Clerk digs in, defies judge’s gay marriage order

[Chagos]

Good. That county clerk has my total respect. It takes real courage to stand up for what is right when no one else will.

Individuals, even where they form a group of whatever denomination and internal teaching, do not get to define what is right.

The law does.

Disagree, get it changed.

 

[Chagos]

He's standing up for the natural order of things. That is right.

Individuals, even where they form a group of whatever denomination and internal teaching, do not get to decide what's natural.

In fact nature does.

 

[Paperview]

It looks like you may not have read the Supreme Court case (OBERGEFELL v. HODGES) that legalized same sex marriage in all states.

The text on page 27 clearly supports the clerk.


As you can see the recent SSM ruling emphasizes that the 1st Amendment is still in place, and those with religious convictions are protected. The clerk has the law on her side, and the Judge knows it. Else, she would have been fired already.

She's an elected official. You can't just "fire" an elected official.

The Judge has said she is in violation of the law - and the Governor has told her she needs to issue marriage licenses or resign.

 

[Chagos]

You got it a little bit backwards there. You would still get your paper signed, just by someone else. Then clearly the Government did not impose anything on you, religious or otherwise. But if you go in and demand that she, and only she, must sign your paper, then it is you imposing on her.

circular.

I am not (or wouldn't be) imposing upon an individual in government employ, I'd be demanding that the government discharge its duties in accordance with the law. The employee is employed by that government to work for ME.

If s/he cannot reconcile his/her duties that come along with the employment on grounds of conscientious objections, that's ok. S/he's not forced to stay in the held position. But while in it, do the job.

 

[Paperview]

It's pretty clear, from the Court Order:

"The tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by answering one simple question: Does the Free Exercise Clause likely excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a religious objection to same- sex marriage?

For reasons stated herein, the Court answers this question in the negative."

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wvxu/files/201508/miller_v._davis.pdf

 

[CriticalThought]

You got it a little bit backwards there. You would still get your paper signed, just by someone else. Then clearly the Government did not impose anything on you, religious or otherwise. But if you go in and demand that she, and only she, must sign your paper, then it is you imposing on her.

A: Her employees have been instructed not to sign marriage licenses.
B: She took an oath to perform that duty.
C: If it were interracial or interfaith couples being refused due to her sincerely held religious beliefs you would be outraged.
D: As a government official, she cannot impose her view on others. Her First Amendment rights do not trump the First Amendment rights of these couples, and unlike them she chosen to be a PUBLIC SERVANT.

How is allowing a deputy clerk to sign a same-sex marriage license with her name on it forcing her not to practice her religion?

 

[Paleocon]

Homosexuality is natural. Marriage is not it's an arbitrary human construct that has changed it's function time and time again. It use to be a trade of property from father to suitor now it is a testament and a symbolic joining of two who love each other.

Not one sentence of that is essentially correct. Sodomy is directly contrary to the natural purpose of sex. Ya ya I know you don't accept this, but it's still true.

And the purpose of marriage has always been to tie a father to the mother of his children.

Individuals, even where they form a group of whatever denomination and internal teaching, do not get to define what is right.

The law does.

Disagree, get it changed.

Individuals, even where they form a group of whatever denomination and internal teaching, do not get to decide what's natural.

In fact nature does.

I don't know why you're ranting about denominations. I've found its not fruitful to try to dialogue with rabid atheists, so I'm not going to get into a discussion of religion with you unless it's in a thread about religion, which this isn't.

 

[Zinthaniel]

Not one sentence of that is essentially correct.

Every single sentence in my post is correct. And if needed I will provide sources to establish that fact.

Sodomy is directly contrary to the natural purpose of sex.

Sodomy is a religious concept. And religion is not factual it is the antithesis of facts, science, or nature.

Ya ya I know you don't accept this, but it's still true.

Simply saying something is true does not make it so. Sorry, you still need to work on your debating tactics. Throwing whatever nonsense you create in your mind into a discussion and expecting people to accept your beliefs at face value is the opposite of how these things work.

And the purpose of marriage has always been to tie a father to the mother of his children.

