Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did GG actually call me an atheist because I believe in following Jesus's teachings and not a bunch of fakers?

Westborough called. They want you to come home to them.

On actual topic...I hope this woman sticks by her guns. Truly. And her bank acct can pay her prison costs instead of the state.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

Again, how is it moral to deny wedding licenses to an entire jurisdiction for everyone?

If people can't get married, then they're fornicating out of wedlock!

We need to stop this! Issue licenses before we start having a lot of bastards born!

yes actually. If you're arguing T^en Commandments, well thats MOSES IN YOUR FACE hitting you with that snake stick.

Christian Bale Moses or Charlton Heston Moses?

Anyways, I had heard that the assistant clerks were given the same ultimatum. Any word on their decisions?

 generalgrog wrote:
20 years ago you(well maybe not you..but many people would) would have called me delusional if I suggested that there would be gay marriage in the USA.

I don't think so. They may have wanted it to appear delusional, but the writing was on the wall 20 years ago. Don't ask, don't tell landed in 1994, and from everything I've heard from those who served, homosexuality in the ranks was more or less an open secret. Hawaii's supreme court first rules that same sex marriage could be constitutionally required as early as 1993.

Gay characters were appearing in TV shows, and the mood was shifting.

Interestingly, a lot of the noise to ban gay marriage only started around that time, mostly in response to growing gay awareness.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Christian Bale Moses or Charlton Heston Moses?

Anyways, I had heard that the assistant clerks were given the same ultimatum. Any word on their decisions?

There is only one Moses...Mel Brooks!

Earlier posts said at least one had agreed to do them. And there's another moral point. She didn't have to do them herself, thus not sinning. Someone else could do them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And what is exactly is the immoral law here? Oh yeah, I remember, it's the equal protection clause.

Again, how is it moral to deny wedding licenses to an entire jurisdiction for everyone?

Good point. I hadn't really thought about it in that direction.

This is the only thing I'm troubled about... I guess she feels hypocritical if she issued them to non gays? Not really sure.

GG

Yea so she was going to try to insure that technically no one was going to be legally married in that county ever again? In the words of Darth Vader: WTF???

She should be feeling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.

And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling

 generalgrog wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Grog actually means false Christian ministers. Real Christians value Jesus's ruling about loving your fellow man. "Christians" who oppose that viewpoint are not real Christians. They're pretenders and false practitioners. But GG won't let that get in his way.

LOL....so 100% of all Christian, Jjewish, and Islamic ministers before 1960 were false ministers?

nice logic fail there..

But you actually help to prove my point. The atheist state... declares that anyone not performing gay marriage is a "false minister" and thus loses the right to marry at all. Or any 'false ministers" will be jailed for not marrying gays.

The end is truly nigh...

...

To be fair that has been the case since the separation clause took effect. Once the government licensed marriage, which the constitution obliged it to do, all religions were in the same boat and none had any preference.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

The next thing to come is arresting Christian ministers for not marrying gays.

that's an asinine concern. She's an elected official, bound by the law of the land. Ministers are not.

And ministers have broad reach to discriminate in who they marry. Plenty won't marry people of different faiths, or people outside their faith. Religion has been a protected class for a lot longer.

I beg to differ..all they have to do. is call it a "hate crime" and its open season on traditional Churches/synagogues/mosques.


GG

I will point you to the Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

So, either you believe that the governments are in power because God allows them to be, or you don't, and think you can act against what the Bible has mandated because... reasons?

so martin luther king was evil for civil disobedience? You sound like the rednecks from the 1960's who called king a rabble rouser and, a hypocrite.

making a stand against an immoral law, is different than not paying your taxes.

GG

Evil? I'm not passing judgement here, not my place. Only pointing out that the Bible quite clearly states that the "powers that be" are placed there by God, and one is expected to obey them. If you judge a law as "immoral" is certainly your prerogative... but it is not your prerogative to sit as a part of that government and refuse to enact its lawful mandates. It is certainly your right to move within the bounds of law to change those laws you find immoral. What she is doing is not in keeping with Biblical mandate.

King was a rabble-rouser. That's... exactly what he was, as a matter of fact. You can be a rabble-rouser and still be in the right, there's not a judgement against it, provided you live in a nation where rabble-rousing isn't a crime. A hypocrite? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Was King a sinner? Of course. Everyone is. But King was not a hypocrite in that he was pushing for equal rights and equal treatment while also denying the same to others.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.

And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling

This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..

GG

Psienisis wrote:

Evil? I'm not passing judgement here, not my place. Only pointing out that the Bible quite clearly states that the "powers that be" are placed there by God, and one is expected to obey them. If you judge a law as "immoral" is certainly your prerogative... but it is not your prerogative to sit as a part of that government and refuse to enact its lawful mandates. It is certainly your right to move within the bounds of law to change those laws you find immoral. What she is doing is not in keeping with Biblical mandate.

King was a rabble-rouser. That's... exactly what he was, as a matter of fact. You can be a rabble-rouser and still be in the right, there's not a judgement against it, provided you live in a nation where rabble-rousing isn't a crime. A hypocrite? I don't think that word means what you think it means. Was King a sinner? Of course. Everyone is. But King was not a hypocrite in that he was pushing for equal rights and equal treatment while also denying the same to others.

the law of Caeser was to pledge allegiance and ackowledge that caeser was a god. Many Christians in the early church were martyred for not bowing the knee and following the law of the land.

The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings. And America was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by the way. Religious freedom from the state, not the other way around.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.

And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling

This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..

GG

No, but her refusal to "do unto others as she would have them do unto her" is pretty telling. As is her refusal to give the grace to others that has been given to her. There's also an admonition from Jesus about worrying over the speck in your neighbor's eye while having a log in your own.

