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.
.
N
I read much of this thread, but surely missed some important points.
First, I disagree that issuing marriage licenses to adulterers would be wrong. While I've been cheated on many times while married and never cheated myself, a civil servant cannot know if the applicant will cheat again. The adulterer doesn't announce or check off a box on the application that they are going to have an open marriage, or a clandestine semi-open marriage. Those homosexuals who are applying for a marriage license are stating and have proved to their partner they will have marital sex. It is part and parcel to marriage, in almost all cases. I'm sure there are those who marry for other reasons than sex, but likely few who actually agree to it beforehand. So, I just can't follow that line of thinking.
Jesus didn't always follow the law, as far as I can tell. He refused to sit back and allow the adulterous woman to be stoned, but stood by her side and called into question the morality of the law and the sinful nature of those who believed in it.
What I see as the problem is that this civil servant and others have to go against their moral and religious beliefs which may even be new to them, but none the less important to their new-found salvation.
It seems obvious to me that those with the power to influence laws and get them passed are those who are not Christians nor those who live by mostly Christian values. The world has changed due to greater understanding of the natural world and humans as a biological creature, and less as a spiritual one.
In my mind, so far anyway, the problem seems to be the wording of a license. I've checked out laws on this and they go by each state. The federal government really shouldn't have a say in it. That's the problem with our government today. It is not the same as it was founded to be. I don't want to argue which is better, but I just want to point out that state court decisions should hold a lot of weight in matters like this. Why do we bother to have states, if their laws and regulations are not respected and upheld? I think that's the idea. States powers have been slowly taken away.
Qualifications for marriage licenses may vary from state to state, but for the most part, they are meant to be sure your children have the best opportunity to be born healthy by keeping blood relatives from marrying. That was the main reason for a marriage license, as far as I can see. Taxes, someone said, are another issue. Fair enough...
So, if we need a new law to allow these folks to pay taxes, why haven't the words on the forms for marriage licenses changed? Why aren't those marriages called civil marriages on the forms? They have nothing to do with a covenant or...I'm not sure how to word this....a Christian, spiritual, Muslim, or other religious ceremony/celebration? This could be easily done and offend no one.
One thing is, all of us are going to have to change our thinking on marriage. A civil marriage is not one endorsed by God. A marriage that violates God's laws is not a marriage, no matter how much ceremony or pomp and circumstance is involved. I do believe there is an easy answer to this and that's what should be worked on, along with contacting the state and federal representatives who can change the wording to something more acceptable to all. The government did not complete their jobs.
They started allowing these marriages without change from top to bottom. It's what we do in the U.S. much too often. So, in my opinion, the best way to support this woman is with counsel, moral and spiritual support(prayers), peaceful protest at the state house and federal house, serious attempts to get the paperwork changed and any offensive wording in the laws while respecting the rights of those lost individuals.
I'm sure there is plenty more, but that's as much as I can figure out at this point. I could be way off base here, but I had to put my two cents worth of an opinion into the mix. I too, would like to see some way for us to separate church and state. These new laws do not accomplish what those who have pushed for them intended.
First, I disagree that issuing marriage licenses to adulterers would be wrong. While I've been cheated on many times while married and never cheated myself, a civil servant cannot know if the applicant will cheat again. The adulterer doesn't announce or check off a box on the application that they are going to have an open marriage, or a clandestine semi-open marriage. Those homosexuals who are applying for a marriage license are stating and have proved to their partner they will have marital sex. It is part and parcel to marriage, in almost all cases. I'm sure there are those who marry for other reasons than sex, but likely few who actually agree to it beforehand. So, I just can't follow that line of thinking.
Jesus didn't always follow the law, as far as I can tell. He refused to sit back and allow the adulterous woman to be stoned, but stood by her side and called into question the morality of the law and the sinful nature of those who believed in it.
What I see as the problem is that this civil servant and others have to go against their moral and religious beliefs which may even be new to them, but none the less important to their new-found salvation.
It seems obvious to me that those with the power to influence laws and get them passed are those who are not Christians nor those who live by mostly Christian values. The world has changed due to greater understanding of the natural world and humans as a biological creature, and less as a spiritual one.
In my mind, so far anyway, the problem seems to be the wording of a license. I've checked out laws on this and they go by each state. The federal government really shouldn't have a say in it. That's the problem with our government today. It is not the same as it was founded to be. I don't want to argue which is better, but I just want to point out that state court decisions should hold a lot of weight in matters like this. Why do we bother to have states, if their laws and regulations are not respected and upheld? I think that's the idea. States powers have been slowly taken away.
