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.

 CptJake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...

To be fair, the people of her state, and other sates clearly have the same opinion which is why they passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 75% of KY voters voted to amend their state constitution to further amplify their desire (same sex marriages were already illegal). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ky-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.

Yes, and the majority of Alabama citizens didn't want to desegregate. As a matter of fact, they passed a series of laws to codify segregation. It's almost like the SCOTUS is designed to address just these sorts of issues.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...

To be fair, the people of her state, and other sates clearly have the same opinion which is why they passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 75% of KY voters voted to amend their state constitution to further amplify their desire (same sex marriages were already illegal). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ky-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.

Yes, and the majority of Alabama citizens didn't want to desegregate. As a matter of fact, they passed a series of laws to codify segregation. It's almost like the SCOTUS is designed to address just these sorts of issues.

And? Does that somehow negate my statement? My simple point is this woman's opinion is right along that of 75% of those in her state, including those who elected her.

Jake, democracy is only tolerable when it produces the "correct" results.

 CptJake wrote:
To be fair, the people of her state, and other sates clearly have the same opinion which is why they passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 75% of KY voters voted to amend their state constitution to further amplify their desire (same sex marriages were already illegal). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ky-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.

That still doesn't put her in the same league as the people generalgrog referred to, which was my actual point.

 CptJake wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

All of those things are certainly comparable to a woman who resuses to sign marriage certificates because she thinks her personal opinion on who should be allowed to marry is more important than the rest of the country's...

To be fair, the people of her state, and other sates clearly have the same opinion which is why they passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 75% of KY voters voted to amend their state constitution to further amplify their desire (same sex marriages were already illegal). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ky-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm

So if her county voted along that trend, she is doing what the folks who elected her wanted her to do.

Yes, and the majority of Alabama citizens didn't want to desegregate. As a matter of fact, they passed a series of laws to codify segregation. It's almost like the SCOTUS is designed to address just these sorts of issues.

And? Does that somehow negate my statement? My simple point is this woman's opinion is right along that of 75% of those in her state, including those who elected her.

Well, I mean, I suppose anyone in Jim Crow South who REALLY wanted to go to school with white kids could have just moved to New England (I'm paraphrasing your exact sentiment on homosexuals looking to get married in Rowan County). Let's not pretend that gay marriage was an election issue during the heated Rowan County Clerk's Race. Her job includes issuing marriage licenses to all those who meet the requirements. The SCOTUS, in their ruling, made homosexual couples part of the set that meets the requirements. SCOTUS overrides state law or state constitutions. Therefore, she is in contempt of court and in dereliction of duty for refusing to issue marriage licenses. There's not much to debate here. She's a bigot who doesn't want to play by the rules. Other bigots support her because they don't like the rule of law when it doesn't swing their way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Jake, democracy is only tolerable when it produces the "correct" results.

And if the results aren't to your liking, they must not be "correct"?

 Ouze wrote:

So far as impeachment and removal goes, legislature is not in session until January. I think the governor can remove her if she's convicted of that charge they referred to the AG? But I'm not 100% sure of the details on that.

I believe it was either mentioned earlier ITT, or I've seen it elsewhere on the net, that the Governor, while having the power to convene a special session, has already stated that he will not do so, because he feels it would be a waste of taxpayer money.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?

I doubt anyone could not get married due to her tomfoolery. It is pretty easy to go to another county.

Are people allowed to go to another county?

In the Church of England, you have to be a bachelor of the parish to marry. In other words, you can only get married at your own local church.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?

I doubt anyone could not get married due to her tomfoolery. It is pretty easy to go to another county.

Are people allowed to go to another county?

In the Church of England, you have to be a bachelor of the parish to marry. In other words, you can only get married at your own local church.

My wife and I got married in a county (and actually state) neither of us lived in at the time. I was stationed at Ft Knox, KY, she was at Ft Rucker, AL, and we drove to Panama City Beach, FL for a weekend and had a JOP hitch us.

 generalgrog wrote:

You keep saying this over and over...so according to you in order to be a good german christian in nazi germany they should have never hidden jews..because afterall it was"THE LAW OF THE LAND" to hand over any hiding jews..if the gestapo was looking for them. So all of those christians that hid jews or really anyone from the nazis... were bad christians... or what about those nasty Christians who broke the law and helped negros escape the south in the underground railroad.....or what about those hypocritical christians that helped indians break the law during the time of Gandhi...or what about those Christians who refused to consider Caesar god and who were fed to the lions...what a bunch of hypocrites eh?

