Fundy county clerk ordered to issue marriage licenses (minority, preach, married)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the government redefined marriage to include unions that she found immoral. If you were in her position and the government passed a law legalizing human and dog weddings, would you have no problem doing your job duty?
1. dogs can not give legal consent to enter into any legally binding contract.
2. Giving out a license does not require her to do anything that she did not do before.
She does not preform ceremonies, or attend weddings. She is not required to marry someone of the same sex. All she is required to do is enter the information from the application into a computer and print a form, which is the exact same thing she was required to do before.
Except that this is a new form of marriage that has never been done previously in our country. The clerk would be willing to give a marriage license to someone regardless of their sexual preferences, but she just doesn't feel she can give one to 2 people of the same gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And discrimination based on gender is illegal in every state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
No one is discriminating based on gender. Everyone has access to marriage.
Not giving a license to a couple based on the GENDER of the people in that couple is the very definition of gender discrimination.
Unless it's the most clueless same-sex couple in America who somehow stumble into a church with a fundamentalist preacher who gives them the frowny face and says, "No marriage for you!"
In which case, since this is a great country and no one has to get married in a fundamentalist church, they can wipe the dust off their feet and leave. Then they are free to go a a nice, accommodating church that has a happy face minister (or City Hall) and be joined in wedded bliss by someone with who isn't going through life upset that their fellow citizens have rights.
1. dogs can not give legal consent to enter into any legally binding contract.
2. Giving out a license does not require her to do anything that she did not do before.
She does not preform ceremonies, or attend weddings. She is not required to marry someone of the same sex. All she is required to do is enter the information from the application into a computer and print a form, which is the exact same thing she was required to do before.
There was, when I was a fundamentalist, a constant concern that we must not only oppose sin, not practice it, not fail to speak out against it, but also not "condone" it or facilitate it in any way.
The definition of "condone" was generally applied beyond its normal meaning of "accept or allow to continue", but I can't explain exactly how that worked. Because given that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, you'd think that issuing ANY marriage license would be "condoning" divorce. Or spouse abuse, or marital infidelity, or even marital spats. Why is it suddenly a problem in this instance? And if the goal is to not accept or allow the practice to continue, why would they choose such an ineffectual method?
Oh wait. I forgot. The appropriate method is to win the debate in the marketplace of ideas, keep the law as it was ... and that already failed. Guess this must be nothing more than a childish hissy-fit. Talk about sore losers ...
And the government redefined marriage to include unions that she found immoral.
Irrelevant entirely. Her job is to issue marriage licenses. She does not get to dictate the morality of who received them and who not. It simply is not her place to say so. She can either do her job, or lose it. Simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If you were in her position and the government passed a law legalizing human and dog weddings, would you have no problem doing your job duty?
A ridiculous non-sensical fantastical scenario. Amazing is it not that to come up with even the most barely workable analogies to feed your narrative, you have to imagine cases so extremely ridiculous that there is not even the slightest chance of them coming to pass in reality. And yet this does not give you even a moments pause to consider that perhaps this is because your own position is that ridiculous that you need such fantastical nonsense to even become close to analogy for it.
To answer your fantastically nonsense scenario however, I would have the intelligence to tell the difference between my job and my personal opinions. I would still do my job while campaigning against such a ridiculous change in the law. And if I felt morally indignant enough, I would quite my job.
What I would not do is whinge and whine that I am being forced by tyranny to do things against my will when no such thing is true.
And the government redefined marriage to include unions that she found immoral. If you were in her position and the government passed a law legalizing human and dog weddings, would you have no problem doing your job duty?
Setting aside the tired 'slippery slope' argument:
She was hired to file forms, not pass moral judgement on the people who come to her counter. She knowingly and deliberately refused to carry out the duties required of her position.
There is a very fine line between 'civil disobedience' and 'insubordinate behavior', and I'm sorry to say that she crossed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The clerk would be willing to give a marriage license to someone regardless of their sexual preferences, but she just doesn't feel she can give one to 2 people of the same gender.
Whaaat? 'She would be okay with giving gay people a license, but she doesn't feel she can give a license to gay people'?
Whaaat? 'She would be okay with giving gay people a license, but she doesn't feel she can give a license to gay people'?
Oh, Viz, I think you just broke logic....
I never said that. Try to follow along. It's not complicated. I've always said that we should not mistreat, or treat differently anyone based on sexual preferences. That means it's wrong to discriminate, and it's wrong to give a "separate, but equal" treatment of gay people.
I said she was happy to give people a marriage license regardless of their sexual preferences, but that she didn't want to give a same sex couple (not necessarily gay) a license. We don't invent a new form of marriage to suit someone because they have chosen to have sex with someone of the same gender.
I think they call that "gloating". No misery on my end. This battle may have been won for sin, but ultimately God will win the war in the end.
Since you have invented a definition of marriage as "between one man and one woman" I wonder what else you might be tempted to add to it. After all the Bible says to live with your spouse in an understanding way, it at the very least strongly discourages divorce, decries being "unequally yoked" with unbelievers, etc. I wonder why a Christian county clerk would not want to make sure that their FULL vision of marriage were "condoned" by only issuing marriage licenses to people who are both Christians and have received proper premarital counseling. I wonder if such a clerk might object if the couple eventually divorces, and would want to retroactively rescind all the benefits of the marriage contract.
Where do you draw the line in what you'd claim a clerk would be "condoning" or participating in, by issuing a license?
We live in a secular democratic republic. It has never sought to do anything other than systematize state recognition of the marriage relationship that it is the decision of two people to enter into. The only condition is paying the license fee, passing the blood test, etc. How many litmus tests should the state add on to that?
I think they call that "gloating". No misery on my end. This battle may have been won for sin, but ultimately God will win the war in the end.
And perhaps as long as you imagine a war of this sort, where god is fighting on one side.... but real people who actually exist are going out and fighting the other sides.... you are going to see a lot more "losses" to your cause and agendas I warrant. Perfectly happy to have you people stay at home praying while people like me start up associations, lobby on a political level, host, participate in, moderate, and finance debates.... and much much more.
That is how you win political "battles", by firming up and getting out there. Not by doing the theological equivalent of shouting at the boy who pushed you over in the school yard "Yea you beat me but just wait till my big brother gets here!"
The clerk simply wishes to be in the position to decide who gets married. As Vizio mentions she can tell you who you can get married to and who you cannot regardless of the law. She becomes the final arbirtrator.
When it was the baker then Jeff and Vizio claimed that business owners should have the right to make the decision on who they served, Jeff went so far as saying that business owners should only be able to discrimiate for non essential or I think he said luxury items such as wedding cakes. Now they seem to add that governments should be able to discrimate against anyone. And that is what it is. If a clerk in a government office is allowed to discriminate then it is the government that is discriminating. Then police, fire departments, judges etc, shall all be able to discriminate agaisnt whomever they wish.
The thought that everyone can use their own personal or religious definitions on all words and choice who they will serve in the private or public sector makes everyone less free. Also the thought that not treating others like second class citizens or as non entities is a form of persecuation of Christians is not a well thought out idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
minister (or City Hall) and be joined in wedded bliss by someone with who isn't going through life upset that their fellow citizens have rights.
