Kentucky judge refuses to marry couple because they won’t mention Jesus in their wedding vows

A judge refused to officiate a wedding which was planned later in the month due to his objection to the couple’s lack of religious beliefs.

A judge refused to officiate a wedding which was planned later in the month due to his objection to the couple’s lack of religious beliefs.

According to Pathoes, Kentucky Judge/Executive Hollis Alexander confirmed that he turned away Mandy Heath and her fiancee after the two went to file the necessary paperwork at the local courthouse on the day before their wedding.

“I will be unable to perform your wedding ceremony,” said Alexander, who also refuses to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. “I include God in my ceremonies and I won’t do one without.”

The judge’s objections have already been met with criticism from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

“As a government employee, you have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral on religious matters while acting in your official capacity. You have no right to impose your personal religious beliefs on people seeking to be married. Governments in this nation, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky, are secular. They do not have the power to impose religion on citizens,” Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote.

“The bottom line is that by law, there must be a secular option for people seeking to get married. In Trigg County, you are that secular option. The default ceremony offered by your office should be secular and people wishing to add in religion should be able to do so upon request. Not the other way around and certainly not to the exclusion of a secular option.”

Featured image:



  1. Avatar

    Michael J Denis

    August 19, 2016 at 5:07 am

    In point of fact and history, not mythology, “marriage” and marriage contracts were created by people. Once civilization evolved (yeah, THAT word) to the point where sexual unions involved property and power, people created the concept of marriage. It is, at its base, a contract, and therefore it is NOT a religious ritual.

    There needs to be a dichotomy here — one ritual for the religious, and one for the secular, the secular being the actual contract between two people. That’s civil, which is why divorce is a civil action not a religious action.

    Also, one is viewed as legally married if the ceremony is done ONLY by a justice of the peace, but one is NOT legally married if it is done ONLY by a religious leader.

    The judge in question is the CIVIL actor, NOT a religious actor. If he insists on religious marriage ceremonies, then let him become a religious leader. But as long as he is on the government payroll, keep his religious beliefs out of it.

  2. Pingback: Homepage

  3. Avatar


    June 9, 2017 at 5:25 am

    758935 155476To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding 368767

  4. Avatar

    904829 348211 Spot on with this write-up, I truly feel this internet site needs considerably far more consideration. Ill probably be once again to read considerably far more, thanks for that information. 728359

  5. Avatar


    June 27, 2017 at 9:58 pm

    404028 470687You produced some decent points there. I looked on-line to the issue and discovered most individuals will go along with along with your internet site. 490459

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top