And adolf Eichmann was A good christian in your eyes because he obeyed the law of the land in nazi germany, and helped to kill Jews.

You need to read up on righteous civil disobedience and Christianity.

Christianity has been on both sides of civil disobedience. During the Civil War, churches gave sermons using the bible to defend slavery or call for abolition, depending on the region and the denomination. The Civil Rights movement was spurred on by black churches and northern liberal churches, while white southern churches surely didn't exactly support it.

I'm not interested in telling any particular Christian how to be Christian, any more than I'm interested in anybody telling me how to be Christian.

I am interested in telling elected officials, officers of the court, how to be a good officer of the court. And this isn't, technically, an issue of religion. It's an issue of conscious, which is highly related to religion, but there are well over a thousand County clerks in this nation, the majority of whom I am sure are christian, many of whom are practicing. That only one has decided that her job and her faith are at odds, this isn't a struggle with a core tenet of Christianity, but rather with her own conscious. That doesn't make it less real, or less valid of an argument, but what it does is not make any actions against her an "attack on Christianity."

As for this being civil disobedience... what's the good? All of the examples you cited generally showed people taking risks and breaking the law to help others. Who, exactly, is she helping here? I

You also might want to read up on what a "virtuous lie" is..lying is also forbidden, but if you have to lie in order to save someones life(hiding jews from gestapo for example), the saving of a persons life overrides the prohibition on lying.

I think most people (Kant excluded) would agree with you, but lying isn't a particularly harmful act, and saving a life is a very good thing. Denying people marriage licenses actually is a harmful act, and preventing gay marriage is... well, less morally laudable than saving a life.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
But not the people who couldn't get married because of her tomfoolery?

I doubt anyone could not get married due to her tomfoolery. It is pretty easy to go to another county.

Are people allowed to go to another county?

In the Church of England, you have to be a bachelor of the parish to marry. In other words, you can only get married at your own local church.

It varies by state/county, but generally speaking, you need to register in the county you will marry in. My wife and I did not live in the county we got hitched, but we had to get our certificate/license there. In fact, we had to get it 48 hours before the event, but not more than 30 days before the event. If you don't have a venue and caterer locked in 30 days in advance, then you're obviously eloping or stupid.

Which brings up another point, if they want to get married in County A, but had to drive to County B to get their license, then they might not be able to marry in County A. If they've already spent $5000 on the venue, catering, etc, and then the County says "feth you, you fethers!" If Galveston County had not been issuing licenses 3 days before my marriage due to tomfoolery, I would have been out a lot of money.

Now what? What would have been my recourse?

 kronk wrote:

Which brings up another point, if they want to get married in County A, but had to drive to County B to get their license, then they might not be able to marry in County A. If they've already spent $5000 on the venue, catering, etc, and then the County says "feth you, you fethers!" If Galveston County had not been issuing licenses 3 days before my marriage due to tomfoolery, I would have been out a lot of money.

Now what? What would have been my recourse?

I think too much importance is placed on having that piece of paper on the wedding day. Just go get married, party you heart out...then the following weeks, find a county who'll issue your license afterwards.

If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).

The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant

 agnosto wrote:


If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).

The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant

I think most people understand that, but it's also rude to tell a person how they should believe. We can disagree strongly with how she acts, but any time I see a comment along the lines of "well, if she were really a Christian/Fundamentalist/whatever she'd do X," it drives me up a wall. There are plenty of ways to have and express faith, and nobody gets to criticize another person for their beliefs.

It also distracts from the real issue. The issue isn't how good or bad of a Christian she is, it's how good or bad of a County Clerk she is.

 Polonius wrote:

It also distracts from the real issue. The issue isn't how good or bad of a Christian she is, it's how good or bad of a County Clerk she is.

Exactly. I'm perfectly okay with her judging all the gays that get a license from her office, I'm perfectly fine with her believing that they will go to hell, I'm perfectly fine if she closes her eyes for a few seconds after handing them her license to silently pray the gay away, I'm perfectly fine with her praying to God to strike down this sinful nation or whatever she wants to do.

As long as she does her job and signs the paper that says "I certify that they meet the legal requirements to get married" (and not "I approve of this marriage" like she seems to think) she can do all the other stuff as much as she wants to.

 agnosto wrote:


If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).

