Jump to content


Photo

County Clerk Jailed For Refusing To Issue Marriage Licenses

homosexualmarriage rights freedom

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#41 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 September 2015 - 05:52 PM

 

Christianity is not a "religion".

 

Religion-- mans attempt to reconcile himself with GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies, ect.
 
Jesus Christ was the most ANTI-"religious" person to ever walk the Earth; Ergo...Christianity is not a "religion".
 
 
Words, they mean things.

Yes, they do.

Full Definition of CHRISTIANITY
1:  the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

(Source: http://www.merriam-w...ry/christianity )  (emphasis in the original)

 

Full Definition of RELIGION
1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> 
b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
 
2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
(Source: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion )  (again, emphasis in the original)

  • Goku likes this

#42 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 September 2015 - 06:17 PM

What you're saying is then that you have no defense against say a father marrying his daughter aside from the possible health of offspring? Then you have no defense against them at all, and still be able to maintain your libertarian stance. I'm rather egalitarian myself which is why I'm so torn over the issue of G*y "marriage".

On one hand I know God created marriage as the union between a man and a woman, but on the other hand I also recognize we don't live in a theocracy. That said, if it was 100% secular, with safeguards for religious rights, I don't tend to care. ... At this point we're just trying to preserve a remnant for when this country implodes from its own base desires.

We had much of this discussion on the "G*y marriage" thread.  My objections to the term "marriage" for a G*y union remain.  However, the SCOTUS has made the point moot from a constitutional and legal standpoint.

 

In a free society, government has little to no business with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

 

The country is well on its way to implosion, but it will be due to financial, not S@xual desires.



#43 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 September 2015 - 06:24 PM

 

Yes, they do.

Full Definition of CHRISTIANITY
1:  the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

(Source: http://www.merriam-w...ry/christianity )  (emphasis in the original)

 

Full Definition of RELIGION
1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
 
2:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
(Source: http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion )  (again, emphasis in the original)

 

 

 

Refute MY definition:

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies......?

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  This is religion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

1:  the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

(Source: http://www.merriam-w...ry/christianity )  (emphasis in the original)

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  This is a Label^^^^^^^^^ and uses the word religion in the definition^^^^^^^^ it's not a Definition.

 

 

Full Definition of RELIGION

1a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion
(1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

 

 

1a.  So Religion.... is Religious ??  :laugh_point:   Stupefying.  Errr...did you read these and avail any scrutiny before you posted them?  (It's Rhetorical)  I understand, as long as it says "DEFINITION" well, it's good enough for you.

 

1b.  The Service??  What does this even mean......?

 

2. Has the thing it's defining "religious" in the definition (AGAIN); Mind Numbing.

 

 

Nice try. 



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 September 2015 - 07:32 PM

Refute MY definition:

I did. 

 

You don't like the full definitions?   OK.... here are the short definitions, from the same references.....

Christianity:

the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

 

Religion: ....  

the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

 

Are you going to argue with the dictionary now?



#45 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 September 2015 - 08:20 PM

I did. 

 

 

No you didn't.

 

 

You don't like the full definitions?   OK.... here are the short definitions, from the same references.....

Christianity:

the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

 

Religion: ....  

the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

 

Are you going to argue with the dictionary now?

 

 

You betcha !!!!

 

"Christianity: the religion" 

 

 Begging The Question (Fallacy):  What's Religion???

 

Can you tell me HOW this definition that you just provided....

 

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

Is different from mine...

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

????

 

Christianity, "being a Christian", has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with ceremonies, rituals ect, it has to do with this...

 

(Romans 10:9) "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

 

 

 

And btw, 

When They "define" Geology, Paleontology, Archaeology, evolutionary biology, ect as "Science"   :smashfreak:   when Humpty Dumpty is more Scientific; THEN...

 

I evaluate and SCRUTINIZE every single thing they or anybody else has to say...Nobody gets a pass in my neighborhood sir and never will.  You've experienced this first hand.



