Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license

[Shasta]

Discrimination isn't a moral stand

Though you appear to be taking a neutral stance your statement about "discrimination" evidences the existence of a new commandment: to believe or act and speak AS IF we believe that homosexuality is natural, healthy and morally good. The legal right to compel submission to this new moral imperative now belongs to your camp. By not allowing people even the leeway to do nothing you have now become the oppressor on behalf of the State. What was a terrible thing for the Catholic Church to do in former times is now acceptable, even laudable for the State.

If I were in the position of establishing something I regard as morally wrong I would not contribute to it either whether it is about marriage certificates, wedding cakes or anything else. Some with your view said that our concerns about persecution were unfounded and even silly but I see it as a real possibility.

Of course, if we would just comply with the State there would be no problem. That is what the Roman's told the Christians. They did not demand that they believe in the Romans gods just that they go through the ritual of burning a pinch of incense as they took an oath using the name of Caesar and confessing he was Lord. This symbolically represented submission to the State. A lot of Christians compromised. Many others died rather than perform that simple ritual. They were either very foolish or very brave people. I foresee the time when people who work for the State will have to sign a paper affirming or swearing that they will act and speak (and shall we even say believe) according to the States view on homosexuality. Maybe they should have us burn a pinch of incense to seal the deal.

 

[aikido7]

[Defying order, clerk won't give gay couple marriage license by Claire Galofaro Morehead, KY AP] "A Kentucky clerk's office turned away a gay couple seeking a marriage license on Thursday, defying a federal judge's order that dismissed her argument involving religious freedom.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office turned away David Moore and David Ermold just hours after a U.S. district judge ordered her to do the opposite."

Deputy clerk Nathan Davis says the office was advised by its attorneys with the Christian law firm Liberty Counsel to continue refusing same-sex couples as it appeals the ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kim Davis has argued that her deeply held Christian beliefs prevent her from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional, Davis stopped issuing licenses to any couple, gay or straight.

Five couples sued her, and U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning on Wednesday ordered her to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.

He wrote that her refusal "likely violated the constitutional rights of her constituents."

Ermold, in a tearful plea, called her actions "cruel" and said they were representative of the continued discrimination faced by gay couples.

In Kentucky, county clerks issue marriage licenses, but someone else must "solemnize" the marriage before the license can be filed with the county clerk. Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs. But Bunning rejected that argument, saying Davis has likely violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion by "openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others."

"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."

Laura Landenwich, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the 28-page ruling reveals that the judge painstakingly combed through each of Davis' legal arguments and rejected each one. Bunning said that although couples could get marriage licenses elsewhere, "why should they be required to?" He noted the surrounding counties require 30 minutes or one hour of travel and there are many "in this rural region of the state who simply do not have the physical, financial or practical means to travel."

Bunning said state law does not allow the county judge-executive to issue marriage licenses unless Davis is absent from her job, and Bunning refused to deem Davis absent because she has a religious objection. And Bunning said issuing a marriage license does not constitute speech, saying the marriage license form "does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds." Defying order, clerk won't give gay couple marriage license

So? Big deal.

Muslims do the same. Each of these traditional faiths have their own versions of Shari'a Law. And that's the problem.

They either have to change or die out. That's what history always has in store for faith movements that don't adhere to liberty and justice and human dignity for ALL.

 

[Quetzal]

False. See: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm



and



Also the consitution itself, most people these days want to ignore the last part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There are no unless clauses added to the free exercise part.

Okay, first they are not forcing her to participate or not participate in a religious activity. A marriage license is a civil activity because there are legal benefits. And you can throw the Constitution around all you want, but the Supreme Court does not see it that way. Better luck next time.

 

[Quetzal]

Screaming persecution?

Who is doing the screaming?

It has been the homosexuals who have been doing all the screaming.

They want more than anyone else, they want to change things to their advantage.

They want easy access to sexual perversion and want that society condones it.

The want fresh young meat to satiate their perverted lusts.

And they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

Their minds are so darkened they would think they could outlaw the law of gravity and get away with it.

:chuckle: You are a nut.

 

[Quetzal]

Not every behavior is a valid expression of freedom.

We don't rob a person's freedom when we deny a 40 year old man from marrying a willing 15 year old girl. We deny that request because it is immoral and perverted.

Homosexuality is a similar perversion.

Right winger linking pedophilia to homosexuality (again), everyone drink! :cheers:

 

[bybee]

Right winger linking pedophilia to homosexuality (again), everyone drink! :cheers:

Left winger letting everybody off the hook. Everybody hold your noses!

 

[Quetzal]

Left winger letting everybody off the hook. Everybody hold your noses!

Come on, this topic has been done to death on this forum. There are pages and pages of back and forth arguments. I would just like to have this discussion one time without this being brought up.

 

[bybee]

Come on, this topic has been done to death on this forum. There are pages and pages of back and forth arguments. I would just like to have this discussion one time without this being brought up.

Okay.

 

[patrick jane]

they could have asked for a different clerk -

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not every behavior is a valid expression of freedom.

We don't rob a person's freedom when we deny a 40 year old man from marrying a willing 15 year old girl. We deny that request because it is immoral and perverted.

Homosexuality is a similar perversion.