The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant

I agree! Go all in or GTFO!

 Polonius wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).

The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant

I think most people understand that, but it's also rude to tell a person how they should believe. We can disagree strongly with how she acts, but any time I see a comment along the lines of "well, if she were really a Christian/Fundamentalist/whatever she'd do X," it drives me up a wall. There are plenty of ways to have and express faith, and nobody gets to criticize another person for their beliefs.

It also distracts from the real issue. The issue isn't how good or bad of a Christian she is, it's how good or bad of a County Clerk she is.

Point well taken, I was off base there and certainly wouldn't think to tell someone directly, "You're doing it wrong." Philosophically though, it drives me batty when people make things up, whole cloth to justify their actions.

Maybe I'm just OCD since I spent all that time and money becoming knowledgable about such things...gotta justify my wasted youth somehow!

It's odd that she thinks that she's somehow approving of the marriage, personally when she signs the papers instead of just performing a duty of her office that benefits her constituency.

Before post edit: I looked up Kentucky's marriage license and can see where someone would become conflicted, "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person Legally Authorized to Solemnize Matrimony....."

 agnosto wrote:

Before post edit: I looked up Kentucky's marriage license and can see where someone would become conflicted, "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person Legally Authorized to Solemnize Matrimony....."

That's not really a problem IMO. It still just says "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person, this couple meets the legal requirements..." not "To any Minister...this couple has my personal approval and/or God's approval"

 d-usa wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Before post edit: I looked up Kentucky's marriage license and can see where someone would become conflicted, "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person Legally Authorized to Solemnize Matrimony....."

That's not really a problem IMO. It still just says "To any Minister of the Gospel or Any Other Person, this couple meets the legal requirements..." not "To any Minister...this couple has my personal approval and/or God's approval"

I was just trying to see things from the other side. If the document were strictly a civil procedures document, she would have less ground for contention; however, the wording of the document adds religious relevance.

I like the Japanese system, civil documents have zero religious significance but for various reasons religiously significant language can be found throughout US official documents, even our money. For a country that accepts all religions, we don't really do a good job of keeping them all on the same footing, officially.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


If she really wants to follow the bible that closely, she'll issue marriage licenses without request to the victims of rape to their attackers, something that's actually in the bible. Additionally, for reason polygamy is outlawed but allowed in the bible so she needs to issue additional marriage licenses to men who want more than one wife (I can't imagine someone that masochistic).

The problem with religious "activists" is that they tend to cherry-pick from the bible just those things that validate their particular view and are often very ignorant about what the bible actually says overall. This is ignoring the erroneous information that people tout about homosexuality in the bible to begin with; seriously people, if you're going to quote scripture as a basis for whatever world view that you want to forward, at least take the time to learn the original languages it was written in (primarily Greek and Aramaic) and know what the words actually mean. Taking things out of context is just annoying and since the bible wasn't written in English, they're making false assumptions and creating meaning where there isn't any.
/ rant

I agree! Go all in or GTFO!

Spoiler:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

That's actually a lot closer to the truth than you think.

King James really hated gay people, and he was the one who oversaw the production of the King James Bible.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

That's actually a lot closer to the truth than you think.

King James really hated gay people, and he was the one who oversaw the production of the King James Bible.

Wasn't King James' nickname "The Head Taker"?

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

Does not...
God Forgives

Swear I heard that many times before

 motyak wrote:
Linking one side of the argument or the other to supporting the holocaust is hardly a polite way to argue. Do not follow that line of argument, it's rude and will lead to consequences.

Youve got to be kidding me... I was using an illustration to show how absurd his contention is that your a hypocritical Christian if you don't follow the laws of the land(in all cases).


I wasn't saying he agreed with the holocuast....


mod fail.


GG


edit...thats why I threw in two other Examples, becauseI knew the knee jerk godwinists would chime in.

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

I think you mean Romans was written by Paul.

Leviticus, while traditionally written by Moses, was almost certainly hundreds of years before Christ.

 Polonius wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

You keep saying this over and over...so according to you in order to be a good german christian in nazi germany they should have never hidden jews..because afterall it was"THE LAW OF THE LAND" to hand over any hiding jews..if the gestapo was looking for them. So all of those christians that hid jews or really anyone from the nazis... were bad christians... or what about those nasty Christians who broke the law and helped negros escape the south in the underground railroad.....or what about those hypocritical christians that helped indians break the law during the time of Gandhi...or what about those Christians who refused to consider Caesar god and who were fed to the lions...what a bunch of hypocrites eh?