Qualifications for marriage licenses may vary from state to state, but for the most part, they are meant to be sure your children have the best opportunity to be born healthy by keeping blood relatives from marrying. That was the main reason for a marriage license, as far as I can see. Taxes, someone said, are another issue. Fair enough...
So, if we need a new law to allow these folks to pay taxes, why haven't the words on the forms for marriage licenses changed? Why aren't those marriages called civil marriages on the forms? They have nothing to do with a covenant or...I'm not sure how to word this....a Christian, spiritual, Muslim, or other religious ceremony/celebration? This could be easily done and offend no one.
One thing is, all of us are going to have to change our thinking on marriage. A civil marriage is not one endorsed by God. A marriage that violates God's laws is not a marriage, no matter how much ceremony or pomp and circumstance is involved. I do believe there is an easy answer to this and that's what should be worked on, along with contacting the state and federal representatives who can change the wording to something more acceptable to all. The government did not complete their jobs.
They started allowing these marriages without change from top to bottom. It's what we do in the U.S. much too often. So, in my opinion, the best way to support this woman is with counsel, moral and spiritual support(prayers), peaceful protest at the state house and federal house, serious attempts to get the paperwork changed and any offensive wording in the laws while respecting the rights of those lost individuals.
I'm sure there is plenty more, but that's as much as I can figure out at this point. I could be way off base here, but I had to put my two cents worth of an opinion into the mix. I too, would like to see some way for us to separate church and state. These new laws do not accomplish what those who have pushed for them intended.
Last edited by a moderator:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Our government overstepped here and consequently stepped on our civil rights and those with a religious conscience.
I take it you have no conscience except that of the State?
Our government overstepped here and consequently stepped on our civil rights and those with a religious conscience.
I take it you have no conscience except that of the State?
K
Here lies the problem,people apparently dont know the difference in this country...
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Democracy ...the chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
Republic...A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate. Taken from Lexrex.com
Which are we? Republic! I wonder if most students in collages across the country know this?
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Democracy ...the chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
Republic...A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate. Taken from Lexrex.com
Which are we? Republic! I wonder if most students in collages across the country know this?
N
This site will help you find your legislators.
https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
This site will help you to write a letter.
NEA - Writing to Your Legislators
Please write with responsibility and compassion for all concerned.
https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
This site will help you to write a letter.
NEA - Writing to Your Legislators
Please write with responsibility and compassion for all concerned.
N
Here you will find how to change laws or at least how they are changed at the federal level.
https://www.usa.gov/laws-and-regulations
Interesting responses here, for "how to change a state law".
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-average-US-citizen-go-about-getting-a-state-law-passed
https://www.usa.gov/laws-and-regulations
Interesting responses here, for "how to change a state law".
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-average-US-citizen-go-about-getting-a-state-law-passed
B
I haven't forgotten PennEd, here is a "fuller" explanation of my view from another thread...
Just to throw out a scenario for consideration.... <and because I am willing to take the flack for doing it>....
What IF.... Davis is NOT REALLY SAVED AND SEALED WITH THE HS???? To clarify, I am not judging her soul, I am presenting a scenario for consideration. So, if Davis were not a saved person, but an unbeliever spouting off about how her "religion" does not allow for her conscience to condone homosexual-marriage bur her JOB requires her witness documents registering marriage.
I am putting it this way because I think too many are just "Christian sympathizers" and not fully recognizing that her conscience is NOT about obeying God's Laws over man's but rather she believes she given her PERSONAL APPROVAL and CONDONED every single document, transaction, license, register, recording she has affixed her signature to as the CLERK... and that is NOT a true analysis of her job at all.
I am going to say AGAIN.... she is wrong to be refusing to do her JOB, and she is MIS-USING the constitution, She is right to have the conviction but WRONG to be using her JOB POSITION as a PLATFORM to enforce her personal convictions.... she is an ELECTED GOVERNMENT SERVANT.... not a private contractor or independent business owner.
Thanks for the reply. I understand your point. And I think there is merit to it, but you didn't address my point. She did not have to affix her name to a homosexual marriage certificate when she ran, and then was elected. Your position would have more credence if she knew going into it that she must. Also, are you suggesting that ANY law a government passes AFTER a worker has been elected MUST be adhered to? Suppose she had to sign documents forcing jews, (or Muslims) or any group to a concentration camp?
Since the PEOPLE elected her, and since the PEOPLE time and time again voted down homosexual marriage, since gov. officials from the mayor of SanFran to obama has willfully ignored federal law, why should this woman have to do something against her beliefs THAT WAS NOT IN HER JOB DESCRIPTION WHEN SHE !ST STARTED?
As to your point about blind sympathy from the Christian community, that may be true but it doesn't change the facts of the situation.
