Given that a government official was available this is just silly:
(RNS) A federal court has ruled that humanist couples in Indiana can be married by their own “secular celebrants,” something that until now was illegal under state law.
In a unanimous ruling, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said denying humanists the right to be married by celebrants who share their lack of belief in a deity is a denial of their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
Under a law dating to the 1850s, Indiana required marriages be conducted by religious clergy or government officials. The humanist plaintiffs argued this denied them the right to be married by celebrants who share their philosophy and gave preferential treatment to religious people.
I’m sorry, the absence of a particular belief does not constitute an identity. If they held or shared a set of positive beliefs about the world that they admitted constituted a set of religious beliefs one could see their point. In the absence of that they just appear to be aping people the typically criticize.
h/t: The Anchoress