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.