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

[Galahad]

Dude's statements

1. What two consenting adults choose to do with each other has absolute zero effect on me and my life.

2. Anyone who is threatened by homosexuality must be insecure about their own sexuality.

Dude, you got a free pass on both those statements. Yes you have. But they are stupid statements. The first one above shows your ignorance about marriage. The second shows your ignorance toward the power of God's word. And there's much more ignorance than that, but that would take forever to list.

 

[jamie26301]

Dude, you got a free pass on both those statements. Yes you have. But they are stupid statements. The first one above shows your ignorance about marriage. The second shows your ignorance toward the power of God's word. And there's much more ignorance than that, but that would take forever to list.

I have question, an honest one.

Sure, we tell the truth in love and we try to motivate others, esp our breathren to make more loving and godly choices in life. And we share God's love and salvation. I do see that, all over Scripture.

However, where did either an Apostle or Jesus (let's avoid the whole Jesus "fulfilled the Law" controversy)... where in the NT are we ever commanded to teach or enforce Christian morals by force?

I mean distinctly Christian practices - universal ethics is not what I'm asking about. I don't mean excommunication, shunning or any of this. I mean, where are we commanded to force others by the tip of the sword (gov) to obey God? Where did Jesus ever use force (not rebuke, but enacting a tangible penalty) to make one comply with God's standards?

Why would Someone who teaches against retaliation (turn the other cheek) approve of forcing people to behave a certain way?

Since we are drawing all these things from God's word, surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged?

And I don't accept Romans 13, because the context does not lend to that notion.

 

[crossnote]

I think the clerk could have used some wisdom and asked another clerk to put her stamp or signature on the document. Did the clerk show any type of Love toward the gay couple? We as Christians need to be wise in our decisions as well as doing things out of Love . Just my take on the subject.

My understanding is that too would have been illegal.

 

[crossnote]

I have question, an honest one.

Sure, we tell the truth in love and we try to motivate others, esp our breathren to make more loving and godly choices in life. And we share God's love and salvation. I do see that, all over Scripture.

However, where did either an Apostle or Jesus (let's avoid the whole Jesus "fulfilled the Law" controversy)... where in the NT are we ever commanded to teach or enforce Christian morals by force?

I mean distinctly Christian practices - universal ethics is not what I'm asking about. I don't mean excommunication, shunning or any of this. I mean, where are we commanded to force others by the tip of the sword (gov) to obey God? Where did Jesus ever use force (not rebuke, but enacting a tangible penalty) to make one comply with God's standards?

Why would Someone who teaches against retaliation (turn the other cheek) approve of forcing people to behave a certain way?

Since we are drawing all these things from God's word, surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged?

And I don't accept Romans 13, because the context does not lend to that notion.

I have question, an honest one.

So your other questions...weren't

No we are not to force our conscience on others. But neither does God expect us to have our conscience steam rolled by ungodly principals either.
Again, no Christian would force, especially an unbeliever into their worldview.

 

[Galahad]

One issue voter? Is there anything else on a political platform that would be of equal concern? If a Democrat supported such a law, would you vote for him?

No. I would not vote for a Democrat based on that issue.
Why? Because there is no such thing as a Democrat who would actually vote for such a law. He or she would break their promise.

Jamie, don't get upset with me on that. Okay. I don't know if you are Democrat.

Why would a Democrat support such a law? It's contrary to their party's platform and ideology.

I live in California. And the Democrats have ruled this state for as long as I can remember. Abortion, unions, taxes, same sex marriage, public education, San Francisco, driver licenses for illegal immigrants, green regulations and laws, penalties, gun laws, permits, endangered species, no offshore drilling, abuse of power, corruption, marijuana. Just to name a few.

Plus, there's the Obama matter. Only the Democratic party could birth such a thing.

I don't like Democrats. I don't trust Democrats.

 

[Galahad]

Why would Someone who teaches against retaliation (turn the other cheek) approve of forcing people to behave a certain way?

Turning the other cheek applied to homosexual marriages. Now that’s unusual. It is.

Wish I would’ve thought of that when I disobeyed mom. “Mom, you told me not to lie, but I’m going to lie to the teacher tomorrow whether you like it or not. You’ll just have to turn the other cheek. That’s right. So said Jesus. And so not only will I lie to the teacher, but I’m going to cheat on the test.”

On the other hand, if I quoted “turn the other cheek” while she spanked me, she would probably do just that, and she’d turn the other cheek, but guess whose cheek that would be? Ouch!
No, not funny. More like .

We have a God given right to vote for laws that are in line with the morals and values of the bible. I hope you aren’t arguing against such a thing.

More later...it's late....

 

[jamie26301]

No. I would not vote for a Democrat based on that issue.
Why? Because there is no such thing as a Democrat who would actually vote for such a law. He or she would break their promise.

