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.
Christian ministers, in their own churches, can refuse to marry whomever they like. That's fine; they're running a Christian institution. This means following the bible to the letter. But the government bodies are not churches. The government bodies can no longer refuse to marry a gay couple. This is the issue here.
This woman, Kim Davis, if she wants to give out marriage licenses only to Christians, she can do so by opening a Church. As for her job working as an agent of the law of the United States, that's a different matter.
A secular institution runs by secular principles. The government registrars are not to act like ministers or pastors.
This woman, Kim Davis, if she wants to give out marriage licenses only to Christians, she can do so by opening a Church. As for her job working as an agent of the law of the United States, that's a different matter.
A secular institution runs by secular principles. The government registrars are not to act like ministers or pastors.
M
No...that's a poll shaped by liberal propagandist ...anytime this issue has came for a actual vote it is almost always defeated in absolute terms except in the few liberal states. This perversion could never be approve through the legitimate process, that's why these few unelected judges decided to usurp the constitutional process and make law up out or their own evil hearts.
Let me ask you this Omni, and to all. I know your position on this, you know mine. Regardless of our positions upon the definition of marriage, whom gets to administer or recognize marriage, and whether this even be a crime at all.
If it be a case of her not doing her job at the heart of it as many say; what then is the way to deal with her? Therefore then is it really right to punish her by casting her in prison for a decision of her conscience? Does that not make her a prisoner of conscience, illegal even by our shared Anglo-based Law and even the vague code of globalist UN law? In the American legal way of things even by the Constitution, does the punishment match the supposed crime or is it forbidden upon the government by their own law to punish someone beyond measure?
My position on those questions of the moment is it is not right to jail her for her views no more than it be to cast into prison other such unjust judges in America of which there are indeed examples that in essence have done the same thing. At the least of it if the people are determined to punish them no matter my opinion; terminate their employment, or in the US way of things elect them out by will of the people. Jailing someone over thought crimes, that be not even crimes at all. It is no good and opens to me it seems a dangerous precedent.
America is not a democracy or republic, such things don't exist truly, they're more like ideals that many try to realize, and to the degree they have tried they are labeled so. America is for now a poly-monarchy. Ye being an Irishman across the sea and me Irishman mixed mutt of America named Paddy with me red hair, and least of the kings here I will deem your opinion of merit to consideration as the Irish it seems to me be free kings of Ireland. Long time allies united by blood bonds deeply are America and Ireland. Wise kings consider counsel in hopes of doing best judgment for love of God, and love of neighbor.
If it be a case of her not doing her job at the heart of it as many say; what then is the way to deal with her? Therefore then is it really right to punish her by casting her in prison for a decision of her conscience? Does that not make her a prisoner of conscience, illegal even by our shared Anglo-based Law and even the vague code of globalist UN law? In the American legal way of things even by the Constitution, does the punishment match the supposed crime or is it forbidden upon the government by their own law to punish someone beyond measure?
My position on those questions of the moment is it is not right to jail her for her views no more than it be to cast into prison other such unjust judges in America of which there are indeed examples that in essence have done the same thing. At the least of it if the people are determined to punish them no matter my opinion; terminate their employment, or in the US way of things elect them out by will of the people. Jailing someone over thought crimes, that be not even crimes at all. It is no good and opens to me it seems a dangerous precedent.
America is not a democracy or republic, such things don't exist truly, they're more like ideals that many try to realize, and to the degree they have tried they are labeled so. America is for now a poly-monarchy. Ye being an Irishman across the sea and me Irishman mixed mutt of America named Paddy with me red hair, and least of the kings here I will deem your opinion of merit to consideration as the Irish it seems to me be free kings of Ireland. Long time allies united by blood bonds deeply are America and Ireland. Wise kings consider counsel in hopes of doing best judgment for love of God, and love of neighbor.
Last edited:
M
The order wasn't unlawful. The law was passed, and it was Kim Davis' duty as an agent of law to uphold it. If she wasn't willing to submit herself to the law of the United States, she shouldn't have been a judge of the law of the United States.
Of course it was unconstitutional...have you studied our constitution ? I have , and even the other supreme court justices called the ruling the most unconstitutional ruling of our time.... we are not under judges, we are under the constitution which many of us have sworn to defend at all cost.
The order wasn't unlawful. The law was passed, and it was Kim Davis' duty as an agent of law to uphold it. If she wasn't willing to submit herself to the law of the United States, she shouldn't have been a judge of the law of the United States.
If the people of Kentucky want to terminate her employment and benefits thereof, they can do that for even more banal reasons than this. However it may be they do not want to do that just the same. We shall see. Either way it's not good to imprison someone for such things. That's too much punishment for such a small and vain thing as not signing a paper. Get a new clerk if you don't like your current clerk, but the clerk does not need be put in prison for that which very strongly can be argued is not even a crime.