And adolf Eichmann was A good christian in your eyes because he obeyed the law of the land in nazi germany, and helped to kill Jews.

You need to read up on righteous civil disobedience and Christianity.

Christianity has been on both sides of civil disobedience. During the Civil War, churches gave sermons using the bible to defend slavery or call for abolition, depending on the region and the denomination. The Civil Rights movement was spurred on by black churches and northern liberal churches, while white southern churches surely didn't exactly support it.

I'm not interested in telling any particular Christian how to be Christian, any more than I'm interested in anybody telling me how to be Christian.

I am interested in telling elected officials, officers of the court, how to be a good officer of the court. And this isn't, technically, an issue of religion. It's an issue of conscious, which is highly related to religion, but there are well over a thousand County clerks in this nation, the majority of whom I am sure are christian, many of whom are practicing. That only one has decided that her job and her faith are at odds, this isn't a struggle with a core tenet of Christianity, but rather with her own conscious. That doesn't make it less real, or less valid of an argument, but what it does is not make any actions against her an "attack on Christianity."

As for this being civil disobedience... what's the good? All of the examples you cited generally showed people taking risks and breaking the law to help others. Who, exactly, is she helping here? I

You also might want to read up on what a "virtuous lie" is..lying is also forbidden, but if you have to lie in order to save someones life(hiding jews from gestapo for example), the saving of a persons life overrides the prohibition on lying.

I think most people (Kant excluded) would agree with you, but lying isn't a particularly harmful act, and saving a life is a very good thing. Denying people marriage licenses actually is a harmful act, and preventing gay marriage is... well, less morally laudable than saving a life.

I wasn't saying that her action was of equal "virtuousness" as the examples I cited (that is yours (and others) reading into my post). I was simply using examples of Christians disobeying laws of the land due to there conscience, to correct psi's errant view that Christians are required by God to obey the law of the land, in all cases. Certainly Christians should render unto Caesar what is Caesars, as long as that rendering doesn't conflict with Gods will. Hence why many Christians were martyred in the early years of the Church.

GG

 Polonius wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

I think you mean Romans was written by Paul.

Leviticus, while traditionally written by Moses, was almost certainly hundreds of years before Christ.

You're correct, I got it mixed-up a bit. Old Testament/New Testament. Which is why it was ancient Hebrew vs the Greek that Paul used. I guess I'm getting old.

 agnosto wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Off-topic-Ancient Hebrew is a bear to translate and get meaning out of, the King James version of the bible took one potential translation of Leviticus and ran with it.

Then maybe they were cool with the gays!

For the most part, yes. It was so commonplace in the ancient world that Jesus never even talked about it; never mentioned it as a sin, something to be avoided or anything. Leviticus was written by Paul, after Jesus' death and even then he's arguably talking about sex with temple prostitutes (using a greek word that he made-up himself).


Sorry, off-topic.

I think you mean Romans was written by Paul.

Leviticus, while traditionally written by Moses, was almost certainly hundreds of years before Christ.

You're correct, I got it mixed-up a bit. Old Testament/New Testament. Which is why it was ancient Hebrew vs the Greek that Paul used. I guess I'm getting old.

Does it even matter in this instance? If she really wants to stay true to her faith and not issue any marriage that isn't condoned by her church (I believe she's Baptist?) then to be consistent she should be refusing to issue licenses to Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because none of those couples are in compliance with her sect of Protestant Christianity. She's just refusing to marry gays so its a cut and dried case of descrimination and failure to uphold her official responsibilities. She can't pick and choose who can get married, that's not her job, her job is to issue licenses to every eligible couple that wants one.

If Kentucky was contesting the SCOTUS decision and the issue of the legality of gay marriage was still in legal limbo due to injunctions or appeals or whatever she might have legal standing to refuse to issue licenses to gays but to my knowledge that's not the case.

