Atheist group sues Indiana over 'unconstitutional' marriage statute

Fox News ^ | October 24, 2012 | Joshua Rhett Miller

[Zakeet]

An atheist organization claims Indiana’s marriage statute is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow nonbelievers to be married by their own leaders, but state officials say the group is divorced from reality.

The New York-based Center for Inquiry claims in a federal lawsuit that Indiana Code 31-11-6-1 violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since it sets clear preference for religious individuals over those devoted to the “pursuit of ethical alternatives to religion.” The group says it filed suit on behalf of members John Kiel and Michelle Landrum, who plan to wed in the next six months.

“You can have a ceremony as a nonreligious person and have the marriage solemnized by someone in the government, but the issue is that a person of faith can have a leader of their world view solemnize that marriage that the nonreligious do not have,” said Paul Fidalgo, communications director for The Center for Inquiry. “They are looking to win that right, to have it solemnized. That’s the key word.”

According to Hoosier State law, marriages may be solemnized by a member of the clergy or a religious organization such as a priest, a bishop, an archbishop or a rabbi, as well as government officials like a mayor, a clerk or a clerk of the circuit court. It also specifically names the Friends Church, German Baptists, the Baha’i faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and imams of a mosque as groups who can conduct marriages in the state. Nowhere does the statute list "secular celebrants," or anyone else whose status is based on their disbelief in a creator.

[Zakeet]

Those evil Hoosiers won't let us be married by a fellow nut that shares our non-values ... and this prohibits us from living meaningful ethical lives!

[ejonesie22]

Now this is getting down to the point of bitchin’ just to bitch...

[Albion Wilde]

Soon they will sue to overturn statutes forbidding murder because murder is mentioned in the Ten Commandments.

[Delhi Rebels]

So non-believers have a church?

[FredZarguna]

Atheism is a religion and its adherents are every bit as entitled to have their own celebrants as any other religion. FReepers may not like it, but the Atheists are going to win this one; the current statute is a violation of both the Establishment Clause on the government side, and the Free Exercise Clause on the individual liberty side.

[FredZarguna]

If they want to, the Constitution guarantees they may have one. Why would any person who cherishes religious liberty be in favor of a state having the right to exclude a particular religion?

From a Christian perspective, what's the difference between allowing Atheists to have their own solemnizers and, say, Muslims or for that matter Unitarians? All three have beliefs which are blasphemous. All three are based entirely on faith, just like Christianity.

If the State of Indiana can exclude a particular religion like Atheism, it can exclude yours. We don't grant heretics religious liberty for their sake; we grant it for our own.

[Lurking Libertarian]

We don't grant heretics religious liberty for their sake; we grant it for our own.

Amen!

[Melas]

Well said.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Shut up and go away.
No one is interested in your childishness..

[GenXteacher]

Just the moles doing their job, undermining America:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”