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 September 2015 - 09:19 PM

I evaluate and SCRUTINIZE every single thing they or anybody else has to say...Nobody gets a pass in my neighborhood sir and never will.  You've experienced this first hand.

Yeah.... you even argue with the dictionary.   And Gilbo wonders why I say you play sophomoric games.....

 

We have very different terms for what I've experienced from you first hand.



#47 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 12 September 2015 - 09:34 PM

Thanks for clearing that up, but how does that relate to the case then?

 

Because she is imposing her religious beliefs on others; she is not allowing others freedom from her religion. 

 

SCOTUS can indeed make court decisions regarding legislation, but still they got to be:
- in line with the constitution
- in line with logic and common sense
- consistent with other similar decisions
... and meet a number of other requirements.
They are not a legislative body, but a judicial one. The decisions to issue legislation rest still with the legislative bodies. And mostly they haven't done so. So in fact making the SCOTUS decision mandatory for every American is what is unconstitutional here. It should be noted that not all judges at the supreme court were in agreement on the decision. And apparently for more then 200 years no judge ever considered not issuing a marriage license to a man that wanted to "marry" a man to be unconstitutional. While law isn't a democracy, who is more likely two be wrong thousands of judges, lawyers, prosecutors, virtually all legal scholars for over a few hundred years or a handful of politically appointed jurists at the supreme court?

In the light of the above, shall I demonstrate how not only the conclusions and conclusives acions are wrong, but how the SCOTUS decision is completely in the wrong regarding the constitution and its application?

h*m*sexuals have never been denied the right to marry. It's just that according to common sense a man with a man isn't marriage. And that's why marriage is only between woman and man in any dispensation be it Christian, pagan, muslim, Jewish and even Atheist as even in Communist countries marriage was between man and woman and not between men or between women.

 

They are the ones that say whether or not it *is* Constitutional. I agree they can make bad/wrong decisions; like I said previously to Enoch I think their Citizen's United decision (money = speech, therefore you can give unlimited donations to politicians, essentially the rich can now buy elections and even the Presidency) will go down as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in modern history. However, I think this decision to allow G*y marriage was the right decision to make. 

 

I don't know what you mean by "mandatory for every American"? No pastor or church (that is registered as an actual (non-profit) church) is forced to do or house G*y weddings. All this decision does is say legislation which prohibits G*y marriage is unconstitutional, and by extension government officials cannot deny government issued marriage licenses to G*y couples on the grounds that they are G*y - which is what Ms. Davis did. 

 

G*y marriage has certainly been shunned by cultures around the world for perhaps as long as civilization itself, but then again slavery wasn't considered immoral until a few hundred years ago. Sometimes change is good. In retrospect would you make a similar argument for the continuation of slavery 200 years ago (lawmakers over thousands of years didn't a problem with slavery so why should we)? We should not let the musings of people long since dead dictate to us our values simply out of some misguided reverence for tradition. We should be free to evaluate what kind of civilization we desire in the here and now, and work towards that. 

 

Given what marriage actually is in modern society, my common sense tells me that g*ys should have the right to marry their loved ones just the same as you and me. 

 

If you think you can demonstrate how SCOTUS is violating the Constitution have at it. 

 

... Now how does she violate the Constitution? She's refusing to perform an act she may be required to perform in line with her service agreement. And that makes it a labour issue not a constitutional one.

 

Because she's violating peoples' Constitutional right. Yes, it is now a Constitutional right for G*y people to get married. 

 

Good that it seems to you that way. But it doesn't only SEEM extreme, it's completely ridiculous. You jail people because they commit a felony, which the clerk didn't, or if they are accused of having committed a felony and are reasonably considered dangerous. Nothing of that applies to that woman.

 

What happened was that Ms. Davis was given a court order to issue marriage licenses to G*y people, and she refused making her guilty of contempt of court. When you are in contempt of court the judge has the legal authority to jail you until you are no longer in contempt of court. Which in Ms. Davis' case means she could have been jailed until she decided to follow the law, or when her term as county clerk expired (she is an elected official), or if/when she resigns from her position. 

