Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[HoughMade]

Goodbye to federalism then.

Let's just do away with the fiction of the united States, and name the country, say, Denali.

And have uniform criminal and civil law, modeled, say, on New York State?

Not quite. If it is a matter that the federal Constitution controls, the states and local governments must follow the federal Constitution. If it is not a matter governed by the federal Constitution, a state may make it's own law. Though it i clear that states have lost power to the federal government, it is not quite hopeless just yet.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Probably and I agree that marriage definition should have been a state issue, not federal, but the ship has sailed on that. Like it or not, under our system, a Constitutional right to same sex marriage has been found to exist. She is free to disagree, as any private citizen is. What she is not free to do is an end run around the separation of powers and decide that her personal Constitutional definition should apply in an official governmental function rather than that of the Supreme Court.

Her sincerity may not be in issue, but being sincere doesn't make one's actions legal.

I agree she'll have to answer for her actions, when the hammer finally comes down. I'm not even real sure she's doing this for the most earnest reasons. But sometimes an awakening can commence from the most unlikely events. If we're to ever repair our corrupt system, somebody will have to be the spark. Time will tell if this is it.

 

[PistolBob]

Maybe if the two homosexual dudes tell her they're related, she might issue them a license. It is Kentucky afterall.

 

[MisterChester]

Maybe if the two homosexual dudes tell her they're related, she might issue them a license. It is Kentucky afterall.

Pistolbob- 1
Kentucky- 0

Obligatory joke... Why is DNA evidence inadmissible in a court in Kentucky?

 

[MisterChester]

She became a Christian 4 years ago (after her divorces) so this point is kind of moot.

Luke 16:18
Rom 7:1-3

Not exactly.

 

[Woobie]

Luke 16:18
Rom 7:1-3

Not exactly.

I don't think Steve is calling that issue moot. I think he is saying that her beliefs have been established since her divorces / remarriages. Still, I would be surprised if she has not, in the last 3 years, or 3 months for that matter, given a marriage license to a couple in which at least one party had been previously divorced. You want to make a stand? Fine. But you'd better stand consistently. Picking and choosing really is discrimination, not conviction.

 

[HoughMade]

I will say this, while bastardization of marriage in one way doesn't make bastardization is all ways right, it sure makes it easier.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I wonder if she's going to be willing to spend time in jail for contempt of court in defense of her beliefs. I also wonder how much behind-the-scenes encouragement she is getting and from whom.

 

[bwframe]

Lets just hurry up and get the gubment out of the marriage business altogether. All people can and should stand on their own.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't think Steve is calling that issue moot. I think he is saying that her beliefs have been established since her divorces / remarriages.

Yes, that's what I was saying.

Still, I would be surprised if she has not, in the last 3 years, or 3 months for that matter, given a marriage license to a couple in which at least one party had been previously divorced. You want to make a stand? Fine. But you'd better stand consistently. Picking and choosing really is discrimination, not conviction.

Absolutely. This is where you can find the hypocrisy, not in her previous failed marriages that took place before she became a Christian.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes, that's what I was saying.

[/COLOR]

Absolutely. This is where you can find the hypocrisy, not in her previous failed marriages that took place before she became a Christian.

So I wonder where her hypocrisy falls in relation to those who claim they have to be respected for their beliefs (in homosexual marriage) but deliberately cause trouble for someone else who is wanting respect for her beliefs even though there are other places where they can go to get a wedding license.

 

[HoughMade]

Even with this particular person having been divorced before she became a Christian, so this may not apply to her personally, Christians all too often look for excuses as to why the Bible didn't really mean what it said when God says "I hate divorce" or how Jesus mentioned but a single (grudging) exception to the "no divorce" rule or how the Bible condemns adultery and fornication which make a mockery of true marriage. We ( including me, as a Christian) fail to hold marriage in the high regard it deserves as the closest human relationship that can be and as the picture of the self-sacrificial love Christ has for the Church and the devotion the Church should have for Christ.

The result is a culture without leadership in the area of esteeming marriage and we see where that has led.

Maybe we Christians need to work on this collective log in our eye before we go back to take on this speck....which, of course, is a speck worth taking on.

 

[historian]

Maybe we Christians need to work on this collective log in our eye before we go back to take on this speck....which, of course, is a speck worth taking on.

I've been saying this for years now. If your pastor will preach against SSM, but won't preach against divorce, then there isn't a true stand for the Biblical definition of marriage.

My third wife and I believe in the sanctity of marriage.

 

[PaulF]

So it isn't hypocritical for a person that has used a government service four times themselves to deny another eligable user access to that very same government service even once?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Even with this particular person having been divorced before she became a Christian, so this may not apply to her personally, Christians all too often look for excuses as to why the Bible didn't really mean what it said when God says "I hate divorce" or how Jesus mentioned but a single (grudging) exception to the "no divorce" rule or how the Bible condemns adultery and fornication which make a mockery of true marriage. We ( including me, as a Christian) fail to hold marriage in the high regard it deserves as the closest human relationship that can be and as the picture of the self-sacrificial love Christ has for the Church and the devotion the Church should have for Christ.

The result is a culture without leadership in the area of esteeming marriage and we see where that has led.

Maybe we Christians need to work on this collective log in our eye before we go back to take on this speck....which, of course, is a speck worth taking on.

The "speck" and the "log" are just two symptoms of a larger societal problem. Abortion-on-demand is yet another symptom. If we, as a society, hadn't handed our morality over to the government to arbitrate - or had rejected its overstepping its boundaries when it did so, we might not be experiencing all this trouble. On the other hand, historically, the only societies which lasted an extended period of time were ones which attained stasis - for good or for bad - and that has never been our style.

 

[HoughMade]

So it isn't hypocritical for a person that has used a government service four times themselves to deny another eligable user access to that very same government service even once?

She would say that this person is no "another eligible user." That is a difference in beliefs, not hypocrisy.

 

[PaulF]

The "speck" and the "log" are just two symptoms of a larger societal problem. Abortion-on-demand is yet another symptom. If we, as a society, hadn't handed our morality over to the government to arbitrate - or had rejected its overstepping its boundaries when it did so, we might not be experiencing all this trouble. On the other hand, historically, the only societies which lasted an extended period of time were ones which attained stasis - for good or for bad - and that has never been our style.

Some might argue that we haven't handed morality over to the government, but that we are no longer allowing one single influence to dominate the discussion concerning morality.

Not everyone in America agrees that the Christians get everything right when it comes to social mores and morality...heck, not everyone in Christianity can agree on those things.

There are things in our secular society that are secular for a reason...and are best kept that way.

 

[PaulF]

She would say that this person is no "another eligible user." That is a difference in beliefs, not hypocrisy.

That decision is not hers to make in any imaginable scenario.

 

[HoughMade]

That decision is not hers to make in any imaginable scenario.

Never said it was. You were talking about hypocrisy.

 

[PistolBob]

So it isn't hypocritical for a person that has used a government service four times themselves to deny another eligable user access to that very same government service even once?

Maybe but since when is hypocrisy against the law?