"[Judge Sarah Evans] Barker says CFI is taking two contradictory positions: arguing that the law spelling out who can solemnize a marriage is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, while demanding to be included in that endorsement. She notes CFI has gone to great pains to emphasize it is not a religion.
"'We will not declare that CFI is a religion [only] when it suits the group to be classified as one,' Barker writes."
Is this judge daft? CFI is arguing that religious belief/promtion should not be considered when determining who can soleminize marriage. Remove the religious component and the CFI nonreligious celebrants would qualify. Is it really that hard to understand?
On Monday, December 3, 2012, Mark Tiborsky <[address removed]> wrote:
> Not sure of the full implications of this ruling- so the State of Indiana does not recognize Humanist celebrants' authority to perform a marriage ceremony?
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> This message was sent by Mark Tiborsky ([address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
> To learn more about Mark Tiborsky, visit his/her member profile
> Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]