The County Clerk, Kim Davis, was held in contempt of federal court, and the contempt was recently upheld on appeal.
Now yet another public official from the State of Kentucky, Judge Hollis Alexander, who refused to officiate a wedding, now of a straight couple - because the couple wanted a secular, not religious, wedding.
While the press dubbed the couple who judge Hollis Alexander refused to marry as "atheists", a couple who simply does not want a religious wedding, is not necessarily an "atheist" couple.
And, a judge who refuses to marry a couple who refuses to include "God" into their vows, very apparently means a specific "God".
Apparently, the judge will similarly refuse to marry people whose faith is non-Christian.
Yet, when judges are given by law a right to officiate at weddings, that right comes with an obligation not to discriminate. A judge is officiating as a public official, with an implication that, since a judge is chosen to officiate and not a religious minister, the ceremony is meant to be secular.
Therefore, in my opinion, a judge who is called upon, through a filing in a public courthouse, to officiate at a wedding, has no right to refuse to do so because the wedding is meant to be secular.
I agree with the couple's attorney that Judge Alexander has violated Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In his campaign to become a judge (judge Alexander was appointed by Kentucky governor in 2013), Judge Alexander did not conceal that his views are "Christian".
Yet, in that same campaign, Judge Alexander claimed he wants to provide a "continued, proven, and professional leadership", and has a "heartfelt desire to serve Trigg County".
That service to Trigg County is a service to all residents of the County, in all capacities that the law bestowed on the judge - and that includes officiating at weddings, and there is no point for a judge to officiate at a wedding unless the wedding is secular.
If a wedding is religious, people choose religious ministers to officiate.
And, in refusing to serve the couple by officiating at a secular wedding, the judge seemed to have overlooked that marriage in this country, and in the state of Kentucky, is not legal unless approved by the state by issuing a state license - which means that the pre-requisite for a marriage in the State of Kentucky is a secular, state license.
This is just one other example of judges refusing to be faithful to their constitutional oath of office - which entitled them to wield judicial power and enjoy the benefits, including the financial benefits, of their position - when it clashes with their personal "beliefs".
Of course, Judge Alexander is not the first of U.S. politicians who insisted that Americans "need God" and jamming God down their throats in government affairs - Constitution or no Constitution.
Yet, since our public officials can only serve while they are faithful to their constitutional oath of office, their public opinions about their official duties contradicting their oath, and especially acting on such opinions, should result in immediate impeachment and removal from office, and Judge Alexander is not an exception.
And, Judge Alexander was allowed by law to express his religious views, under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, on one condition - to resign first, and, if not resigning, not to infuse his religious beliefs into his official duties as a SECULAR government official.