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

[Billyd]

If you have read my earlier comments, you know where I stand. If you haven't, Kim was jailed because she is a Christian woman obeying her conscious. That's just plain wrong.

We have been studying 1 Peter for the last few days. I think that we should take a little time to examine the following verses.

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

The word every is

πᾶς
pas

Defined in Strong's Dictionary as:
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

and in Thayer as:

1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types
Part of Speech: adjective

My question is by what explicit scriptural standard can we refuse to obey the "laws of men"? I'm not interested in you opinion, I'm interested in scripture.

 

[Mifflin]

It is, indeed, difficult to accept gay marriage. But then I come back to the idea that it is good for a person to love another person--good for both health and happiness. For society, it is better if people live in loving committed relationships. It makes for a more stable society. My limitations should not stand in the way of others' happiness.

 

[nw2u]

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.

Then I asked myself. Were there any Jews, Muslims, Catholics, pagans or atheists in England, Germany, France, Spain or any other European or any other country from where folks immigrated? Would the founding fathers have all been puritans of the same faith? Could some of the founding fathers have been from the church of England, the very church the puritans and pilgrims ran from? Could some of the founding fathers have known of the complaints of those folks? Could some of them have known of the issues of slavery and spoke against it, intending to attempt to abolish it with the Constitution of this new nation? The answer is yes to all of those.

How then, could anyone think that there should be or there was intended to be any form of discrimination? How could anyone think they intended to force anything, but freedom upon the population? It's written in letters and transcripts from and to the constitutional conventions by prominent citizens of the colonies.

What if someday, the Catholics were the majority and told you to go receive the sacraments and pray the rosary. Oh my, my. That would never happen, right? You are too closed minded. Anything is possible with God. Does that mean He would let that happen? Oh, I imagine that just makes you boil with anger. Well, He lets worse things than that happen. There was a mother in my area who was struck by a vehicle and killed. The truck kept going and the daughters, fortunately the youngest is eighteen, are left to themselves. She was active in the community and cared for children as a foster parent. Yes, God lets many things happen. Just read the newspaper or watch the news.

 

[Galahad]

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.

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


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 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.

Republicans! Who mentioned them? Did I? The Republican platform is much different and more in line with my beliefs than that of the Democrat platform. And no, Rep and Dems are not one.

No sir. A list of Democrats: Obama, Boxer, Feinstein, Brown, Clintons, Carter, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Sanders, Biden, Rahm E.
These represent the Democrat party. They've upheld, promoted class warfare, abortion, taxes, socialism, overbearing regulations, affirmative action, debit and so on and so on.

Redistributes taxes? What's that? You mean how they spend taxpayers money? Redistribution of taxes sounds lovely to some folks. And it's NOT the primary difference between the Reps and Dems. It is NOT.

You write: "[Some voters] could care less the policies the person actually endorses-now that's just dumb." I agree.

The D and R next to a name. Local elections are said not to be partisan. But you know, one of the questions I ask a person who's running for city council is: What are you, Democratic, Republican, Green Party, etc. I can learn a lot about person that way. No the determining factor, but since there are fine lines of difference in the shady obscurity of local government between candidates, the answer reveals much about the mindset of the individual. Having said that, I do not for likes of me understand how a Christian can choose to be a Democrat. The party is contrary to the virtues, to the values, the morals of the bible.

Enough of that. Myself, I am not naïve. I am a most educated voter. I know the issues and the policies. I even know that there are 50 states in the union. Did you know some country gave us Alaska? I am so thankful. Plus, Carter and the Russian missile crisis. Thank goodness he blocked boats from delivering rockets to Canada. Even though Canada is far away from us, the rockets were V-2 types. They would have obliterated us.

I don't know what you mean that you don't trust anyone academically dishonest? Honestly, I don't.

 

[crossnote]

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

Guess you didn't read Kim's counsel's statement I posted (#691), you are running on your own imagination.

 

[Mitspa]

Then I asked myself. Were there any Jews, Muslims, Catholics, pagans or atheists in England, Germany, France, Spain or any other European or any other country from where folks immigrated? Would the founding fathers have all been puritans of the same faith? Could some of the founding fathers have been from the church of England, the very church the puritans and pilgrims ran from? Could some of the founding fathers have known of the complaints of those folks? Could some of them have known of the issues of slavery and spoke against it, intending to attempt to abolish it with the Constitution of this new nation? The answer is yes to all of those.