Well, according to Phil 'Duck Dynasty' Robertson there's nothing inherently immoral about marrying 15 year old girls:

"Look, you wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks."

Aside from his asinine slurs on the fairer sex, how can you justify what this man said, or don't you? Now he may not have been envisioning 40 year old blokes marrying underage girls but what exactly is the difference? Is it perverse if a 40 year old marries a 21 year old woman? If it is, society accepts it as legal despite any misgivings people may have as it's the business of two consenting adults, not someone preying on a child.

The same goes for homosexuality. Consenting adults have the right to have relations with others whether straight, gay or bi provided no abuse is taking place.

 

[JPPT1974]

Phil had to marry Kay as he said one time I read off the internet as they were pregnant with Alan.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Phil had to marry Kay as he said one time I read off the internet as they were pregnant with Alan.

Well I wouldn't know about that although obviously they'd had sex out of wedlock if that were actually the case. I wouldn't condemn either for that but it's darn rich that this guy spouts off so much about 'morality' and his comments in regards to 15 year old girls especially if so.

 

[Totton Linnet]

We have a right to disapprove and in disapproving disassociate from acts which we believe brings God's anger to bear on society.

We think God is on one side and society by and large on the other side, we think it is important to stand with God, we think it is our duty to warn that society is bringing destruction upon itself. We think it is important to say to people that there is a different way.

We are like Lot who cried out "Oh do not this thing" and you are the men of that place who said "who made you to be judge over us?"

We think it will end up with you saying "now we will deal worse with you...."

 

[Interplanner]

"If you tolerate evil, you are participating in it" --T. Mann, written from his Buchenwald cell. Indeed, there are higher and more important values than tolerance in itself.

 

[Rusha]

Well I wouldn't know about that although obviously they'd had sex out of wedlock if that were actually the case. I wouldn't condemn either for that but it's darn rich that this guy spouts off so much about 'morality' and his comments in regards to 15 year old girls especially if so.

The comment about 15 year old girls says as much as you need to know about his character ... or rather lack of ...

 

[Town Heretic]

Not every behavior is a valid expression of freedom. We don't rob a person's freedom when we deny a 40 year old man from marrying a willing 15 year old girl. We deny that request because it is immoral and perverted.Homosexuality is a similar perversion.

I'd say it's worse, because the two entering into the relationship are fully capable of understanding their actions in relation to God's desire. They aren't being taken advantage of by someone who could and should know better. To my mind, within the Christian context we both accept that's worse. It's also legal, because we don't make Christian or Hindu or Muslim law here, a thing that protects our individual right to conscience while protecting everyone else in their right to their own. And the choices we make we answer for to God, absent grace.

We disallow the girl's choice because she's biologically and experientially incapable of giving informed consent, which is the basis for any contract with anyone.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Right winger linking pedophilia to homosexuality (again), everyone drink! :cheers:

Actually, in this case... I wasn't linking the two. I was merely making a point that not all behaviors are a valid expression of using our liberty and freedom.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, according to Phil 'Duck Dynasty' Robertson there's nothing inherently immoral about marrying 15 year old girls:

"Look, you wait 'til they get to be 20 years old, the only picking that's going to take place is your pocket. You got to marry these girls when they are about 15 or 16. They'll pick your ducks."

Oh I forgot.... Phil Robertson is the "end all" moral authority right?

Dude.... I could care less what Phil Robertson thinks.

 

[Shasta]

So? Big deal.

Muslims do the same. Each of these traditional faiths have their own versions of Shari'a Law. And that's the problem.

They either have to change or die out. That's what history always has in store for faith movements that don't adhere to liberty and justice and human dignity for ALL.

Christians have defied other governments in history by following what we believe in the face of very cruel persecution yet we not only survived but thrived. If those who remained true to the faith did not submit then what makes you think we will now.? I personally have no intention of submitting to these new made-up laws.

"Liberty" is not compelling people to act against their conscience. Your comparison of Christianity and Shari'a Law is grossly inaccurate and based on your own prejudices. Islam wants to bring the world into "submission" (which is what Islam means), financially, legally, politically and socially. This means no wine, no parties, that women must wear burkas and be subjugated to men. "They are tilth" Muhammed said, (that is, they are like tilled farm land ready for seed to be planted in) "Do with them as you will" Under Islamic rule People of the Book (Jews and Christians) will have to be subjugated and they will have to pay a special tax called the Jizla "in humility" and servility. Humiliation is the primary goal of this. Perhaps you would rather live in that culture than with oppressive Christians who just want to practice their faith by not following certain procedures. But you say Christians want the same thing as Muslims.

YOU are now on the side of the oppressors who wish to "compel" people to comply to objectionable laws under penalty of being deprived of their property and livelihood. By what moral authority do you do so - on the basis of nothing more than the fact that five out of four lawyers who happen to hold your opinion have conjured from thin air out of the constitution. In reality it is not there. It never was. However, because it is now legal it is good, right and proper and everyone had better actively "submit" Perhaps we should be forced to compensate society for our non-compliance by paying for our hate-views via a secular Jizla.

 

[Quetzal]

Perhaps you would rather live in that culture than with oppressive Christians who just want their practice faith to be allowed.

Recently, when has Christianity been in danger of "not being allowed"?