Fundy county clerk ordered to issue marriage licenses (America, church, bible)
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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
So what is it with the US?
Canada has had same sex marriage for a decade now, the sky hasn't fallen in, and people are as free to practice their religion just like before.
We didn't see a great refusal by PUBLIC servants to serve a gay couple, yet the US is obsessed by this, ranging from individuals to States enacting "Religious Freedom" laws.
When you are a sworn PUBLIC servant, you follow that oath you took, serving the public. End of story. If you feel so strongly about your convictions that they are in conflict with public policy and laws you have a choice.... quit your job.
Isn't it hypocritical not to, if you're convictions are such that you won't carry out your sworn duty? Especially if you've already been divorced 3 times.
From the ruling:
“She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County jail,” Bunning wrote. “She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk.”
The Associated Press has reported that the county clerk turned away two gay couples seeking marriage licenses, thereby defying a federal judge's order.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, I didn't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that sounds like contempt of court to me. Is somebody going to say it is her religious freedom to ignore the order of a federal judge? Doesn't the job description of a country clerk include issuing marriage licenses?
The Associated Press has reported that the county clerk turned away two gay couples seeking marriage licenses, thereby defying a federal judge's order.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, I didn't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that sounds like contempt of court to me. Is somebody going to say it is her religious freedom to ignore the order of a federal judge? Doesn't the job description of a country clerk include issuing marriage licenses?
She should lose her job over refusal to perform her duties. Apparently though a decision has been made to test the judge's ruling by additionally subjecting her to contempt of court charges. Or something.
Many cities, such as San Francisco can decide they don't want to enforce immigration law...why not a local county clerk deciding what laws they want to enforce or not enforce?
Our elected officials, starting with the President down, have routinely decided which laws they wish to recognize or not recognize. That's all this is.
Before somebody starts saying it is infringing on her freedom of religion, this is what the judge ruled:
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
Before somebody starts saying it is infringing on her freedom of religion, this is what the judge ruled:
"Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do," Bunning wrote. "However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
Yes. The OP posted that.
But what I want to know is how is this any different from a mayor declaring his city a "sanctuary city" and ignoring immigration law? Or the President simply instructing the Justice Department to quit enforcing law? Or the state of California actively working to ignore and get around Prop 8?
Our country has gotten to the point that our elected officials simply pick and choose which laws to enforce. How is a county clerk expected to do something we don't expect any other elected official to do?
The Associated Press has reported that the county clerk turned away two gay couples seeking marriage licenses, thereby defying a federal judge's order.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, I didn't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but that sounds like contempt of court to me. Is somebody going to say it is her religious freedom to ignore the order of a federal judge? Doesn't the job description of a country clerk include issuing marriage licenses?
Ever heard of "civil disobedience"? If you studied history in school, you'll know what I am talking about. In this case, it is necessary and the more that participate the better. There needs to be a decision made about religious freedom and one little judge isn't going to cut it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Many cities, such as San Francisco can decide they don't want to enforce immigration law...why not a local county clerk deciding what laws they want to enforce or not enforce?
Our elected officials, starting with the President down, have routinely decided which laws they wish to recognize or not recognize. That's all this is.
Well, when the lobby for something like illegal immigration and LGBT "equality" at work, nothing else or no one else matters. That is your difference.
Anyone that thinks you can force acceptance needs to read all the threads attacking people of color, specifically "black" and see that only the surface changes. You cannot force acceptance.
Religious freedom needs to be pushed and individuals need to step forward like this in order to force the issue so that a decision is made based on constitutional rights.
Civil disobedience is what made our country and now, we are all supposed to be robots. As always, marriage is between one man and one woman. Gay marriage is something entirely different. Perhaps the answer lies in between those two. It isn't like you are approving of a marriage but giving someone a license for a gay marriage - oxy moron type thing.
Least I forget, I don't really care what they do in Canada or the rest of the world! Also "fundy", you need to learn something about religion to realize that fundamental Christians are not the only ones that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and their also those with no religion that believe in traditional marriage: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...aditional.html
So, they can gay marry but can they force others to be a part of the................. Only time will tell and civil disobedience will get us to the point of making it official.
Religious exception on conscience has been in places for decades in US .That is why Ali didn't have to serve when draft into military. The supreme court ruling is a ruling; not a law passed. That the issue comes up is to be expected and a lot of case law on the conscience exception.
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.
