Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

[EriktheRed]

The County Clerk in her position of office has no authority to pass judgment on the moral standing of those who apply for certificates.

A father walks in with his biological daughter. You lose.

No, stupid. That's law.

Her moral judgement is still irrelevant in that situation.

It's law until SCOTUS says differently. Slippery slope. We need to get back to Godly rulings.

No.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Infertility won't force any concession no matter how many times it's acted out. should infertile couple be denied marriage because no children will be produced?

Should a father and daughter be barred from marrying?

Each other? Sure. There are potential physiological problems with incest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

what are you blathering about?

THE COURT RULED. capisce?

Th court allowed Jim Crow and The Dred Scott decision, too. Bad law is bad law and can and should be changed.

Our installed SCOTUS will override this courts decision too. It will go on the trash heap like Jim Crow.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The Bible is a LIVING document. The Constitution only as good as those promoting it. Some of the Founding Fathers attempted to free the slaves. It took Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist to finally end that immoral institution. The rejection of slavery, was not the brainchild of either atheistic thought or humanism.

The Bible is just another book.......

God laughs.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It would be funny if a gay being delayed waiting for her to resign when they could have gone to the next county for a license ends up dying in the interim. Ha ha!

You gonna mark this "funny" too, Jake?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It would be funny if a gay being delayed waiting for her to resign when they could have gone to the next county for a license ends up dying in the interim. Ha ha!

You gonna mark this "funny" too, Jake?

Pro-life = laughing at gay people dying.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It would be funny if a gay being delayed waiting for her to resign when they could have gone to the next county for a license ends up dying in the interim. Ha ha!

You gonna mark this "funny" too, Jake?

Pro-life = laughing at gay people dying.

Accepting Death is being pro-life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just a sick-minded AvgGuy2A.

 

[mudwhistle]

I guess I'm looking at this going... If you're a Christian Doctor, you don't become an abortionist.

Retire if it's "against your religion" to do the job.

I don't agree with her.... But these folks can go to another county and get a license. She just feels she's going to hell if she gives them the right to do what she feels is a sin.

That is not acceptable.

If she truly has these religious convictions then she can resign and that is the ONLY recourse she should be allowed to ever take. The government cannot force her to marry people that she is religiously convicted not to HOWEVER if that conviction interferes with her official duties as a representative of the government then she can no longer hold that position.

At no time EVER is my government allowed to deny me basic access to my rights using governmental power because of religious convictions. The government is specifically barred from applying religions standards to me.

So she has to quit her job because these activists want to make a statement?

Oh, and the government denies people a lot of their benefits every day. They literally invented the wild-goose chase and giving someone the runaround.

No. She should resign because, according to her, she can no longer perform the requirements of her job. When you are a public servant, you don't get to tell the public to just "go somewhere else".

Yet Obama seems to do whatever the Hell he wants, when he wants, no matter what. He's a public servant too.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They should be ashamed of themselves. Because they kicked the can down the road on slavery because of political expedience, the fledgling nation they created almost ripped itself apart and killed hundreds of thousands. A document that didn't extend freedom to all people is deeply flawed.

I think they did what they could. Remember, the viability of the US as a nation was very much in doubt at the time. With the British more than happy to exploit any perceived weakness to take back the territory they lost in the revolutionary war. There were issues of rebellions, riots, and inter state bickering that were genuinely threatening our nation's existence. Many of the founding fathers expected the American experiment to collapse in their lifetimes.

Faced with these realities, I can understand why they focused on practical issues rather than more ideological ones.

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

Actually Lincoln had floated a plan of voluntary resettlement in Africa and was shocked to find out that American blacks who had been here for multiple generations were no more interested in returning to Africa than Lincoln was in returning to Europe.

It wasn't voluntary.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

That's why it is a living document.

The Bible is a LIVING document. The Constitution only as good as those promoting it. Some of the Founding Fathers attempted to free the slaves. It took Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist to finally end that immoral institution. The rejection of slavery, was not the brainchild of either atheistic thought or humanism.

This is correct except Catholics were an instrumental part of the abolition movement too...and Quakers. All Christians.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. .

Not according to the Supreme Court- and almost every judge leading up to the Supreme Court.

People are getting married now regardless of the gender of their spouse. Or in the case of this one county- no one is getting a marriage license because of the religious beliefs of one person.

Everyone in her county is being treated equally. No one gets a license. Problem solved.

Doesn't work that way, and her misguided version of faith is about to get very expensive, as it should be...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

That's why it is a living document.

The Bible is a LIVING document. The Constitution only as good as those promoting it. Some of the Founding Fathers attempted to free the slaves. It took Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist to finally end that immoral institution. The rejection of slavery, was not the brainchild of either atheistic thought or humanism.

This is correct except Catholics were an instrumental part of the abolition movement too...and Quakers. All Christians.

So, boys, if the Christians were the good guys, what was the faith of the slaveholders? Oh right, they were also Christians...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Debra K]

Apostolic Christian Church of America: Statement of Faith

Statement of Faith
. . .
17. Governmental authority is respected and obeyed. Members serve in a non-combatant status in the military. Oaths are not taken, but truth is affirmed.

I think she forgot about the above part of her Apostolic Christian faith ... and she took the "oath of office" in January ...

 

[playtime]

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. .

Not according to the Supreme Court- and almost every judge leading up to the Supreme Court.

People are getting married now regardless of the gender of their spouse. Or in the case of this one county- no one is getting a marriage license because of the religious beliefs of one person.

Everyone in her county is being treated equally. No one gets a license. Problem solved.

Part of her job is to issue marriage licenses & if there is no LEGAL reason why she can refuse to do so, then she must do so; otherwise she is subject to reprimand.

 

[playtime]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Infertility won't force any concession no matter how many times it's acted out. should infertile couple be denied marriage because no children will be produced?

Should a father and daughter be barred from marrying?

Are you being intentionally stupid? Of course-- & it is 'barred' because should there be any offspring, then there can be profound medical problems. You should be hearing a banjo playing any minute now....

 

[playtime]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Infertility won't force any concession no matter how many times it's acted out. should infertile couple be denied marriage because no children will be produced?

Were Abraham and Sarah infertile? How about Samson's parents and those of Isaac? And how do Mary's Aunt Elizabeth and Uncle Zacharias have John the Baptist? It would seem that even the infertile have a chance at conception (regardless of age).
infertile

Well, I think you misunderstood the point I was making, but sure...

 

[playtime]

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

So you would rather have had the South have more power in the Federal Government?
That is what would have happened if they did not have the 3/5th ruling.

. Bingo! I told him he didn't know jack shit.

LOL. Yes, you have proven yourself exactly how 'smart' you are. BTW, I am not a 'him'.

 

[EriktheRed]