You're beating a dead horse.
Her job changed in midstream, she never agreed to the duty of signing marriage certificates where marriage was redefined illegally by a court which usurped the Ultimate Lawgiver's definition. Her conscience appeals to that Higher Definition which was in place when she was hired.
Those aren't just her personal convictions but the majority of Americans as well as God's. As an elected government servant she has equal rights to protest under the 1st Amendment. This isn't Nazi Germany...yet.
Her job changed in midstream, she never agreed to the duty of signing marriage certificates where marriage was redefined illegally by a court which usurped the Ultimate Lawgiver's definition. Her conscience appeals to that Higher Definition which was in place when she was hired.
Those aren't just her personal convictions but the majority of Americans as well as God's. As an elected government servant she has equal rights to protest under the 1st Amendment. This isn't Nazi Germany...yet.
A
Immorality is not a legitimate civil right but rather a perverse corruption which is undesirable for the righteous as every civil right, legitimate or illegitimate, in the legal code is enforceable by the justice department and civil courts.
When perversity is enacted into rule of law as a civil right, it results in government (and private sector) persecution of moral people who fail to violate the moral conscience God endowed them with (a property of the Imago Dei) which is a corruption of government as new perverse ungodly defacto man-made laws conflict with God's de jure absolute moral law. The righteous are then persecuted by government on behalf of the immoral... exactly what we're now seeing occur.
Homosexual acts are immoral and homosexual "marriage" is an abomination and sacrilege of the marriage covenant which God Himself established for all humanity. Denying people their natural law right to a free moral conscience within the context of a religious liberty which was protected by the first amendment until just recently with the grievous deviation of enshrining a gross immorality as a civil right is a serious deprivation of natural and God-given rights.
And though it's a related but separate discussion, from a macro historical viewpoint, the acceptance of homosexuality into the rule of law has always represented a bottom for a civilization after which comes decline and ultimately replacement.
As an African-American, possessing historical grudges both real and imagined against Western Civilization, the replacement of our increasingly immoral and corrupt post-Christian Western Civilization (that rose to modern supremacy as a Christianized civilization beginning with the rise of the Christianized Holy Roman Empire) may be pleasing to you personally but understand that such replacement is never pleasant.
History clearly reveals that neither holy God nor nature are kind to civilizations which reject Him and turn their back on His eternal objective moral law.
As Unwin wrote in his famous sociological historical five thousand year treatise, after a civilization emerges as prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose, ultimately resulting in its decline and eventual replacement.
Civilization and government acceptance of homosexuality and the accompanying persecution of the righteous on behalf of the immoral is the historical bottom which precipitates decline and eventual replacement. Interestingly, professors of history who study civilization decline and replacement (and I have their publications here) assert that this decline occurs rapidly, no more than a few generations, when reached. And we have now reached that bottom.
When perversity is enacted into rule of law as a civil right, it results in government (and private sector) persecution of moral people who fail to violate the moral conscience God endowed them with (a property of the Imago Dei) which is a corruption of government as new perverse ungodly defacto man-made laws conflict with God's de jure absolute moral law. The righteous are then persecuted by government on behalf of the immoral... exactly what we're now seeing occur.
Homosexual acts are immoral and homosexual "marriage" is an abomination and sacrilege of the marriage covenant which God Himself established for all humanity. Denying people their natural law right to a free moral conscience within the context of a religious liberty which was protected by the first amendment until just recently with the grievous deviation of enshrining a gross immorality as a civil right is a serious deprivation of natural and God-given rights.
And though it's a related but separate discussion, from a macro historical viewpoint, the acceptance of homosexuality into the rule of law has always represented a bottom for a civilization after which comes decline and ultimately replacement.
As an African-American, possessing historical grudges both real and imagined against Western Civilization, the replacement of our increasingly immoral and corrupt post-Christian Western Civilization (that rose to modern supremacy as a Christianized civilization beginning with the rise of the Christianized Holy Roman Empire) may be pleasing to you personally but understand that such replacement is never pleasant.
History clearly reveals that neither holy God nor nature are kind to civilizations which reject Him and turn their back on His eternal objective moral law.
As Unwin wrote in his famous sociological historical five thousand year treatise, after a civilization emerges as prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose, ultimately resulting in its decline and eventual replacement.
Civilization and government acceptance of homosexuality and the accompanying persecution of the righteous on behalf of the immoral is the historical bottom which precipitates decline and eventual replacement. Interestingly, professors of history who study civilization decline and replacement (and I have their publications here) assert that this decline occurs rapidly, no more than a few generations, when reached. And we have now reached that bottom.
Last edited: