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

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

No one knows better than a Christian that people aren't perfect and that we're all "hypocrites" in one way or another. However, whether everyone else likes it or not, our social mores and laws based on Judeo-Christian principles worked well for 200 years or so - in general, and not discounting the aforementioned hypocrisy endemic to Mankind. It's the past 40 years or so when we've been told that those principles were "passe" or "judgmental" or, nowadays, "bigoted," "(insert brand name here)-phobic," or "racist" that our society has seemed to accelerate its fall into madness.

Back in the 50s, Robert A. Heinlein developed a timeline for what he called his "Future History" series. If I recall correctly, the timeline had in it a block noted as "The Crazy Years" and while he didn't - that I recall - write any stories in that time block, he did reference some headlines typical of those years. While imaginative in ways I will never be, even Heinlein couldn't match the "crazy" in today's headlines.

 

[steveh_131]

I've been watching the videos of the gays in this lady's office, demanding marriage licenses, yadda yadda. Everybody is so outraged. I really can't bring myself to care.

Maybe they're right, in a legal sense. Normally I'd care. But I don't. I am so sick and tired of the LBGTVWTFBBQ activists shoving their agenda down my throat that they can **** off.

You don't have some sort of natural 'right' to a government slip of paper. I'll argue for all sorts of your rights, but this ain't one of them. And I'm tired of it. I can't even turn on the ******** Walking Dead without seeing a couple of dudes make out in a storage closet because of your BS activism. They screwed over states' rights with their supreme court bullying. Rainbows everywhere, people hating on Christians. Guys in dresses trying to push their way into girl's high school bathrooms. Forcing people to bake you a wedding cake with the threat of government violence. Every movie, every tv show, every magazine... gotta shove some gays in there. You're not Rosa Parks and nobody is oppressing you on this bus. I see your agenda, even when you think it's subtle, and you can shove it.

None of this rant applies to reasonable, everyday folks who happen to be gay. There are several of them even here on INGO. Thumbs up to the people who live their own lives and mind their own business. I wish more were like you.

 

[jamil]

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.

That's a good point.

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.

I thought I heard in the news that the LGBT groups opposing her are asking the court to levy large fines instead of jail. I'd guess the real rationale behind that is so that she doesn't become a kind of martyr for the cause.

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?

Paul, what I'm saying here is just about the subject of hypocrisy and isn't directed at you, it's directed at every hypocrite, including me.

Whenever we bring in "hypocrisy" into a discussion about beliefs and viewpoints, it's generally to tacitly impugn the belief or view by attacking the character of the person. That makes it just another form of ad hominem. And in the process we usually misuse the term anyway. Hypocrisy isn't having an inconsistent belief or view. It's not just failing to practice what we preach even. We can believe something is true and stumble with living that belief. True hypocrisy contains deceit.

But even still, it has nothing to do with the quality of the underlying belief. That stands or falls on its own merits. Hypocrisy is only an indictment of the character of the believer and not the belief itself.

And if we're really so concerned about hypocrisy, we better have none of our own. Hypocrisy is a very common ailment of humanity because we are naturally self-interested and biased. We all have an inner person, the true "us", that the outside world does not see. And frankly, I don't think anyone is qualified to impugn one person's hypocritical character without impugning their own.

As for this clerk, she's an elected official, and yes, character matters. But as far as hypocrisy, is what she's doing hypocritical? Does she really believe gay marriage is okay but she's saying otherwise? Remember, hypocrisy isn't just inconsistently applying one's beliefs. So no, I actually think she believes gay marriage is a sin. Is she being deceitful about her beliefs? Not as far as I can tell. You can say that the application of her stated beliefs seems to be inconsistent. But calling that hypocrisy is false.

If we have a valid complaint about her, instead of finding ad hominem clubs to beat her about the head and chest, let's look at what she's actually doing wrong. She took an oath to perform a duty of the office, which she is not doing. It need not be more complicated than that.

 

[PaulF]

This man has a point.

 

[cobber]

I've been watching the videos of the gays in this lady's office, demanding marriage licenses, yadda yadda. Everybody is so outraged. I really can't bring myself to care.

Maybe they're right, in a legal sense. Normally I'd care. But I don't. I am so sick and tired of the LBGTVWTFBBQ activists shoving their agenda down my throat that they can **** off.

You don't have some sort of natural 'right' to a government slip of paper. I'll argue for all sorts of your rights, but this ain't one of them. And I'm tired of it. I can't even turn on the ******** Walking Dead without seeing a couple of dudes make out in a storage closet because of your BS activism. They screwed over states' rights with their supreme court bullying. Rainbows everywhere, people hating on Christians. Guys in dresses trying to push their way into girl's high school bathrooms. Forcing people to bake you a wedding cake with the threat of government violence. Every movie, every tv show, every magazine... gotta shove some gays in there. You're not Rosa Parks and nobody is oppressing you on this bus. I see your agenda, even when you think it's subtle, and you can shove it.

None of this rant applies to reasonable, everyday folks who happen to be gay. There are several of them even here on INGO. Thumbs up to the people who live their own lives and mind their own business. I wish more were like you.

Me:

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

Thank you sir!

 

[Lowe0]

You don't have some sort of natural 'right' to a government slip of paper.

Who does have a right to that slip of paper, and more importantly, why?

 

[steveh_131]

Nobody. There is no natural right to any slip of paper signed by any other human being.

 

[HoughMade]

Kentucky clerk about not issuing same-sex marriage licenses: 'A heaven or hell decision' | NOLA.com

"Heaven or Hell Decision"?

Well now I just want to talk to her about her Theology.....

 

[jamil]

Nobody. There is no natural right to any slip of paper signed by any other human being.

We have [STRIKE]allowed[/STRIKE] encouraged our government to define marriage at all, and it has backfired. I can almost hear hornadylnl saying, "A government powerful enough to define marriage is a government powerful enough to define it as something disagreeable."

Government now possessing that power I can't be surprised when it redefines it. And it will redefine it again. Amendment XIV section 1. I've heard libertarians use that to justify positions in the past. Ain't that a *****?

If government can issue marriage licenses at all it must issue them to all who are legally eligible. SCUTUS says that now includes gays. It's just the way it is. And it's going to change again.

 

[steveh_131]

If government can issue marriage licenses at all it must issue them to all who are legally eligible. SCUTUS says that now includes gays. It's just the way it is. And it's going to change again.

I don't disagree with you necessarily. But if a law is passed that the government must provide me with a whoopee cushion and a rectal thermometer, does that mean I have a natural right to be provided those things? Of course not.

I won't defend your 'right' to some fictional legal construct that should never have been a government function to begin with.

On the other hand, if the government prohibited homosexual activity in the bedroom, I would defend their natural right to do what they want on their own property with their own bodies. Even if the government says they have no 'right' to do so.

 

[MisterChester]

I've been watching the videos of the gays in this lady's office, demanding marriage licenses, yadda yadda. Everybody is so outraged. I really can't bring myself to care.

Maybe they're right, in a legal sense. Normally I'd care. But I don't. I am so sick and tired of the LBGTVWTFBBQ activists shoving their agenda down my throat that they can **** off.

You don't have some sort of natural 'right' to a government slip of paper. I'll argue for all sorts of your rights, but this ain't one of them. And I'm tired of it. I can't even turn on the ******** Walking Dead without seeing a couple of dudes make out in a storage closet because of your BS activism. They screwed over states' rights with their supreme court bullying. Rainbows everywhere, people hating on Christians. Guys in dresses trying to push their way into girl's high school bathrooms. Forcing people to bake you a wedding cake with the threat of government violence. Every movie, every tv show, every magazine... gotta shove some gays in there. You're not Rosa Parks and nobody is oppressing you on this bus. I see your agenda, even when you think it's subtle, and you can shove it.

None of this rant applies to reasonable, everyday folks who happen to be gay. There are several of them even here on INGO. Thumbs up to the people who live their own lives and mind their own business. I wish more were like you.

Sounds like you're giving too much attention to things that you probably shouldn't be worried about. I don't really like some of the things you mentioned but I don't let it bother me by paying no attention and ignoring it. To be frank with you I think that's part of the goal of the unreasonable kind, to **** off people. That applies to the social justice warriors on the other side too. It's attention seeking, so if they don't get attention then it becomes more fruitless.

 

[steveh_131]

"Heaven or Hell Decision"?

Well now I just want to talk to her about her Theology.....

She's described as an 'Apostolic Christian' and I wonder if she has some affiliation with the Church of God assemblies in that area. They are common in the rural areas of Kentucky. Her modest attire and lack of make-up indicates to me that she is certainly part of a more legalistic denomination and many of them in that area believe that they must work to avoid losing their salvation on a daily basis. Some will not even acknowledge that they currently sin for fear of losing it.

 

[steveh_131]

Sounds like you're giving too much attention to things that you probably shouldn't be worried about. I don't really like some of the things you mentioned but I don't let it bother me by paying no attention and ignoring it.

I hear you, and I really just shrugged it off for years and years. But I swear, you can NOT watch a single television show without some mention or display of it. I can not think of one. And the context is always so hokey, situations where there was really no good reason to mention a spouse right then except to make it clear that he has a husband.

Considering that television and cinema is filled with gratuitous immorality, I really don't care about one more added on. It's the glaringly obvious agenda that I find so annoying. I pay you to entertain me, not to push your crap in my face.