How then, could anyone think that there should be or there was intended to be any form of discrimination? How could anyone think they intended to force anything, but freedom upon the population? It's written in letters and transcripts from and to the constitutional conventions by prominent citizens of the colonies.

What if someday, the Catholics were the majority and told you to go receive the sacraments and pray the rosary. Oh my, my. That would never happen, right? You are too closed minded. Anything is possible with God. Does that mean He would let that happen? Oh, I imagine that just makes you boil with anger. Well, He lets worse things than that happen. There was a mother in my area who was struck by a vehicle and killed. The truck kept going and the daughters, fortunately the youngest is eighteen, are left to themselves. She was active in the community and cared for children as a foster parent. Yes, God lets many things happen. Just read the newspaper or watch the news.

Religion has been protected from the beginning of this nation. Sexual deviants are not a protected class of people. Nor should they be allowed to pervert our society.

 

[crossnote]

It is, indeed, difficult to accept gay marriage. But then I come back to the idea that it is good for a person to love another person--good for both health and happiness. For society, it is better if people live in loving committed relationships. It makes for a more stable society. My limitations should not stand in the way of others' happiness.

Why can't they do that without calling it 'marriage'? Love as you call it shouldn't require the legal redefining of marriage.

 

[Mitspa]

It is, indeed, difficult to accept gay marriage. But then I come back to the idea that it is good for a person to love another person--good for both health and happiness. For society, it is better if people live in loving committed relationships. It makes for a more stable society. My limitations should not stand in the way of others' happiness.

Why is it good ? Was it good for sodom? This is just sexual perversion and why anyone would think that's healthy for a society is just insane to me.

 

[Mitspa]

Why can't they do that without calling it 'marriage'? Love as you call it shouldn't require the legal redefining of marriage.

Be cause the devil wanted it that way..And has many that serve to establish his will

 

[crossnote]

Be cause the devil wanted it that way..And has many that serve to establish his will

Oh ​.......

 

[jamie26301]

Republicans! Who mentioned them? Did I? The Republican platform is much different and more in line with my beliefs than that of the Democrat platform. And no, Rep and Dems are not one.

I don't want to get into this only to say they BOTH have rolled in the mud. Because they are ALL sinners, not just the Democrats. And that my friend is Scripturual by most I intrepretations and to think they all have your best interests in mind because they hold a Bible or appeal to God is naive. So, so easy to manipulate a nation that judges by appearance and labels.

No sir. A list of Democrats: Obama, Boxer, Feinstein, Brown, Clintons, Carter, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Sanders, Biden, Rahm E.
These represent the Democrat party. They've upheld, promoted class warfare, abortion, taxes, socialism, overbearing regulations, affirmative action, debit and so on and so on.

Broad generalizations I already was aware of are duly noted.

Redistributes taxes? What's that? You mean how they spend taxpayers money? Redistribution of taxes sounds lovely to some folks. And it's NOT the primary difference between the Reps and Dems. It is NOT.

Republicans think taxes should go to businesses, corporate businesses, trickle-down. Democrats lean more towards entitlements. Both argue this is best for the economy of the nation.

You write: "[Some voters] could care less the policies the person actually endorses-now that's just dumb." I agree.

Thank you.

The D and R next to a name. Local elections are said not to be partisan. But you know, one of the questions I ask a person who's running for city council is: What are you, Democratic, Republican, Green Party, etc. I can learn a lot about person that way.

You mean you learn which can be trusted and which can't? Which to listen more closely to and which to kinda listen to?

Having said that, I do not for likes of me understand how a Christian can choose to be a Democrat. The party is contrary to the virtues, to the values, the morals of the bible.

Uh huh. Duly noted. Why must the "morals" of the Bible (nevermind showing compassion for people's struggles) be upheld?

