U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates

[BarlyGurl]

I said sign off on...not approve. Quit inserting what I think. She doesn't want her name associated.

Okay... I can accept your distinction... and point out that her CONCIENCE is only attached to this one "sin" which she doesn't want to be associated with.... what about the myriad of others sins occurring in the other "contracts/transactions/conveyances" she HAS affixed her name and associated herself with???

 

[tourist]

But she did, though, when she did perform certificates on those getting remarried. Hence how you're in favor of one sin, but against the other, because it's more convenient for you. Seems pretty simple to me.

You raised an outstanding point of contention. I'm sure that she does not question whether a marriage license between a man and a woman is biblically correct in the eyes of God. She is an elected official with the responsibility to serve the public in the capacity required by the job. She knew this going in. It is best that she resigns.

 

[Mitspa]

And it's unbiblical to not acknowledge that those remarriages she did allow is wrong.

Again..your missing the point...we can have that debate ...but no matter what you think about divorce and remarriage ...we should never approve more sin because somebody else sinned...what part of that can you not understand?

 

[jsr1221]

I don't care if this lady was a devil worshipper...she has every right to resist this unlawful act....period

So you'd be okay with her being a member of the occult, which is a sin? Again. You're saying you'd favor one sin over another. When, in reality, all of it is wrong.

 

[crossnote]

ABC
All have sinned.
All marry as sinners.
A man and a man does not constitute a marriage.

 

[jsr1221]

Again..your missing the point...we can have that debate ...but no matter what you think about divorce and remarriage ...we should never approve more sin because somebody else sinned...what part of that can you not understand?

What part can you not understand in me saying she already went against the Bible in the first place? Upholding her strong beliefs against gay marriage doesn't change that. Congrats. I applaud for you sticking up for one wrong.. But why couldn't you for the others?

 

[crossnote]

Okay... I can accept your distinction... and point out that her CONCIENCE is only attached to this one "sin" which she doesn't want to be associated with.... what about the myriad of others sins occurring in the other "contracts/transactions/conveyances" she HAS affixed her name and associated herself with???

See post #345 and 336

 

[Mitspa]

You raised an outstanding point of contention. I'm sure that she does not question whether a marriage license between a man and a woman is biblically correct in the eyes of God. She is an elected official with the responsibility to serve the public in the capacity required by the job. She knew this going in. It is best that she resigns.

promoting sexual perversion is not serving the public...its destroying the society. And if you guys cant see the difference between divorce and remarriage and this perversion then I doubt you have enough biblical understanding to judge the matter.

 

[Mitspa]

What part can you not understand in me saying she already went against the Bible in the first place? Upholding her strong beliefs against gay marriage doesn't change that. Congrats. I applaud for you sticking up for one wrong.. But why couldn't you for the others?

So what? so now we must promote all manner of evil because somebody sinned?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

And it's unbiblical to not acknowledge that those remarriages she did allow is wrong.

This looks suspiciously like a justification for vilifying Davis and giving tacit, if indirect, support for gay/lesbian marriage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32). However, God recognizes that divorce will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if the divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 19:9.

And again, we cannot know the heart of people we do not know. When we see divorced people remarry, we may want to make a judgment, but we have no right to do so unless we know their heart. Regardless of whether an LGBT couple are among believers or not, remaining in the relationship is a public acknowledgement they continue to live in sin unrepentantly.

Yes again, God hates divorce. Yes again, divorce is wrong except for sexual misconduct or abuse in the marriage. We can't ask publicly about any sin. But LGBT couples make it obvious. Again, end of debate.

... though I'm sure the unrighteous judgment will continue unabated, and the denial of Christian responsibility to uphold Christ's law of life and Spirit.

 

[Mitspa]

This looks suspiciously like a justification for vilifying Davis and giving tacit, if indirect, support for gay/lesbian marriage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32). However, God recognizes that divorce will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if the divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 19:9.

And again, we cannot know the heart of people we do not know. When we see divorced people remarry, we may want to make a judgment, but we have no right to do so unless we know their heart. Regardless of whether an LGBT couple are among believers or not, remaining in the relationship is a public acknowledgement they continue to live in sin unrepentantly.