Well, I know Tammy Bruce (a commenator) was once hard Left, and now Republican - but so far as I know, she still embraces her lesbian sexuality. I don't know a whole lot about all the candidates but I do know that both parties want the same thing - large scale gov control.

The primary difference is how the gov redistributes taxes, as I understand it. The two party are really one paety... but divide and conquer is a rule in breaking a nation, you see.

I don't assume a candidate is honest or not by the label alone. Many people who do vote only vote for one party, everytime - could care less about the policies the person actually endorses. Now that's just dumb.

Like one big argument for Clinton as president: "She's a woman, and it's about time we have a woman president." There are people, partially college kids, with a vote by skin/gender/religon mindset, not a vote by policy and what's best for the nation as a whole mindset. And we wonder what's wrong with this country.

Jamie, don't get upset with me on that. Okay. I don't know if you are Democrat.

No sweat. I identify more with the Libertarian platform and policy. But they do not get a lot of recognition.

Why would a Democrat support such a law? It's contrary to their party's platform and ideology.

Maybe, but that just demonstrates what I mean about people assuming they know a candidate's entire policy on their label... no need to actually dig and learn what they are really fighting for, you know all just by the D or the R next to their name. Again, that's very naive.

I don't like Democrats. I don't trust Democrats.

I don't trust anyone academically dishonest, doesn't listen to other thoughts and ideas, and will not budge or compromise on anything... And that transcends political and religious leaning.

 

[jamie26301]

Turning the other cheek applied to homosexual marriages. Now that’s unusual. It is.

The parallel was why would someone who says to not retaliate endorse forcing other people. The context was in regards to laws in general, not just homosexuals. Why not make it illegal to divorce, or must prove adultery? And this pulling my question out of context is what I mean by academic dishonesty, intentional or not.

Wish I would’ve thought of that when I disobeyed mom. “Mom, you told me not to lie, but I’m going to lie to the teacher tomorrow whether you like it or not. You’ll just have to turn the other cheek. That’s right. So said Jesus. And so not only will I lie to the teacher, but I’m going to cheat on the test.”

Ok... Not sure what comparison you're drawing, as these two contexts are very different (a child and adult are kinda different in manner of decision making.)

We have a God given right to vote for laws that are in line with the morals and values of the bible. I hope you aren’t arguing against such a thing.

Right, and that's fine... But you are in a Constitutional Replubic, not a theocracy. Just remember that.

 

[jamie26301]

Turning the other cheek applied to homosexual marriages. Now that’s unusual. It is.

BTW, got any Scripture on where we are commanded to enforce Christian morality with the secular gov or any gov?

Maybe it was because it was late you didn't post them. That's cool. But that was specifically what I requested. I do not know of it being taught anywhere by Jesus nor the Apostles.

I think it's because the Gospel is about peace and liberation, not rules forced upon people who aren't even Christian.

 

[Dude653]

No we are told that we must accept and approve this perversion as if it is a protected civil right...and if you don't approve it...you go to jail .... that's exactly what happened to this lady.

No. This is where people have it twisted. She went to jail because she is a public official who refused to do her job. She went against a judge's orders and went to jail for contempt. You don't get to just blow off a Supreme Court ruling just because you disagree with it. What happens with other public officials start doing this and ignore the law to suit their own purposes. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. She is working for an institution that operates on secular principles and if she cannot do that then she should resign. Everyone talks about religious freedom but what happens when we get Muslims in government positions who want to enforce sharia laws?,,, are you still going to say that their religious freedom? The bottom line is that you're right wnd the moment you violate someone else's right and that's why she went to jail

 

[Mitspa]

I have question, an honest one.

Sure, we tell the truth in love and we try to motivate others, esp our breathren to make more loving and godly choices in life. And we share God's love and salvation. I do see that, all over Scripture.

However, where did either an Apostle or Jesus (let's avoid the whole Jesus "fulfilled the Law" controversy)... where in the NT are we ever commanded to teach or enforce Christian morals by force?

I mean distinctly Christian practices - universal ethics is not what I'm asking about. I don't mean excommunication, shunning or any of this. I mean, where are we commanded to force others by the tip of the sword (gov) to obey God? Where did Jesus ever use force (not rebuke, but enacting a tangible penalty) to make one comply with God's standards?

Why would Someone who teaches against retaliation (turn the other cheek) approve of forcing people to behave a certain way?

Since we are drawing all these things from God's word, surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged?

And I don't accept Romans 13, because the context does not lend to that notion.

Why have any laws that protect the society? Why not just become like Sodom? Oh wait that's exactly what folks are promoting...I say no, not just as a Christian, but as a good citizen.

