US Constitution, Article VI, No Religious Test for public office

We’ve heard many examples of “officials” refusal to issue “gay” marriage licenses based on religious beliefs. I’m talking about areas where same-sex marriage is legal.

I’ve always wondered if these “officials” ever refused a marriage license due to divorce, different religious beliefs or because the applicants were atheists?

Since a marriage license is a legal state/government document the “official” is an officer of the state/government.

Of course, all state and government officials are legally bound by the United States Constitution.

According to article six of the United States Constitution:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the
laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by
oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States.
In other words no religious test was required for these
“marriage officials” to take office.

As you can see, that would be against the law as stated above in the United States Constitution. It would be illegal.

Yet some of these “officials” chose to impose a religious test on those who seek to obtain a legal document, which, in these cases, is their legal right.

Divorce is clearly against Christian beliefs. One must wonder why we haven’t heard about divorced applicants being refused a marriage license.

It’s obvious they are being selective in the enforcement of these religious beliefs. Of course that means they have “crossed the line”; the dividing line between “religious beliefs” and “personal bias”.

In this case, as with so many religious issues these days, it becomes apparent the later of the two is the most likely suspect.

In the bigger picture, why are any of our state/government representatives using religion as a arguing point for/against issues?

Since requiring religious affiliation to hold office would be unconstitutional, constitutionally religion falls under the umbrella of personal beliefs. Of course most of us don’t need the constitution to tell us that.

But we must take note of the fact this is in the constitution at all.

Since religion and the bible are about truth and love, one must wonder why it be rejected as a requirement to hold public office?

Obviously the wisdom of our founding fathers was based on their life experiences.

As we see religion attempting to creep into politics we must remember, history forgotten is often history repeated.

www.GayTalkRadio.org a 24/7 LGBTQIA Independent Internet Radio Station. Visit, Listen, Support and become involved.

21st Century: Racial Bigotry Lives on in Southeastern Louisiana

Keith Bardwell, a white justice of the peace in the southeastern part of the state, refused to issue a marriage license earlier this month because the couple are interracial.

The Louisiana Governor has called for a full investigation and also said "Disciplinary action should be taken immediately — including the revoking of his license."

Bardwell feels he has every right to "recuse himself from marrying people." Bardwell has said he always asks if a couple is interracial and, if they are, refers them to another justice of the peace. Bardwell said no one had complained in the past. His reasoning is he doesn't marry the couples because he's worried about their children's futures.

Click here for the full article.


www.GayTalkRadio.org a 24/7 LGBTQIA Independent Internet Radio Station. Visit, Listen, Support and become involved.

APA: Gay relationships no less than straight relationships

WASHINGTON – Same-sex couples are just as committed in their romantic relationships as heterosexual couples, say researchers who have studied the quality of adult relationships and healthy development. Their finding disputes the stereotype that couples in same-sex relationships are not as committed as their heterosexual counterparts and are therefore not as psychologically healthy.

These results are from two studies featured in the January issue of Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.

Both studies compared same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples on a number of developmental and relationship factors. The first study examined whether committed same-sex couples differ from engaged and married opposite-sex couples in how well they interacted and how satisfied they were with their partners.

Researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign compared 30 committed gay male and 30 committed lesbian couples with 50 engaged heterosexual couples and 40 older married heterosexual couples, as well as with dating heterosexual couples. All the partners responded to a questionnaire that documented how positively they interacted with one another on a day to day basis. The couples were also observed during a laboratory task and were monitored for distress by skin conductance and heart rate.

The notion that committed same-sex relationships are “atypical, psychologically immature, or malevolent contexts of development was not supported by our findings,” said lead author Glenn I. Roisman, PhD. “Compared with married individuals, committed gay males and lesbians were not less satisfied with their relationships.”

Furthermore, said Roisman, “Gay males and lesbians in this study were generally not different from their committed heterosexual counterparts on how well they interacted with one another, although some evidence emerged the lesbian couples were especially effective at resolving conflict.”

In the second study, researchers from the University of Washington, San Diego State University and the University of Vermont wanted to examine how sexual orientation and legal status affected relationship quality. To do so, they followed 65 male and 138 female same-sex couples with civil unions, 23 male and 61 female same-sex couples not in civil unions and 55 heterosexual married couples over a three-year period. One member of each heterosexual couple was a sibling to a member of a civil union couple.

Despite the legal status of their relationships, the civil union couples showed no differences on any of the relationship measures from the same-sex couples who were in committed relationships but not in civil unions. “This may be because those couples in Vermont who sought out the legal protection of a civil union might have legalized their relationship more for symbolic value than for commitment reasons, which did not affect their day-to-day interactions,” said lead author Kimberly F. Balsam, PhD.

However, the same sex-couples who were not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships compared to those couples in same-sex civil unions or heterosexual marriages. This suggests that the protections afforded by a legalized relationship may impact same-sex relationships, something the study's authors plan to follow up on in future research, said Balsam.

full article