We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
An atheist organization has sued the Indiana state government over its marriage statute. The atheists are arguing that the law forbids them from having their own non-religious official perform a marriage ceremony.
This is where I start asking a few questions. Here’s the first one: Where in the atheistic evolutionary worldview is marriage necessary or even an ethical norm? Marriage is a creation ordinance ordained by God. If it’s an invention of man, then it is a convention that shouldn’t have any legal or cultural standing. “You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals; so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.”  Copulate wherever you can find an empty restaurant table. 
Animals don’t marry. The first signs of evolved life didn’t marry. There is no moral obligation in a person’s DNA to marry or do anything else.
My second question is similar: Why are atheists paying any attention to courts of law? There is no accounting for or justification of laws given the operating assumptions of atheistic evolution. The way we “evolved” had nothing to do with law. In terms of law as it is administered today, atheistic evolution was lawless. It was violent. Survival of the fittest. Nature red in tooth and claw. Kill or be killed.
Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898), a Southern Presbyterian theologian, understood what would happen as consistency took the reins of evolutionary ideology firmly in hand:
“To borrow [Thomas] Carlyle’s rough phrasing: ‘If mine is a pig’s destiny, why may I not hold this ‘pig philosophy’?’ Again, if I am but an animal refined by evolution, I am entitled to live an animal life. Why not? The leaders in this and the sensualistic philosophy may themselves be restrained by their habits of mental culture, social discretion and personal refinement (for which they are indebted to reflex Christian influences); but the herd of common mortals are not cultured and refined, and in them the doctrine will bear its deadly fruit.” 
Atheists cannot live consistently with the logical consequences of their worldview. They have to borrow moral capital from the biblical worldview in order to live at peace with themselves and others.
I want to see a truly consistent atheist make a consistent atheistic case to the world. Stand up for true atheism! Tell us that there is no such thing as murder, theft, or rape. These are moral constructs rooted in religion and a belief in an afterlife.
Atheists have some solid scholarly material behind them that rape is natural. Rape, not marriage, is what made evolution work and evolved us to this place. You can read all about it in the book The Natural History of Rape published by MIT Press.
Evolution is all about survival. What survives is an indication of what’s “good.” But what does an evolutionist mean by “good”?:
“The biologist George Williams, in his 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection, clarified what Darwin meant when he wrote of natural selection’s rejecting all that was ‘bad’ and preserving all that was ‘good.’ First, Williams noted, these words were not used in a moral sense; they referred only to the effects of traits on an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce. That is, ‘good’ traits are those that promote an individual’s reproductive interests.”
Atheists can bellyache all day long that they’re not being treating right. Nonsense. There is no accountable right or wrong in a consistently atheistic world view. The very idea that atheists want to marry is non-evolutionary. They are being inconsistent with their faith. And we’re thankful for that inconsistency. As Francis A. Schaeffer pointed out, “Regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world.” 
There is no morality in evolution. Evolutionists have to steal it from the Christian worldview in order stop other evolutionists from beating their brains out.