 

[HoughMade]

She's described as an 'Apostolic Christian' and I wonder if she has some affiliation with the Church of God assemblies in that area. They are common in the rural areas of Kentucky. Her modest attire and lack of make-up indicates to me that she is certainly part of a more legalistic denomination and many of them in that area believe that they must work to avoid losing their salvation on a daily basis. Some will not even acknowledge that they currently sin for fear of losing it.

Yes. I surmised that. Now I kind of pity her.

 

[Woobie]

Kentucky clerk about not issuing same-sex marriage licenses: 'A heaven or hell decision' | NOLA.com

"Heaven or Hell Decision"?

Well now I just want to talk to her about her Theology.....

There's always something wierd at the bottom of these stories once you drill down far enough to find it.

 

[BADWOLF]

Well considering she's been married 4 times and divorced 3. When she was married to the first husband got pregnant by the guy who would end up being the 3rd husband. I really think she is grasping at straws to claim religious reasons for denying marriage licences to anyone, which it's just not homo's she is not issuing licences to its everyone gay or straight.

 

[jamil]

Well considering she's been married 4 times and divorced 3. When she was married to the first husband got pregnant by the guy who would end up being the 3rd husband. I really think she is grasping at straws to claim religious reasons for denying marriage licences to anyone, which it's just not homo's she is not issuing licences to its everyone gay or straight.

Belief is a powerful and personal thing. She gets to claim whatever she wants. She can say she received orders from Ra via interstellar telegraph and it doesn't affect the circumstances. Her reasons don't matter. The results do. The only question I needed answered: is she doing her job according to the oath she took. As I read it, she's not. It'd be nice if she'd help dispose of this the easy way and just resign.

 

[PaulF]

Belief is a powerful and personal thing. She gets to claim whatever she wants. She can say she received orders from Ra via interstellar telegraph and it doesn't affect the circumstances. Her reasons don't matter. The results do. The only question I needed answered: is she doing her job according to the oath she took. As I read it, she's not. It'd be nice if she'd help dispose of this the easy way and just resign.

Yes. This.

She isn't doing the job she is being paid to do, and should be appropriately disciplined for that...and nothing more.

On a personal note, and I'm sure the rest of you can relate, a person's beliefs pertain only to that person. It pisses me off to no end when people behave as though their personal beliefs should have any bearing on what I (or others) can or cannot do (within the law).

Still, Jamil is correct here: attack the wrongdoing, not the beliefs of the wrongdoer. I'll admit where I was wrong on doing so.

 

[jamil]

Yes. This.

She isn't doing the job she is being paid to do, and should be appropriately disciplined for that...and nothing more.

On a personal note, and I'm sure the rest of you can relate, a person's beliefs pertain only to that person. It pisses me off to no end when people behave as though their personal beliefs should have any bearing on what I (or others) can or cannot do (within the law).

Still, Jamil is correct here: attack the wrongdoing, not the beliefs of the wrongdoer. I'll admit where I was wrong on doing so.

She ain't doin' her job. What do we usually do with people who don't do what they're paid to do? We fire them.

But she's an elected official.

She can basically do whatever she wants. Because every one of her constituents is her boss, she effectively has no boss. "Answering to the people" sounds nice but doesn't really work in practice. They don't get a chance to fire her until next election. And given the demographics, she might win anyway. The only other way to do it is impeachment. Probably with a majority conservative assembly, that's not a sure thing either. The courts can punish her, but they can't fire her.

 

[Woobie]

Yes. This.

She isn't doing the job she is being paid to do, and should be appropriately disciplined for that...and nothing more.

On a personal note, and I'm sure the rest of you can relate, a person's beliefs pertain only to that person. It pisses me off to no end when people behave as though their personal beliefs should have any bearing on what I (or others) can or cannot do (within the law).

Still, Jamil is correct here: attack the wrongdoing, not the beliefs of the wrongdoer. I'll admit where I was wrong on doing so.

So I wander what her belief is about breaking her oath? Is this not wrong? If she believes the Bible, as she claims she does, then violating an oath would certainly be as wrong anything else. Her only moral way out, in my mind, is resignation. She is refusing to do that. So that leaves us with your conclusion: discipline.

I will try to win a person over to Christ, and I will do so, not for my own satisfaction, but out of genuine concern for the person. But I will never seek to impose Christianity on someone. For one thing, that is impossible, on multiple levels. But practically speaking, it will only serve to alienate those we seek to convince. A careful examination of the New Testament will reveal the immorality of such efforts as well. Sadly, there are many who disagree with me on this. I know I support the banning of abortion, but I do it out of the NAP, just as I oppose murder being legal. Those who do not see the fetus as a human life will have a fundamental roadblock to an agreement with me on this. I know this isn't about abortion, and I'm certainly not trying to go there. I only bring it out to address what some might view as an inconsistency. This woman is seeking to oppose her morality through the powers of her office. That is wrong. A loftier goal of winning others might be met by resigning and devoting the energy in more productive ways.