Robertson Diagnoses Demons for Stomach Problems »« Durham Police Lie to Violate 4th Amendment

Huge Victory for Secular Celebrants

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has given us a major victory, ruling in a case brought by CFI Indiana that the state must allow secular celebrants to solemnize marriages along with clergy. The ruling was by a three-judge panel that included two legendary conservative/libertarian legal scholars, Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judge Richard Posner.

In a landmark victory for nonreligious Americans, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously ruled that the state of Indiana must allow marriages to be performed and solemnized by Secular Celebrants, such as those certified by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), the secular group that brought the case.

In an opinion written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, the court recognized that for groups such as the Center for Inquiry, their belief system is “entitled to the benefit of the First Amendment’s neutrality principle, under which states cannot favor (or disfavor) religion vis-a-vis comparable secular belief systems.” Judge Easterbrook cited CFI’s contention that its worldview “is equivalent to religion except for non-belief in God,” and that “those who embrace that secular system want their own views to be expressed by celebrants at marriages, [and] the state must treat them the same way it treats religion.”

“This is a major victory for all secular Americans, who despite being part of the fasted-growing belief demographic in the United States, still suffer from discrimination and the special privileges accorded religion,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of CFI. “It is deeply satisfying that the judges of the 7th Circuit have recognized that nonreligious Americans are entitled to the same rights as religious Americans.”

“The court has gotten this exactly right,” lauded Reba Boyd Wooden, Co-Director of the Secular Celebrant program for CFI and Executive Director of CFI’s Indiana branch. “The secular humanists that I know hold their values as dearly as any religion person, and they deserve to be able to celebrate life’s great milestones in a way that reflects those values. Whether a person is atheist, agnostic, humanist, or simply doesn’t want a religious wedding, this decision means they can now have these wonderful occasions solemnized by a celebrant who shares their life-stance.”…

Addressing whether secular officiants should simply settle for obtaining “clergy” status through quasi-religious mail-order enterprises, or whether secular organizations should just refer to themselves as “religious” despite being explicitly nonreligious, Judge Easterbrook dismissed the idea, saying it would only serve to make hypocrites of nonreligious couples and groups. Judge Easterbrook rightly pointed out that the plaintiffs “are unwilling to pretend to be something they are not, or pretend to believe something they do not; they are shut out as long as they are sincere in following an ethical system that does not worship any god, adopt any theology, or accept a religious label.” Judge Easterbrook also denounced the contention that secular couples have their unions solemnized at a later date by a clerk of the court as suggesting secular celebrants preside over a “sham ceremony.”

You can read the full ruling here. That two Reagan-appointed judges who are considered among the most brilliant and legendary on the federal bench handed down this ruling lends it extra credibility, I think. Technically, the ruling only applies in the 7th Circuit, but it’s a powerful precedent we can now use to get other states to change their laws and allow people to choose humanist celebrants to preside over their weddings.

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    … CFI’s contention that its worldview “is equivalent to religion except for non-belief in God,” …

  2. Chiroptera says

    Ah, but do the secular celebrants have the same “ministerial exeption” to not perform gay marriages? Take that, atheists!

  3. Pierce R. Butler says

    Oops – hit the wrong key and prematurely uploaded my # 1.

    All together now: “Atheism is just another religion!”

    CFI … grrrrr!

  4. tbp1 says

    I’m glad for the ruling, but honestly it’s a bit depressing that it was even necessary to get a legal judgment on such a matter.

  5. matty1 says

    Judge Easterbrook also denounced the contention that secular couples have their unions solemnized at a later date by a clerk of the court as suggesting secular celebrants preside over a “sham ceremony.”

    While treating secular and religious celebrants differently is wrong I’m all in favour of separating the legal aspect of marriage from how the couple choose to celebrate it. If you want the legal benefits then only the law, through public servants (who may be unpaid volunteers with no other public duties) should be able to confer it. If you want to do something that is meaningful and symbolic to you that should be none of the governments business.

  6. says

    I WENT TO A SECULAR CELBRANT SOCALLED “WEDDING”. AT THE END AS THEY LEFT THE NOTCHURCH WE THREW HANDFULLS OF NOTHING AT THE “BRIDE” AND “GROOM”. SEEMED APPROPRIATE.

  7. Johnny Vector says

    Did you add all those grammatical errors Ed, or is CFI in desperate need of a copy editor?

Leave a Reply