 

So the judge actually didn't do anything wrong, legally, and after pondering other potential solutions I am beginning to think the judge did the best thing. The judge could have given her a fine, but I suspect the judge concluded as I did that it wouldn't change her behavior and she would be back in court for another contempt of court charge and at that point I don't think the judge would have a choice but to jail her anyway. The only other solution I think would be better, and I do not know if a judge could order it for a contempt of court charge, would be to say instead of working at the clerk's office you will be doing community service during the times you would normally be working until you are no longer in contempt of court. 



#48 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 13 September 2015 - 07:33 AM

Because she is imposing her religious beliefs on others; she is not allowing others freedom from her religion.

 
No she doesn't. She refuses to perform an act, which by using common sense can be seen as absurd.
 

They are the ones that say whether or not it *is* Constitutional. I agree they can make bad/wrong decisions; like I said previously to Enoch I think their Citizen's United decision (money = speech, therefore you can give unlimited donations to politicians, essentially the rich can now buy elections and even the Presidency) will go down as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in modern history. However, I think this decision to allow G*y marriage was the right decision to make.

No they don't - and actually didn't. They are not a legislative body. All they actually can do is repeal NEW legislation as being unconstitutional. Not recognizing same-s@x-"marriages" isn't new legislation. So unless some body would issue NEW legislation with the issue, they got nothing to repeal and essential got nothing to say within their mandate.  

 

I don't know what you mean by "mandatory for every American"? No pastor or church (that is registered as an actual (non-profit) church) is forced to do or house G*y weddings. All this decision does is say legislation which prohibits G*y marriage is unconstitutional, and by extension government officials cannot deny government issued marriage licenses to G*y couples on the grounds that they are G*y - which is what Ms. Davis did.

 I wouldn't be that sure about that. There are already cases against service providers for not complying with the demands of those perverts.

 

G*y marriage has certainly been shunned by cultures around the world for perhaps as long as civilization itself, but then again slavery wasn't considered immoral until a few hundred years ago. Sometimes change is good. In retrospect would you make a similar argument for the continuation of slavery 200 years ago (lawmakers over thousands of years didn't a problem with slavery so why should we)? We should not let the musings of people long since dead dictate to us our values simply out of some misguided reverence for tradition. We should be free to evaluate what kind of civilization we desire in the here and now, and work towards that.

 Obfuscating "G*y marriage" with slavery is absurd. It's the famous apples and oranges. Actually it's worse it's not even fruit. Slavery is attributing a positive right over a person to a third party. There is no positive right attributed to anyone by not recognizing the absurdity of same-s@x marriages.
Be advised that slavery was already a hot topic, when the Constitution was written. It was basically an overburden from the colonial period. But that's just the historical background.
 

Given what marriage actually is in modern society, my common sense tells me that g*ys should have the right to marry their loved ones just the same as you and me.

 Given what marriage essentially means regardless of time, same s@x marriage remain absurd regardless of time.
There is also another issue at stake. And that's the institutional meaning of marriage for society. That meaning is eroded by declaring all kind of other things to be marriages.
 

If you think you can demonstrate how SCOTUS is violating the Constitution have at it.

 Attributing legislating powers to themselves in cooperation with other arms of government. Now that's unconstitutional. They are also the ones imposing their religious views on others.
Fact is that not recognizing same-s@x-"marriage" as legal wasn't even a consideration, when the Constitution was written (which makes it different from slavery). It wasn't considered before that and also not for 200 years after that.
 

Because she's violating peoples' Constitutional right. Yes, it is now a Constitutional right for G*y people to get married.

 h*m*sexuals have never been denied the right to marry. It's just that same-s@x partnerships weren't recognized as legal marriages.
 