No, it hasn't always been.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history





]

 

[Paleocon]

Every single sentence in my post is correct. And if needed I will provide sources to establish that fact.



Sodomy is a religious concept. And religion is not factual it is the antithesis of facts, science, or nature.



Simply saying something is true does not make it so. Sorry, you still need to work on your debating tactics. Throwing whatever nonsense you create in your mind into a discussion and expecting people to accept your beliefs at face value is the opposite of how these things work.



No, it hasn't always been.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history





]

See my response to Chagos in post #107.

 

[Zinthaniel]

See my response to Chagos in post #107.

Well if you choose handicap yourself by bringing into the discussion something you believe but refuse to allow scrutiny of that belief then why are you even here on this site?

 

[Paleocon]

Well if you choose handicap yourself by bringing into the discussion something you believe but refuse to allow scrutiny of that belief then why are you even here on this site?

This question does not make sense. I'm here to debate, but I'm not going to debate about everything I believe every time I post.

 

[Zinthaniel]

This question does not make sense. I'm here to debate, but I'm not going to debate about everything I believe every time I post.

You interjected religion into this debate as if it was a trump card - the moment people refute your religious reasoning you bow out. That makes no sense.

 

[Paleocon]

You interjected religion into this debate as if it was a trump card - the moment people refute your religious reasoning you bow out. That makes no sense.

If you're going to lie, I'm not going to debate with you. I never mentioned religion in this thread until Chagos started going on about it.

 

[Zinthaniel]

If you're going to lie, I'm not going to debate with you. I never mentioned religion in this thread until Chagos started going on about it.

You mentioned sodomy. That is a religious concept based off of the fictitious lore regarding Sodom the city the word is named after.

 

[Chagos]

I don't know why you're ranting about denominations. I've found its not fruitful to try to dialogue with rabid atheists, so I'm not going to get into a discussion of religion with you unless it's in a thread about religion, which this isn't.

Of course it is and to say otherwise is rather silly.

As to not getting into dialog with ANYbody, why then are you here?

To substitute straw man fallacies, ad hominems and non sequiturs for arguments of meat?

 

[Paleocon]

You mentioned sodomy. That is a religious concept based off of the fictitious lore regarding Sodom the city the word is named after.

As I said, I'm not going to discuss religion in this thread.

Of course it is and to say otherwise is rather silly.

As to not getting into dialog with ANYbody, why then are you here?

To substitute straw man fallacies, ad hominems and non sequiturs for arguments of meat?

No, this thread is about pseudomarriage, not religion.

 

[Zinthaniel]

As I said, I'm not going to discuss religion in this thread.

That's a lie - since your brought religion into the discussion yourself.

 

[Chagos]

If you're going to lie, I'm not going to debate with you. I never mentioned religion in this thread until Chagos started going on about it.

Projection.

If there's anyone lying in here it's you.

I didn't start anything about religion at all, in our little discourse YOU were the one to bring it up.

 

[Paleocon]

Projection.

If there's anyone lying in here it's you.

I didn't start anything about religion at all, in our little discourse YOU were the one to bring it up.

Anyone can simply read the thread and see that you're lying. So good day.

 

[Chagos]

As I said, I'm not going to discuss religion in this thread.



No, this thread is about pseudomarriage, not religion.

Define pseudo-marriage

 

[Chagos]

Anyone can simply read the thread and see that you're lying. So good day.

By that you're demonstrating your incapacity to read even your own posts. Lies included. And don't good day me as a means of cowardly running from the mess you're getting yourself into.

 

[Chagos]

See my response to Chagos in post #107.

By way of debating that was no response. Just a means of demonstrating that you're capable of every logical fallacy in the book.

 

[Quag]

Define pseudo-marriage

Pseudo-marriage is anything Paleo doesn't like.
Just like conservatism means believing exactly as paleo believes, If not not you are at best a bleeding heart liberal, but more probably a pinko-communist agitator.

 

[Chagos]

Well, at least the choice of user name is honest. "Paleo" is kind of telling.

 

[Quag]

Well, at least the choice of user name is honest. "Paleo" is kind of telling.

I think it is meant to be humorous as the world is only 6000 years old after all