Clerk won't give gay couple marriage license

[Quetzal]

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.

Christians do not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage.

 

[Angel4Truth]

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

Did you forget you just earlier admitted there is no place of marriage in the constitution ? We already know marriage laws vary by state.

 

[bybee]

Christians do not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage.

True. But the begetting of children as a foundation of marriage, at least historically, does require a male and a female.
But, I am sick of this whole topic. I truly do not care what homosexuals do. I do not care about the whole issue.
I have been arguing from a somewhat academic stance and now see it as jousting at windmills.
God knows what will come next. Society is changing dramatically.
But nature isn't changing.

 

[Quetzal]

True. But the begetting of children as a foundation of marriage, at least historically, does require a male and a female.
But, I am sick of this whole topic. I truly do not care what homosexuals do. I do not care about the whole issue.
I have been arguing from a somewhat academic stance and now see it as jousting at windmills.
God knows what will come next. Society is changing dramatically.
But nature isn't changing.

You are not arguing from an academic stance. You are arguing from a theological/traditional stance. There is a difference.

 

[bybee]

You are not arguing from an academic stance. You are arguing from a theological/traditional stance. There is a difference.

I stand corrected.
Differences do matter.

 

[Quetzal]

I stand corrected.
Differences do matter.

I am not trying to beat you up, I promise. I am tired of this topic, too. If it would stop being brought up that would be an amazing gift. But, the posters at be refuse to let it go, as such, I will always be there.

 

[Quetzal]

Did you forget you just earlier admitted there is no place of marriage in the constitution ? We already know marriage laws vary by state.

Not anymore, they don't (In broad strokes, anyway).

 

[Angel4Truth]

Not anymore, they don't (In broad strokes, anyway).

yes, they do. They vary on many legal issues in marriage and divorce and recognition of common law marriage, etc.

You cant even admit they dont vary, because you know better yourself (which is why you added in broad strokes anyway)

Face it, the right of the people to elect people to represent them in the law was just taken away.

I wouldn't be celebrating that.

 

[Quetzal]

Face it, the right of the people to elect people to represent them in the law was just taken away.

It was? In what way?

 

[Angel4Truth]

It was? In what way?

Read the opinion of the chief justice. Its outlined perfectly.

 

[Quetzal]

Read the opinion of the chief justice. Its outlined perfectly.

I am not asking for that. I am asking why you feel the way that you do.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I am not asking for that. I am asking why you feel the way that you do.

I told you why, read it, i agree 100 percent. That opinion outlines perfectly my stance on it.

 

[Quetzal]

I told you why, read it, i agree 100 percent. That opinion outlines perfectly my stance on it.

So, you have no critical thought or take on it at all? Simply parroting the Chief Justice?

 

[Angel4Truth]

So, you have no critical thought or take on it at all? Simply parroting the Chief Justice?

My critical thought, agrees with what he said, read it or not if you want to know what i think. Im not taking the time to write in depth here, the same thing he said perfectly already.

 

[Quetzal]

My critical thought, agrees with what he said, read it or not if you want to know what i think. Im not taking the time to write in depth here, the same thing he said.

For clarity, can you present what he said that you agree with?

 

[Angel4Truth]

For clarity, can you present what he said that you agree with?

The entire opinion, are you unable to find it?

 

[Quetzal]

The entire opinion, are you unable to find it?

There are a bunch articles with commentary/opinions surrounding it, I just want to make sure I am looking at the right thing.

 

[Angel4Truth]

There are a bunch articles with commentary/opinions surrounding it, I just want to make sure I am looking at the right thing.

Justice Roberts opinion. Not hard to find.

 

[Quetzal]

Justice Roberts opinion. Not hard to find.

He brings up good points in the introduction, I will read it in full when I have time.

 

[TracerBullet]

False, it was not part of her job till recently and the law allows for reasonable accommodation where religion is concerned. She should not have to check her faith at the door.

Why should people have to check their civil rights at the door just because there is a bigot behind the counter?