U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
V
There continues to be a few members on here who insist that Davis is in error, when in fact it is they who are in error.
These members make unrighteous judgment on the woman because of her divorces before she became a believer, and on the teachings of her church, which admittedly don't appear biblical. But unless they know Davis personally, and unless they can show she adheres to those beliefs -- which they can't -- the issue is a red herring.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no one here knows Kim Davis personally. We would have heard from them by now if anyone did. The members vilifying her do not know Davis' heart. Only Christ knows that, yet they insist on the right to usurp Christ's judgmental right as their own. Satan did the same thing. We all know what his result was.
One has even called Davis' views "a mistake" that she is "personally approving" a document she records. That member clearly is clueless as to what a county clerk does in fulfilling his/her duties.
A clerk's duties represent the figurative stamp of approval of the county in which they serve. The people of Ashland, and of Rowan County, are uniformly against LGBT marriage being codified by the state. Therefore, it is not just Davis' views at stake, but those of the entire county. The members who make this issue hers personally refuse to see the fact that she is upholding the opinions of the vast majority of her constituency.
That member goes on to insist the "solution" offered by that member is biblically sound. It isn't. It is unbiblical and the member should be ashamed for not having the conviction to stand for the same principles of Jesus Christ that Davis herself sits in a jail to uphold.
The amazingly self-righteous assessment this member makes as to "considering a controversy before deciding to be a Christian martyr" is unbelievable in it's ignorance of who a Christian is in the world. The reality is, if one is a Christian, there is no "deciding" to be a Christian martyr. If we uphold the tenets of faith and the cause of Christ, there is no choice. Being a martyr is doing what is right, without thought or care for the consequences.
If we aren't ready to pay the price for our faith, even if that price is death, then we are not worthy to be called His. Davis most assuredly is worthy, not because of who she is, but because of who Christ is in her. Anyone who can't understand that needs to withdraw to their quiet place and ask themselves some serious questions.
These members make unrighteous judgment on the woman because of her divorces before she became a believer, and on the teachings of her church, which admittedly don't appear biblical. But unless they know Davis personally, and unless they can show she adheres to those beliefs -- which they can't -- the issue is a red herring.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that no one here knows Kim Davis personally. We would have heard from them by now if anyone did. The members vilifying her do not know Davis' heart. Only Christ knows that, yet they insist on the right to usurp Christ's judgmental right as their own. Satan did the same thing. We all know what his result was.
One has even called Davis' views "a mistake" that she is "personally approving" a document she records. That member clearly is clueless as to what a county clerk does in fulfilling his/her duties.
A clerk's duties represent the figurative stamp of approval of the county in which they serve. The people of Ashland, and of Rowan County, are uniformly against LGBT marriage being codified by the state. Therefore, it is not just Davis' views at stake, but those of the entire county. The members who make this issue hers personally refuse to see the fact that she is upholding the opinions of the vast majority of her constituency.
That member goes on to insist the "solution" offered by that member is biblically sound. It isn't. It is unbiblical and the member should be ashamed for not having the conviction to stand for the same principles of Jesus Christ that Davis herself sits in a jail to uphold.
The amazingly self-righteous assessment this member makes as to "considering a controversy before deciding to be a Christian martyr" is unbelievable in it's ignorance of who a Christian is in the world. The reality is, if one is a Christian, there is no "deciding" to be a Christian martyr. If we uphold the tenets of faith and the cause of Christ, there is no choice. Being a martyr is doing what is right, without thought or care for the consequences.
If we aren't ready to pay the price for our faith, even if that price is death, then we are not worthy to be called His. Davis most assuredly is worthy, not because of who she is, but because of who Christ is in her. Anyone who can't understand that needs to withdraw to their quiet place and ask themselves some serious questions.
Last edited:
V
We're interested in the rule of law being upheld. Obama has completely ignored the law. This Court has done the same. The judges who have immediately ruled that clerks MUST issues LGBT marriage licenses ignore the tenets of jurisprudence, which prevent courts at any level from "writing law" through their opinions. All opinions do is require the legislatures and Congress to change the laws to conform to their rulings.
The requirement by judges around the country that clerks everywhere issue LGBT licenses is unconstitutional in itself.
The requirement by judges around the country that clerks everywhere issue LGBT licenses is unconstitutional in itself.
V
Asked and answered ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Your rejection of God's grace and truth is inexcusable.
All sin can be forgiven. Divorce is included. So is homosexual behavior. But same-sex believers or the lost applying for a marriage license is a continuation of sin, not a repentance from it. Therefore her issuance of marriage licenses to divorced people is not a violation of God's law, as He sanctions one-man-one-woman marriage. A same-sex marriage, He does not sanction.
It becomes difficult at the juncture of belief and unbelief in divorced people marrying others. Does Davis ask the gay/lesbian couple if they are gay/lesbian? She doesn't have to, as the application makes the answer obvious. Does she ask the man and woman if they've been married before, and if so have they repented?
Christ's directive for confronting sin begins with a private, one-on-one meeting. Not a public one. The LGBT couples make it public by making the application. Her judgment is righteous, because they have publicly stated they are in defiance of God's law. She is prevented, by biblical precept -- see Matthew 18:15-20 -- from confronting potential but unrevealed sin in a traditional couple. The LGBT couples make it obvious. End of debate.
Got it?
All sin can be forgiven. Divorce is included. So is homosexual behavior. But same-sex believers or the lost applying for a marriage license is a continuation of sin, not a repentance from it. Therefore her issuance of marriage licenses to divorced people is not a violation of God's law, as He sanctions one-man-one-woman marriage. A same-sex marriage, He does not sanction.
It becomes difficult at the juncture of belief and unbelief in divorced people marrying others. Does Davis ask the gay/lesbian couple if they are gay/lesbian? She doesn't have to, as the application makes the answer obvious. Does she ask the man and woman if they've been married before, and if so have they repented?
Christ's directive for confronting sin begins with a private, one-on-one meeting. Not a public one. The LGBT couples make it public by making the application. Her judgment is righteous, because they have publicly stated they are in defiance of God's law. She is prevented, by biblical precept -- see Matthew 18:15-20 -- from confronting potential but unrevealed sin in a traditional couple. The LGBT couples make it obvious. End of debate.
Got it?
Last edited:
M
ok so...we should never promote more sin...no matter what sin you point to. This lady has every right to resist the promotion of sin...no matter what you think she has approved in the past...its illogical to say she must now approve this sin because people get divorced and remarried ...that's insanity