 

[Mitspa]

No. This is where people have it twisted. She went to jail because she is a public official who refused to do her job. She went against a judge's orders and went to jail for contempt. You don't get to just blow off a Supreme Court ruling just because you disagree with it. What happens with other public officials start doing this and ignore the law to suit their own purposes. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. She is working for an institution that operates on secular principles and if she cannot do that then she should resign. Everyone talks about religious freedom but what happens when we get Muslims in government positions who want to enforce sharia laws?,,, are you still going to say that their religious freedom? The bottom line is that you're right wnd the moment you violate someone else's right and that's why she went to jail

No her job never was to promote and approve gay marriage until the gay agenda folks forced their perversion upon us all. and of course we all should refuse to obey the supreme court on this issue. And so what if some muslims takes a stand for their beliefs ...if they have a valid constitutional point, we honor the constitution....that's how it works and that how your render to ceaser.

 

[Dude653]

The point that everyone seems to be missing here is that your religion does not give you the right to break the law. In Islamic cultures, women basically have no rights. So under the same logic, I could convert to Islam and beat my wife and not go to jail because that is my religion.

 

[Omni]

Exactly, Dude. Not only that, but free will precedes obedience to God's laws. If you believe in God, for instance, you must concede that God, himself, does not physically or mentally constrain people to the choices he'd like humans to make; humans can undertake any actions they want (within the scope of what is physically and mentally possible), and this ability to choose for oneself means that whether a person will follow God, or whether they won't follow God, is a choice that people are physically and mentally able (and permitted) to make for themselves.

So, this lot can follow God, as it's a choice they've made, and so long as it doesn't hurt anybody, the government permits it. Likewise, other people can choose to not follow God, and one possible manifestation of not following God is being homosexual. That's a personal choice that another human being makes, a choice which does not stop anybody else being able to make their own personal choices.

Jesus didn't say "I demand that every single one of you follow me", he said "if anybody desires to follow me, then take up your cross and follow me". He also said "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" and "one cannot serve two masters".

The judge, by virtue of being a judge, swore herself to the service of a secular democratic constitutional republic. If she were serious about following God in her own life (part of which is accepting that other people do not have to follow God), then she shouldn't have sworn to serve another master.

It's a direct conflict of interest to swear total allegiance to the United States of America, and simultaneously swear allegiance to God.

 

[Mitspa]

The point that everyone seems to be missing here is that your religion does not give you the right to break the law. In Islamic cultures, women basically have no rights. So under the same logic, I could convert to Islam and beat my wife and not go to jail because that is my religion.

What you fail to understand is this lady was standing up for the law...the constitution is the law. That as believers we are in fact called to obey God above any law of man if that law does not agree with our conscience to our obedience to God.

If you don't see the difference between committing evil and standing against evil...then I think you should really consider your spiritual state as a believer?

 

[Mitspa]

Exactly, Dude. Not only that, but free will precedes obedience to God's laws. If you believe in God, for instance, you must concede that God, himself, does not physically or mentally constrain people to the choices he'd like humans to make; humans can undertake any actions they want (within the scope of what is physically and mentally possible), and this ability to choose for oneself means that whether a person will follow God, or whether they won't follow God, is a choice that people are physically and mentally able (and permitted) to make for themselves.

So, this lot can follow God, as it's a choice they've made, and so long as it doesn't hurt anybody, the government permits it. Likewise, other people can choose to not follow God, and one possible manifestation of not following God is being homosexual. That's a personal choice that another human being makes, a choice which does not stop anybody else being able to make their own personal choices.

Jesus didn't say "I demand that every single one of you follow me", he said "if anybody desires to follow me, then take up your cross and follow me". He also said "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" and "one cannot serve two masters".

The judge, by virtue of being a judge, swore herself to the service of a secular democratic constitutional republic. If she were serious about following God in her own life (part of which is accepting that other people do not have to follow God), then she shouldn't have sworn to serve another master.

It's a direct conflict of interest to swear total allegiance to the United States of America, and simultaneously swear allegiance to God.

No the constitution was designed and written so that Christians could have a nation that did not restrict their right to worship and serve God as their conscience directed them. While preserving liberty for all honest and morale citizens to shape a socity and a government that represented their own beliefs. Christians have every right to shape this society to represent their own values, its called a Republic.

 

[Dude653]

As I previously stated, mixing religion and government always result in tyranny. And the same men who wrote this Constitution where they want to put Africans in Chains. So nothing they have to say about God has any relevance

 

[Mitspa]

This is how insane left wing propaganda has made people. That only immoral people can shape out society that moral people must not have the right to practice their constitutional rights to shape a healthy society??? How can people be so deceived. And then have these so called Christians go around and try to act as if That's what God would have us to do.... sad what we have become

 

[Dude653]

This is not a Christian nation nor has it ever been. Our founding fathers were morally repugnant men. In amerikkka, the sentiment seems to be that the Constitution only applies to white Christians

 

[Mitspa]

As I previously stated, mixing religion and government always result in tyranny. And the same men who wrote this Constitution where they want to put Africans in Chains. So nothing they have to say about God has any relevance

Yes dude you have repeated the left wing propaganda again And again.....One day God will speak to you And all that nonsense will disappear as a great fear overtakes you. May you repent of your evil thoughts before that day comes.