Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license

[Shasta]

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.

The same argument could be made for the decree of a king or an Imam. The phrase "better luck next time" shows that the argument is just about the chance rulings of whimsical people who base their decisions on their personal opinions rather than law. The other element of chance is the many reasons why politicians prevail in elections and whom they happen to appoint to the seats of arbitrary power. Democracy is dead. Objective law is dead. The Constitution is terminally ill. We have entered an era where Judicial Common Law is supreme.

 

[Shasta]

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

We are tolerated. We just can't practice the Faith. We are not being allowed to refrain from selling wedding cakes to whom we will or to simply not participate in a process we regard as morally reprehensible. An Islamic state would allow the People of the Book to remain (to pay taxes) In that situation we would be "tolerated." They would want signs of submission to the State. They would suppress free speech. I believe the secular State will demand the suppression of free speech in areas funded by the State - like Public schools. Do you think a teacher who does not believe in gay "marriage will be allowed to say so? Not only will they not be allowed to say so they will be made to actively teach that it is natural healthy and morally correct which apparently is okay with a lot of people. We have taken some steps to prevent that in my state but if challenged the Supreme Court could decree that we all sign a form agreeing to speak in accordance the prevailing view. Maybe they wouldn't but maybe they would. One never knows what they will do. The only thing limiting them is the constitution which they can make mean whatever they wish.

 

[Quetzal]

The same argument could be made for the decree of a king or an Imam. The phrase "better luck next time" shows that the argument is just about the chance rulings of whimsical people who base their decisions on their personal opinions rather than law. The other element of chance is the many reasons why politicians prevail in elections and whom they happen to appoint to the seats of arbitrary power. Democracy is dead. Objective law is dead. The Constitution is terminally ill. We have entered an era where Judicial Common Law is supreme.

Didn't even come close to addressing the OP.

 

[Quetzal]

We are tolerated. We just can't practice the Faith.

You can't? Did Obama rush your congregation during your 9 am service and tell you to stop?

We are not being allowed to refrain from selling wedding cakes to whom we will or to simply not participate in a process we regard as morally reprehensible.

Discrimination laws are for all businesses, not just Christian ones.

An Islamic state would...

I will stop you right there. This is not an Islamic state, as such, any comparison to it would be irrelevant.

Do you think a teacher who does not believe in gay "marriage will be allowed to say so?

They are allowed to say so but there might be consequences for saying it.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Vice is all of a piece, just as righteousness is all of a piece. People are either righteous or they are wicked.

Homosexuality is just a part of the rising tide of evil in western society, along with drugs, brutality, greed.

The Christian is to testify against an evil society and we will.

We see how the bible writings of 4,000 years ago when Lot pleaded with that generation "oh do not this thing" is just what we say today...and society answers the same "who made you judges over us" That also was a time when violence increased...when men were lovers of self rather than lovers of God.

Vain boasters, it is our duty to warn such a society that the end of it is destruction.....and we will

 

[aikido7]

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.

I tend to go for the spirit of a law since laws are made by men.

I take my beliefs seriously. Once I was on my way to Rawlins Penitentiary because I stood up for my personal beliefs. And Shasta, that is moral authority however foolish to the world.

Are you a Christian who follows the tenets and councils of the Roman Empire as expressed by our government today or are you on the side of the character of Jesus' God who did not play favorites and offers Grace to all?

 

[patrick jane]

is the clerk famous now ?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Okay, first they are not forcing her to participate or not participate in a religious activity.

Did you read the law on it? It also talks directly about forcing them to go against their beliefs.

An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

Any approval of homosexual relations makes one guilty themselves.

Romans 1:32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

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.

False, marriage is actually a sacrament of the church. Please show me marriage in the constitution.

 

[Danoh]

Lol - Shasta always comes across as having had too much Shasta (the brand sugar beverage).

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

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

Well, no, of course he isn't but I've heard him venerated as if he's something approaching from certain quarters here but fair enough. I could care less what he thinks either.

 

[Quetzal]

False, marriage is actually a sacrament of the church. Please show me marriage in the constitution.

Legal benefits are not limited to what is written in the constitution. Are there legal benefits to being married? Answer is yes, by the way.

 

[bybee]

Legal benefits are not limited to what is written in the constitution. Are there legal benefits to being married? Answer is yes, by the way.