Why does Jesus focus His message so much on worrying about your own sanctification, and improving your own morality? "So what happens to John, how does that affect you... follow Me Peter and don't you worry about him." And "we ought to obey God" lacks the following "and make sure everyone else obey too." Speaking of which, got any commands to enforce Christian values with the gov? Asking for like the third time now.

I even know that there are 50 states in the union. Did you know some country gave us Alaska? I am so thankful. Plus, Carter and the Russian missile crisis. Thank goodness he blocked boats from delivering rockets to Canada. Even though Canada is far away from us, the rockets were V-2 types. They would have obliterated us.

Very interesting. Your knowlege is impressive. I did not know ANY of that.

I don't know what you mean that you don't trust anyone academically dishonest? Honestly, I don't.

I don't trust bomb throwers and people who dance around the problems in their platforms, won't answer questions directly (because it exposed an inconsistency - this happens on both sides) and won't compromise. Did you know we have issues now with reporters of the Free Press facing penalty for exposing fraud and scams? It's happening.

I would be more concerned about the Press being silenced for challenging the gov, or speaking freely about it, than a woman's opinion about who should sleep with who.

 

[nw2u]

Religion has been protected from the beginning of this nation. Sexual deviants are not a protected class of people. Nor should they be allowed to pervert our society.

The freedom to worship in a manner pleasing to you has been protected. As long as it does not infringe on someone else's right to seek happiness. While Christianity sees the expression of homosexuality as deviant and sinful, since we have the right to worship as we choose or not at all, some religions and beliefs do not consider homosexuality to be a as "sick" and "twisted" as you claim they are.

If you can prove how they are destroying your freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, I will whole-heartedly agree with the notion that they are doing something against the law. At that point, the law enforcement and the judicial system need to step in with a proper and lawful complaint. Till then, I'm sorry, I can't agree that anything they are doing is illegal with my understanding of the law today. And no, I don't know everything, but to continue to berate them and despise them publicly while attempting to subvert and instigate others to action is wrong, based upon your personal feelings and religious beliefs. It's just as bad as forcing you to have to officially approve of something you do not, or face death.

Unfortunately, you believe the two are exactly the same. I hope you will one day understand their differences.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Religion has been protected from the beginning of this nation. Sexual deviants are not a protected class of people. Nor should they be allowed to pervert our society.

Well here is where you err.... sexual deviants ARE NOW A PROCTECTED CLASS OF PEOPLE IN THE US... that is expressly homosexuals... not yet pediphiles or those who practice beastiality.

BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT OUR SOCIETY??? well Mitspa... where have you been??? Queers have been perverting society for... well.... A LONG TIME NOW!

 

[Galahad]

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.

Concerning the honest question portion, Crossnote has already addressed its implication, an implication that I too spotted immediately. Surprised crossnote spotted it. Notecross usually gets things switched and jangled. Not.

I'll take your word that it is an honest question, but there's no way you're going to convince me that it is an understandable question. It's conglomerate. Honestly, it is. (Well, I have second thoughts about taking your word that it is an honest question. I just read and am responding to parts of your response.)

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?
What do you mean by force?

Your next line seems to attempt to define by force. But it lacks clarity. Here it is:
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?

This is confusion: "...where are we commanded to force others by the tip of the sword (gov) to obey God?
Are you asking, where are we commanded to put a sword to someone to obey God?
Are you asking, where are we commanded to put the sword to someone with government authority to force someone to obey God?
Or are you asking, where are we commanded to put the sword in the government's hand to force others to obey God?
Or are you asking, where are we ever commanded to vote for laws that align themselves with the values and virtues of the teaching of Jesus Christ?
Those are just some of the options I can find from the sword to (gov) portion.
The changeup from the concrete sword to the parenthetical abstract (gov) lacks specificity. Literal sword? If not, then what is the sword? The government?

Christians are never commanded to put a sword a gun or any weapon to an individual to get them to comply to the commands of God.

My question is: Why would you ask these questions? What led you to ask such?

Perhaps if you answer that, I might be able to decipher your honest question, or honest questions.

Why would Someone who teaches against retaliation (turn the other cheek) approve of forcing people to behave a certain way?
Mom spanked me when I disobeyed. Or is that not what you have in mind? Well, spare the rod spoil the child. Proverbs mentions something about that. But is that not what you have in mind?
Again, don't know what you are asking.