The point being.... that Christians are not required to follow laws that contradict clear Biblical teachings. And America was founded on the principal of religious freedom, by the way. Religious freedom from the state, not the other way around.

And Biblical teachings don't say anything at all about issuing marriage licenses while being part of a secular state, which the US is. You are correct that it is founded on the principal of religious freedom... and her religious beliefs against gay marriage are not being violated. However, her office as county clerk is not part of her religious beliefs. In this case, *she* is the state and is enforcing religious law on others not of her faith.

Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

I'm planning to repent 4 seconds before I die.

Just in case!

Edit: Oh, who am I kidding. All the fun people will be elsewhere!

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

If it worked for Jeffrey Dahmer, it can work for you too.

 Psienesis wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.

And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling

This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..

GG

No, but her refusal to "do unto others as she would have them do unto her" is pretty telling. As is her refusal to give the grace to others that has been given to her. There's also an admonition from Jesus about worrying over the speck in your neighbor's eye while having a log in your own.

She is not divorcing anyone is she? what does her divorces have to do with gay marriage ? You are really determined to hate this woman aren't you?

GG

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

It depends what you mean by "free pass."

Most Christian theology holds that sincere regret is sufficient. Catholic view also requires appropriate penance.

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

wow....really?

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

wow....really?

GG

Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.

 Polonius wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

It depends what you mean by "free pass."

Most Christian theology holds that sincere regret is sufficient. Catholic view also requires appropriate penance.

I think the main driving factor is to avoid the trip to the hot place downstairs right? Conversion is essentialy a 'free pass' to that if what i've been reading around the internet regarding this woman's infidelitys and divorces are concerned that they dont count upon her moral standing since she converted

You'll have to excuse me, I'm not a very religious minded person

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

wow....really?

GG

Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.

He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message. Besides, the whole divorce thing in this case is just an ad hominem anyway, the fact that she's not doing her job ought to be more than enough.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

wow....really?

GG

Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.

He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message.

So its another case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

 generalgrog wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
She should be filling hypocritical anyways due her 3 prior marriages and reported infidelity.

And it was reported that she had no issue signing a license for a Transgendered individual prior to the SCOTUS rulling

This is so wrong...her marriages were before her conversion to Christianity. So not hypocritical..

GG

No, but her refusal to "do unto others as she would have them do unto her" is pretty telling. As is her refusal to give the grace to others that has been given to her. There's also an admonition from Jesus about worrying over the speck in your neighbor's eye while having a log in your own.

She is not divorcing anyone is she? what does her divorces have to do with gay marriage ? You are really determined to hate this woman aren't you?

GG

I don't hate this woman. Quite the contrary, actually, I feel very sorry for her. That she has been shown Grace and is unwilling to share that Grace. Because what she's doing right now is simply adding ammunition to those who see how she behaves and will distance themselves from God because of her actions.

They see her and they say, "Look at her! If that is how Christians act, then I want nothing to do with them!" rather than her taking the moral stand of "I do not believe that this law is just, and I do not believe that it is in keeping with God's word, and thus I can no longer support this government and must step down as its representative to the people of this county." If she wishes to be a martyr, then that would be the way to do it. But that, of course, doesn't make her famous and won't get her a GoFundMe, appearances on talk shows, and all the rest of the quite-secular goods that go with being internet-famous. She does not do what she does to glorify God, she does it for her selfish aggrandizement.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

wow....really?

GG

Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.

He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message. Besides, the whole divorce thing in this case is just an ad hominem anyway, the fact that she's not doing her job ought to be more than enough.

Which really makes the use of Book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 and 2 as an example used in this thread interesting. When the alleged author of that book was named Saul, he was not a good friend of the early Christians...

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

Yeah, I think god prefers it that way actually. Nothing makes him happier than when a lost sheep, prodigal son, or lazy vineyard worker, shows up at the last minute and makes everyone else feel like they've wasted their time.

Jesus submitted by to the law and let Rome judge and execute him. Unlike her He never ran for Roman office or swore to uphold Roman law, although He did pay his taxes.

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wasnt aware converting was a free pass

So I could murder, rape and pillage all my life, but If i convert its all good?

wow....really?

GG

Thats what you just said, she converted so anything before that isnt applicable.

He's right though. If I murder a bunch of people and then realize that doing so was a really gakky thing to do and actually, genuinely, repent I'm not a hypocrite for spreading that message.

So its another case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Not at all, unless you're claiming that people aren't allowed to change their mind, ever.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Not at all, unless you're claiming that people aren't allowed to change their mind, ever.

People are allowed to change their mind, most certainly. Only issue is when they're hypocrites about it.

WrentheFaceless wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Not at all, unless you're claiming that people aren't allowed to change their mind, ever.

People are allowed to change their mind, most certainly. Only issue is when they're hypocrites about it.

The entire point is that it's entirely possible to consider one's own actions in the past to be wrong. You're not a hypocrite if you honestly consider what you did wrong.

Now, proving that on the other hand...

 Frazzled wrote:
Ok what am I missing. It used to be if someone wanted to take a stand they would resign on principle. Why has she not resigned? A resignation would reflect she cannot morally fulfill her duties, now that that has changed.

In turn how does she morally keep an entire region from having marriages? That seems to foment the sin of coveting thy neighbor's butt and committing adultery. She's in league with...STAN!!! er wait no... SATAN!

It's because it has nothing at all to do with principle, but her feeding a martyr complex.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Does the fact that, at the time she took office, it was not the law of the land have any bearing?

Nope, no bearing at all, because the oath of office is literally, 'I solemnly swear to do my job.' There's no date attached to it, otherwise it would make things like Loving v Virginia completely pointless until you started electing people after it'd been decided.

When you can no longer follow your oath because the law has changed and you no longer agree with it, then you resign. You don't stop following your oath.