Fundy county clerk ordered to issue marriage licenses (children, preaching, history)

[badlander]

I would think it would also be wrong for a clerk of the government to refuse service to an ex con that they are legally entitled to such as a marriage license. There is nothing I know of that prohibits people with a criminal record from getting married in fact some get married while still in prison. A government clerk should not be allowed to refuse to issue a marriage license to an ex con, or a black or an unemployed or a gay or an atheist or a dentist or an ugly person.

[JIMANDTHOM]

Originally Posted by mordant

I would be unsurprised to find that Hitler borrowed that concept from the Bible's prophesied 1000-year reign of Christ. Reich means realm, or metaphorically as it was used by the Nazis, reign. In using such phrases he was appealing to people's visionary impulses based on concepts they were already familiar with. It would grant him legitimacy if people even subconsciously associated his "thousand year reich" in their minds with the future reign of god himself.

Guess another case of man reading something and have it fit their specific agenda.

Thanks

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by lily4

There are many other places these gay couples can get their marriage licenses, however they target this one woman

Yep. How outrageous is it that people wanting a marriage license go to the government office that issues them and expects to actually get one? That's almost as crazy as a Muslim going to the DMV to get a driver's license and expecting to be served by good Christian employees. It is obviously a conspiracy by anti-Christian forces.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by badlander

Most of the people have been critical of her refusing to do what she is paid to do. She gets a salary for doing a job and she refuses to do it

At least right-wing extremists have softened their stance on work-for-welfare. Here we have them supporting a woman getting government handouts for not working - a woman who has children from multiple different fathers. In any other case, they'd be up in arms about this woman being a stereotypical welfare queen. But because she's waving her Christianity around, suddenly she's a hero. Quite the interesting twist.

This leads to an interesting though. I wonder what would happen if her boss just decided stopped paying her. After all, if she thinks it is OK for government employees can randomly stop doing their job on a whim, that "right" should apply to payroll as well.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

But you want your rights to stomp all over our rights.

Which rights are you talking about?

Which was here in place long before the government decided to label a moral lifestyle choice to be something that needed civil right protection.

Civil rights protection for religious "lifestyle choices" has been around for generations, but I don't see you complaining about those. Seems there's a bit of a double standard in this complaint of yours.

[RonkonkomaNative]

Originally Posted by lily4

There are many other places these gay couples can get their marriage licenses, however they target this one woman and do everything in their power to see that she is forced to comply with their agenda.

No. You should not have to travel to another county or town to obtain a license. You pay county and town taxes. I guess "these hetero-couples" are now being inconvenienced, too. She has stopped issuing marriage licenses to everyone.

She has abandoned her position.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

"THE LAW"...one of the worst arbiters EVER! Only the truly ignorant would ever use it as something to support an argument as to what is "right" or "just".

The entire fight for gay rights was to UNDO the laws fundies made that banned SSM. The only reason why a law was needed to allow SSM was to make it loud and clear that same-sex partners could legally marry.

It's not that I ever thought laws were the best arbiter, but since the law did dam up the flood of religious dogma overflowing its banks, it's End Game as far as I'm concerned. People like this clerk are just mopping-up exercises. I use the law to remind the fundamentalists and the bigots that they lost -- just like they have always lost throughout American history. It might take awhile, but sooner or later, they always lose.

[zthatzmanz28]

OK..so being married FOUR time, divorcing husband #2 while four months pregnant and MARRING husband #3 while pregnant is all approved by God?


Kentucky Clerk and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28

OK..so being married FOUR time, divorcing husband #2 while four months pregnant and MARRING husband #3 while pregnant is all approved by God?


Kentucky Clerk and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

She embodies two of the main requirements for entrance to the fundamentalist camp: stupidity and bigotry.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

The only ugly thing is when our government decided to rule for immorality.

What's ugly is the fact that not everyone considers it "immoral," yet, because YOU find it immoral, it should be banned. What other things do you find immoral, Jeff? Should we BAN ALL of those things, too?

As if anyone is surprised -- it's just more fascism.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

The kingdom of God is forever and one day there will be a 1000 year Christian theocracy here on earth. Will you be throwing a tantrum then?

First of all, no, there will not be some ridiculous thousand-year reign of Christ here on earth. That's fantasy, the same kind of wishful thinking a lot of deity-centric religions foist onto its followers. "Yay, won't it be great when no one else but us lives here and we all worship the same god and pray the same, sing the same songs, have all the same morals, and all of those OTHER people who disagree with us are off somewhere being tortured? That'll be AWESOME! I can't friggin' wait!!" It's the same mentality that another quasi-religion symbolized by a different kind of cross possessed in Europe not so long ago.

And have you ever asked yourself why it'll only last a thousand years? Is there a reason stated in the Bible or is it simply a nice, round number that sounds like a really long time -- and no one is supposed to really care what happens in year 1001?

Secondly, even if said reign of Christ were to occur, YOU won't be in charge of it. Jesus was not a fundamentalist or a bigot. You, on the other hand, are taking religion much further than Jesus ever did. And not once did he ever ask whether someone was gay before bestowing a miracle. Christ really wasn't big on those Old Testament rules, Mr. Pharisee.

One of the worst things the ancient Christians did for modern Christians was to piggyback the Christ cult on top of Judaism.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

She swore the oath before the government decided to force her to do something immoral. Would you like to be told you HAVE to do something immoral?

If the job asks her to do something immoral, then she QUITS. This issue is between her and her God. Every gay couple shouldn't have to be stymied by her bigotry. Instead, what she's doing is making sure no gay marriages are issued in that county -- she is knowingly and willfully acting as a deliberate block against same sex marriage. Once again this clerk exemplifies how religion is being used as a weapon to ensure everyone around her, regardless of their beliefs, obeys her particular moral code.

It's a big reason why religion has never been a bit hit with me. This clerk has to make some tough choices, but instead of making them, she's using her religion in an attempt to have her cake and eat it, too. At the end of the day, she's going to have to choose between her job or her religion. She can't have both. Plus, I'm sure she can get a lucrative job with Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil-A.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

But you want your rights to stomp all over our rights. Which was here in place long before the government decided to label a moral lifestyle choice to be something that needed civil right protection.

What the hell are you talking about? Christianity NEVER had a right to monopolize marriage so you never had any rights to be stomped upon. You're just making things up as you go along, now. Nor did Christianity ever have any right to be the sole officiator of marriages -- which is why Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, Atheists, etc. etc. do not have to beseech a Christian church to perform their weddings. It's also why a couple can go to a JP or even a ship captain and get just as married as if they had stood at an altar and been married by an ordained minister.

The bottom line is that no one needs a church or the blessing of a priest to be married in this country, but you DO need the government. And the government is barred by the Constitution from establishing or promoting any specific religion -- especially when it comes to the SSM issue which is dripping and oozing with religious dogma.