Evangelicals really do themselves a disservice when they conflate private religious beliefs with public responsibilities. The state of Kentucky is not requiring the clerk to do anything that violates her personal religious views against gay marriage because the state isn't asking her to get married to a woman. This is like a vegan or a buddhist refusing to issue a hunting license. If you're not specifically partaking in an activity that violates your personal religion then the govt isn't infringing upon your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Does it even matter in this instance? If she really wants to stay true to her faith and not issue any marriage that isn't condoned by her church (I believe she's Baptist?) then to be consistent she should be refusing to issue licenses to Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because none of those couples are in compliance with her sect of Protestant Christianity. She's just refusing to marry gays so its a cut and dried case of descrimination and failure to uphold her official responsibilities. She can't pick and choose who can get married, that's not her job, her job is to issue licenses to every eligible couple that wants one.

If Kentucky was contesting the SCOTUS decision and the issue of the legality of gay marriage was still in legal limbo due to injunctions or appeals or whatever she might have legal standing to refuse to issue licenses to gays but to my knowledge that's not the case.

Evangelicals really do themselves a disservice when they conflate private religious beliefs with public responsibilities. The state of Kentucky is not requiring the clerk to do anything that violates her personal religious views against gay marriage because the state isn't asking her to get married to a woman. This is like a vegan or a buddhist refusing to issue a hunting license. If you're not specifically partaking in an activity that violates your personal religion then the govt isn't infringing upon your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Well, the counter is that it does matter to her. For whatever, IMO selfish, reason she's hellbent on not issuing any licenses, to anyone. From a purely academic standpoint, I'm curious as to what authority in the bible she's appealing to in order to support her decision....since she's supposedly doing this for religious reasons.

If it's Leviticus then she's sinning because she's actively preventing what the bible espouses the human condition to be, one of marriage with one person tied to another. Leviticus stresses that it is God's will that man(kind) be married and by thwarting God's will, she'll have to make an accounting in the afterlife. If it's Romans, her position is derived from one of ignorance because she's using an inferior translation of the original Greek; not to mention she'd be an adulteress as defined by Romans anyway and she's forgetting the whole, "let he without sin cast the first stone" thing.

IMO, she doesn't like homosexuality, on a personal level, and is using her religion as a shield to protect her from being labeled what she is. It's distasteful but something that we Americans appear to not only condone but encourage with all of our supposed religious protections...funny how they only apply if you're Christian.

Edit:

As your signature states, the world wants to be deceived and so it is deceived.

 agnosto wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Does it even matter in this instance? If she really wants to stay true to her faith and not issue any marriage that isn't condoned by her church (I believe she's Baptist?) then to be consistent she should be refusing to issue licenses to Catholics, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. because none of those couples are in compliance with her sect of Protestant Christianity. She's just refusing to marry gays so its a cut and dried case of descrimination and failure to uphold her official responsibilities. She can't pick and choose who can get married, that's not her job, her job is to issue licenses to every eligible couple that wants one.

If Kentucky was contesting the SCOTUS decision and the issue of the legality of gay marriage was still in legal limbo due to injunctions or appeals or whatever she might have legal standing to refuse to issue licenses to gays but to my knowledge that's not the case.

Evangelicals really do themselves a disservice when they conflate private religious beliefs with public responsibilities. The state of Kentucky is not requiring the clerk to do anything that violates her personal religious views against gay marriage because the state isn't asking her to get married to a woman. This is like a vegan or a buddhist refusing to issue a hunting license. If you're not specifically partaking in an activity that violates your personal religion then the govt isn't infringing upon your freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Well, the counter is that it does matter to her. For whatever, IMO selfish, reason she's hellbent on not issuing any licenses, to anyone. From a purely academic standpoint, I'm curious as to what authority in the bible she's appealing to in order to support her decision....since she's supposedly doing this for religious reasons.

If it's Leviticus then she's sinning because she's actively preventing what the bible espouses the human condition to be, one of marriage with one person tied to another. Leviticus stresses that it is God's will that man(kind) be married and by thwarting God's will, she'll have to make an accounting in the afterlife. If it's Romans, her position is derived from one of ignorance because she's using an inferior translation of the original Greek; not to mention she'd be an adulteress as defined by Romans anyway and she's forgetting the whole, "let he without sin cast the first stone" thing.

IMO, she doesn't like homosexuality, on a personal level, and is using her religion as a shield to protect her from being labeled what she is. It's distasteful but something that we Americans appear to not only condone but encourage with all of our supposed religious protections...funny how they only apply if you're Christian.

Edit:

As your signature states, the world wants to be deceived and so it is deceived.

Agreed.