't marry a Christian to someone of any other religion/non-religion. I will not violate my conscience and marry a couple that I do not feel should be married. I also have a stated policy that says I won't marry same-gender couples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Moderator cut: Orphaned
Moderator cut: Orphaned response
Last edited by june 7th; 06-05-2014 at 05:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheists and Agnostics have no right to marry