Perhaps the wording of such a law ought to be reworked?
1. There is marriage, long recognized by society to be a union between a man and a woman.
2. There is Civil union, recently recognized to be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman.
The legal protections may be the same.

 

[Town Heretic]

Perhaps the wording of such a law ought to be reworked?
1. There is marriage, long recognized by society to be a union between a man and a woman.
2. There is Civil union, recently recognized to be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman.
The legal protections may be the same.

Separate but equal rarely works out beyond the separate part and the objection from society is mostly a religious one and even that isn't uniform.

So, since the state contract isn't necessarily tied to religion at all, why don't those of us who have a purely religious objection either, a) eschew the benefits that come with the state or b) refer to our unions as something else, like "the estate of holy matrimony of the _____ church or c) simply recognize that our neighbor's union, whatever it's called, has nothing to do with how we value our own and instead of spending so much time arguing against it couldn't we illustrate what we believe a marriage should be and how it should function?

 

[Quetzal]

Perhaps the wording of such a law ought to be reworked?
1. There is marriage, long recognized by society to be a union between a man and a woman.
2. There is Civil union, recently recognized to be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman.
The legal protections may be the same.

This has been suggested before and my challenge is why would there need to be a distinction? Here is my suggestion (and seems to becoming the reality).

1. You have a marriage ceremony. This is where all theological and personal faith concepts are brought forward in celebration. This is the opportunity to profess your faith together to God and this celebration is at the discretion of the church. This protects the church from being forced to partake in services that do not align with its core principles.

2. (Everyone goes through this) Then, you have the civil service process where you get a license and are rewarded all legal benefits. This cannot be refused to homosexual couples. No arguments, no theological protests, nothing. They are entitled to those legal benefits.

 

[annabenedetti]

This has been suggested before and my challenge is why would there need to be a distinction? Here is my suggestion (and seems to becoming the reality).

1. You have a marriage ceremony. This is where all theological and personal faith concepts are brought forward in celebration. This is the opportunity to profess your faith together to God and this celebration is at the discretion of the church. This protects the church from being forced to partake in services that do not align with its core principles.

2. (Everyone goes through this) Then, you have the civil service process where you get a license and are rewarded all legal benefits. This cannot be refused to homosexual couples. No arguments, no theological protests, nothing. They are entitled to those legal benefits.

That's pretty much how I've seen it for the past few years.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Legal benefits are not limited to what is written in the constitution.

Except that the supreme court was suppose to be measuring the constitutionality of gay marriage. Constitutional wise, it is a states issue.

At least you recognize that the legality of it, has nothing to do with the constitution.

 

[Quetzal]

Except that the supreme court was suppose to be measuring the constitutionality of gay marriage. Constitutional wise, it is a states issue.

At least you recognize that the legality of it, has nothing to do with the constitution.

There is nothing about speeding in the Constitution but we all pay our traffic tickets.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Right, I think it is important to understand to not view the Constitution as the sole source of legislation. After all, there is nothing about speeding in the Constitution but we all pay our traffic tickets.

Then you are perfectly ok with the supreme court taking it upon themselves to create laws instead of those elected to do such, and not interpreting the constitution (which is their job).

Will you object when they create a law you dont like?

 

[Quetzal]

Then you are perfectly ok with the supreme court taking it upon themselves to create laws instead of those elected to do such, and not interpreting the constitution (which is their job).

Will you object when they create a law you dont like?

Was a new law created in this case or was it an interpretation of an existing one? Which did they reference?

 

[bybee]

This has been suggested before and my challenge is why would there need to be a distinction? Here is my suggestion (and seems to becoming the reality).

1. You have a marriage ceremony. This is where all theological and personal faith concepts are brought forward in celebration. This is the opportunity to profess your faith together to God and this celebration is at the discretion of the church. This protects the church from being forced to partake in services that do not align with its core principles.

2. (Everyone goes through this) Then, you have the civil service process where you get a license and are rewarded all legal benefits. This cannot be refused to homosexual couples. No arguments, no theological protests, nothing. They are entitled to those legal benefits.

But it does leave us with the conundrum of definition. I do not accept the definition of marriage as between two same sex persons. I do accept the definition of union between same sex persons receiving the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.
A "title" has significance. It is definitive.
And, in a situation where we are asked to be respectful of one another's differences That is one of the differences that matters to me.