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. -- U.S. Constitution, Article VI

As we can see, the truth is that men and women who become Justices of the Supreme Court have to swear or affirm that they will uphold the Constitution, but there is absolutely no requirement that they touch a Bible or any other scripture while doing so. It may be customary to use a Bible in swearing-in ceremonies, but any such requirement would be an unconstitutional violation of Article Six, and also of the First Amendment's non-establishment clause.

Equality for all
 

The government recognizing equal rights for everyone regardless of sexuality is in fact something to be celebrated. You can't stop people from loving each other so why stop them from declaring their love?

I suppose swearing on any old shoe will do.

Charlie, I am glad you are proud to be a Christian. It is quite an accomplishment. It's certainly something that I myself have never been able to pull off. So mazel tov. In the meantime, your religious pride actually has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand, unless you feel that proud Christians should decide on behalf of the rest of us which civil rights we get to enjoy and which seem to contradict passages in a book that was written two thousand years ago in a society unlike our own in which slavery and stoning, among other things, were considered perfectly acceptable, and marriage essentially meant a woman being owned by a man.

You are absolutely right, Roger. But until Our Creator is banished from our Declaration of Independence and any mention of Him in the purpose for our Constitution is banished, I will remain grateful to He/that which you find so elusive. I don't hold your ideas against you, but morals did not develop from crawling out of the muck of the ocean. Of course, if you believe that, then I could see how you come to the conclusion that you do. All one has to do is give Matthew 5 and 6 a cursory glance to see where the Founders got their direction from. That they were adept on keeping their own diverse philosophies absent from the Constitution is to God's credit. Not theirs. Thank God that the world is not ruled by theocracies, (not that some religions don't try) and thank God that the world is not ruled by communists or socialists or fascists and anarchists. (Yet.) I will ardently support the Constitution until it tells me that I cannot practice my Christian beliefs or you, your atheistic beliefs. Don't you think we can stand arm in arm on that? That is why I am proud of my(and your) country. My Biblical beliefs tell me to obey the law, so I do. Is there a problem?

Charlie, it might. If the president-elect is an honest person although atheist or of some other faith, a shoe will do as well as a leather-clad treatise with antiquated and phobic content.

But, but Janice, what if they begin to swear on shoes with Dr. Scholl's tucked inside?

Charlie, I am not "proud" to be an atheist. I simply am one. But I have another form of faith that is as strong as yours, though it doesn't require me to postulate the existence of a divine entity. My faith gives me a moral sense that is at least as worthy as the one you get from coupling your moral precepts to a set of stories and myths that reinforce them for you. To say that moral precepts did not arise from the ocean's muck is not to say that the only other possibility is that there is an invisible being who said "let it be." You believe in God, who gave us morality. I simply believe in morality. I think eliminating the middle man is more sensible and gets us to the exact same place.

Charlie,

I have lot time for teachings of Jesus: radical teachings of love, non-judgement and forgiveness -- wonderful, inspiring, stuff, that often seems lacking when Christians (or anyone else) make pronouncements on how other people live their lives. I'm less excited by some of the opinions of other New Testament writers, especially when they start getting all judgemental. Nonetheless, the Timothy passage makes no mention of homosexuality or gay marriage. For it be relevant, phrases such as "evil desires" need to be connected in the reader's mind mind with homosexuality. If I believe homosexuality to be evil and wrong, I will see the passage as being about homosexuality, but if I don't, there's absolutely no reason to connect it to make the connection, and certainly no reason to see at as a prophecy relating gay marriage. Or am I missing something?

I did come across a line in 2nd Timothy (2:23) that I think we would all would do well to heed, myself included:

Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

(To be clear, I'm not saying your argument specifically is foolish and stupid; I'm thinking more generally about how rarely a political/religious arguments on the Sphere is productive.)

All the best,

Matt

Fair enough, Roger and Matt.

If it helps, a quote:


"Without Morals a Republic cannot subsist any length of time"

Founding Father Charles Carroll