Yes again, God hates divorce. Yes again, divorce is wrongexcept for sexual misconduct or abuse in the marriage. We can't ask publicly about any sin. But LGBT couples make it obvious. Again, end of debate.

... though I'm sure the unrighteous judgment will continue unabated, and the denial of Christian responsibility to uphold Christ's law of life and Spirit.

Of course that what he is doing...trying to act as if he is promoting righteousness he is trying to give cover for wickedness.

 

[jsr1221]

So what? so now we must promote all manner of evil because somebody sinned?

You keep saying the same thing over and over again (in this case, asking a question) and expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity.

 

[jsr1221]

This looks suspiciously like a justification for vilifying Davis and giving tacit, if indirect, support for gay/lesbian marriage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and that reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a believer’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32). However, God recognizes that divorce will occur, even among His children. A divorced and/or remarried believer should not feel any less loved by God, even if the divorce and/or remarriage is not covered under the possible exception clause of Matthew 19:9.

And again, we cannot know the heart of people we do not know. When we see divorced people remarry, we may want to make a judgment, but we have no right to do so unless we know their heart. Regardless of whether an LGBT couple are among believers or not, remaining in the relationship is a public acknowledgement they continue to live in sin unrepentantly.

Yes again, God hates divorce. Yes again, divorce is wrong except for sexual misconduct or abuse in the marriage. We can't ask publicly about any sin. But LGBT couples make it obvious. Again, end of debate.

... though I'm sure the unrighteous judgment will continue unabated, and the denial of Christian responsibility to uphold Christ's law of life and Spirit.

So let me marry and divorce just because I'm not physically attracted to her anymore... Then marry again but divorce again because I don't love her as much as I did before.. Then marry again but divorce again because she annoys me... You see how wrong that logic is?

 

[Mitspa]

You keep saying the same thing over and over again (in this case, asking a question) and expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity.

Because that exactly what your trying to argue ...that sin must now be allowed, promoted and approved because you think somebody sinned.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

You keep saying the same thing over and over again (in this case, asking a question) and expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity.

Mitspa has continued to uphold biblical precepts to the glory of God. What's your excuse for denying them?

Also, I find it interesting you have chosen to ignore the reasoned responses I've given you to those same posts. What? Can't deal with them?

 

[jsr1221]

Of course that what he is doing...trying to act as if he is promoting righteousness he is trying to give cover for wickedness.

Right... That's exactly what I'm doing. Even though I said gay marriage is a sin... But wait. How does one cover for wickedness if he is against it?

 

[Mitspa]

So let me marry and divorce just because I'm not physically attracted to her anymore... Then marry again but divorce again because I don't love her as much as I did before.. Then marry again but divorce again because she annoys me... You see how wrong that logic is?

Don't do that...but that has no bearing on the issue of promoting and approving more sin.

 

[jsr1221]

Mitspa has continued to uphold biblical precepts to the glory of God. What's your excuse for denying them?

Also, I find it interesting you have chosen to ignore the reasoned responses I've given you to those same posts. What? Can't deal with them?

I'm on a phone. You really think I'm going to go through and read every single post and reply to every single one?

 

[nw2u]

Your post #300 Quoting MY supposed comment does not link back to a post containing ANY SUCH WORDS... so either there is a problem with the website links or YOU are doing something not above board here.... wanna try and straighten that out???
I am encouraging you to tread a bit more carefully... WHO exactly are you implying LOVES darkness here???

Was this to me or to Mitspa? What you quoted in #302 was what Mitspa posted, but when you quoted, it looks like I wrote that. I did post that I thought your opinion aligned very closely with my thoughts. If you found that offensive, I apologize. I went back and tried to find the post you made that I quoted and it doesn't return properly. Something happened with the posts, but I think it has something to do with the site, not something I did, just as what you quoted, and Mitspa quoted of mmine, did not post properly.

Edit: See, something isn't working correctly. You username is at the top of this, but it looks like Mitspa made the statement, when he didn't. Not my fault.

 

[Mitspa]

Right... That's exactly what I'm doing. Even though I said gay marriage is a sin... But wait. How does one cover for wickedness if he is against it?

ok so should we be promoting and approving it or resisting it? Is this lady not allowed to resist this evil because you think somebody else committed sin?