Furthermore, instead of slapping your interpretation of turn the other cheek onto me, you ought to ask what I believe it means.

Since we are drawing all these things from God's word, surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged?
With your sarcastic surely you can point to where this is commanded, of even encouraged you have just contradicted yourself. Honest question! Your question is not honest.
Your question (questions) are misleading, suggestive, and present inferences not supported from any response of mine. What is implied by my responses is not as what you present in your inferences.

And And I don't accept Romans 13, because the context does not lend to that notion.
More proof that your honest question is not honest. You put out there I don't accept.
How can your question be honest if you already don't accept something you suppose might be part of the answer? I DON'T ACCEPT. That ain't supportive of an honest question.

Please write one question with clarity.
Please do not slap your interpretation of a verse onto me.
Please do not label a question as honest if the question is suggestive and misleading.
Please do not do what you condemn, as you write I do not accept.
Please be honest and sincere in your search for truth.

 

[BarlyGurl]

Gallahad... Kudos for taking the time to clarify and communicate constructively. MY thinker is well worn already today... but I wanted to acknowledge you with credit due.

 

[nw2u]

Well here is where you err.... sexual deviants ARE NOW A PROCTECTED CLASS OF PEOPLE IN THE US... that is expressly homosexuals... not yet pediphiles or those who practice beastiality.

BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT OUR SOCIETY??? well Mitspa... where have you been??? Queers have been perverting society for... well.... A LONG TIME NOW!

Well, at least since Sodom and Ghemorra(spelling?). There probably weren't any before that. rolleyes. If God wanted it to stop, why wasn't that the end of it? That's a bit ot, but this conversation has got me thinking some off-the-wall stuff.

 

[kaylagrl]

Well here is where you err.... sexual deviants ARE NOW A PROCTECTED CLASS OF PEOPLE IN THE US... that is expressly homosexuals... not yet pediphiles or those who practice beastiality.

BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT OUR SOCIETY??? well Mitspa... where have you been??? Queers have been perverting society for... well.... A LONG TIME NOW!

Quote ...BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT OUR SOCIETY??? well Mitspa... where have you been??? Queers have been perverting society for... well.... A LONG TIME NOW!

Maybe but homosexuality hasnt changed our laws until now.And this is just the beginning.Pastors get ready,you're next to be put in jail

 

[Mitspa]

Well here is where you err.... sexual deviants ARE NOW A PROCTECTED CLASS OF PEOPLE IN THE US... that is expressly homosexuals... not yet pediphiles or those who practice beastiality.

BE ALLOWED TO PERVERT OUR SOCIETY??? well Mitspa... where have you been??? Queers have been perverting society for... well.... A LONG TIME NOW!

I Dont think some of you really understand the difference between having gays in a society and promoting that a society accept and approve sexual deviants as a protected civil class of people... and sure if this perverts deserve special protection and rights... why not the other perverts in our society? Is it right to honor one group of
deviants over another?

Oh and yes the battle has just begun .. God is on our side and the devil is on the other side.. which side are you on?

 

[Nautilus]

Yes because two consenting adults is totally the same thing as an adult and a minor or an adult and an animal. Or maybe that slippery slope argument is comepletely ridiculous, because there are insane levels of difference in the situations. Personalyl what two consenting adults choose to do with each other is none of my business.

 

[Omni]

Pastors are religious. They can run religious organizations, and no pastor of any religious organization is under any obligation to agree with, or facilitate, homosexual marriages. However, the government is not a religious organization. Courts are not churches. And judges are not pastors.

Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, have the freedom to practice their religions. Practicing your religion (going by God's laws) is a choice that YOU make. People also have the right to choose to not obey God's laws. Both the people who obey God's laws, and the people who don't, are bound under the laws of freedom, to respect others' freedoms to make that choice for themselves.

Whether or not you view homosexuality as sexual perversion, is irrelevant to the law; homosexual, adult, consensual marriage causes no direct harm to you; you can still oppose it, and you can still rail against it, and you can still practice your religion despite it. Likewise, atheists can be atheists, Jews can be Jews, Hindus can be Hindus, and gay people can be gay.