Conservative Leader: If Atheists Can Officiate Weddings, It Will Lead to Christian Persecution May 21, 2015

Conservative Leader: If Atheists Can Officiate Weddings, It Will Lead to Christian Persecution

Last week, we learned that a group called Atheists for Human Rights had basically won the right for one of their members to become an officiant at weddings in Washington County, Minnesota. (It was illegal until then because that member, Rodney Rodgers, wasn’t a government official nor did he have an endorsement from a church.)

Technically speaking, a judge threw out the group’s lawsuit… but that’s only because county officials caved in and said atheists could officiate weddings. It’s a victory no matter how you slice it.

You’d think this is all a cause for celebration. But Mat Staver of the Christian Right group Liberty Counsel has found a way to make it all about Christian persecution. Somehow…

[Staver] argues that in a different respect, the lawsuit suggests what might happen if the Supreme Court rules against normal marriage in just a few weeks.

“There frankly is a brief before the Supreme Court that was filed by a law professor that questions that very thing,” he advises. “That if same-sex marriage is legalized, the question is whether or not pastors and other churches would have to perform same-sex ceremonies.

I’ve read that passage multiple times and I still have no idea what the hell he’s talking about.

Atheists now have the option of officiating weddings in a Minnesota county… and that somehow means anti-gay pastors will be forced against their will to perform same-sex ceremonies?

Only in Staver’s twisted mind does that make any sense.

Just to be clear, even if the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, church leaders will not have to perform same-sex ceremonies. They will continue having the right to be bigots if that’s what they say Jesus wants.

(Image via Shutterstock)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!