What happened was that Ms. Davis was given a court order to issue marriage licenses to G*y people, and she refused making her guilty of contempt of court. When you are in contempt of court the judge has the legal authority to jail you until you are no longer in contempt of court. Which in Ms. Davis' case means she could have been jailed until she decided to follow the law, or when her term as county clerk expired (she is an elected official), or if/when she resigns from her position. 
So the judge actually didn't do anything wrong, legally, and after pondering other potential solutions I am beginning to think the judge did the best thing. The judge could have given her a fine, but I suspect the judge concluded as I did that it wouldn't change her behavior and she would be back in court for another contempt of court charge and at that point I don't think the judge would have a choice but to jail her anyway. The only other solution I think would be better, and I do not know if a judge could order it for a contempt of court charge, would be to say instead of working at the clerk's office you will be doing community service during the times you would normally be working until you are no longer in contempt of court.

 And that makes it now justifyable? Just because it's compliant with form. Now by that reasoning judges jailing slaves for not returning to their masters would also be fine.

#49 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 September 2015 - 07:44 AM

Yeah.... you even argue with the dictionary.   And Gilbo wonders why I say you play sophomoric games.....

 

 

Well Gilbo can see through your Formica Deep and "Hammer meet c4 Fire" responses.

 

Speaking of Dictionaries and "DEFINING" things; anything yet on "the theory of evolution", by chance?   :gotcha:

 

 

I Scrutinize everything...if then it doesn't pass muster (is demonstrable nonsense),  I argue WHY and then SUPPORT IT!

 

I don't float One Liner, Fly By Color Commentary "LABELS"...and call it a day.

 

 

You did the very same thing before with CAL, charging him with Elephant Hurling and not knowing what it meant.   :laugh_point:

 

Ya see sir, To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green/yellow/pink/purple, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.

 

 

So, even if Encyclopedia Britannica places the Title "Peanut Brittle" above this....

 

PiebaldHorse_zpse8aec245.jpg

 

....and gets many to follow along; it's still a Horse.  Savvy?

 

 

We have very different terms for what I've experienced from you first hand.

 

 

No, not "Terms" more like "meanings", especially Science and Independent Variables   :laugh_point:

 

 

 

Oh anything on this...

 

Can you tell me HOW this definition that you just provided....

 

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

Is different from mine...

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

regards



#50 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 September 2015 - 07:46 AM

Thanks for clearing that up, but how does that relate to the case then?  SCOTUS can indeed make court decisions regarding legislation, but still they got to be:- in line with the constitution- in line with logic and common sense- consistent with other similar decisions... and meet a number of other requirements.They are not a legislative body, but a judicial one. The decisions to issue legislation rest still with the legislative bodies. And mostly they haven't done so. So in fact making the SCOTUS decision mandatory for every American is what is unconstitutional here. It should be noted that not all judges at the supreme court were in agreement on the decision. And apparently for more then 200 years no judge ever considered not issuing a marriage license to a man that wanted to "marry" a man to be unconstitutional. While law isn't a democracy, who is more likely two be wrong thousands of judges, lawyers, prosecutors, virtually all legal scholars for over a few hundred years or a handful of politically appointed jurists at the supreme court?In the light of the above, shall I demonstrate how not only the conclusions and conclusives acions are wrong, but how the SCOTUS decision is completely in the wrong regarding the constitution and its application?h*m*sexuals have never been denied the right to marry. It's just that according to common sense a man with a man isn't marriage. And that's why marriage is only between woman and man in any dispensation be it Christian, pagan, muslim, Jewish and even Atheist as even in Communist countries marriage was between man and woman and not between men or between women. ... Now how does she violate the Constitution? She's refusing to perform an act she may be required to perform in line with her service agreement. And that makes it a labour issue not a constitutional one.  Good that it seems to you that way. But it doesn't only SEEM extreme, it's completely ridiculous. You jail people because they commit a felony, which the clerk didn't, or if they are accused of having committed a felony and are reasonably considered dangerous. Nothing of that applies to that woman.


People can also be jailed for contempt of court; so, in your mind what should the court have done when she continued to deny marriage licences to legally qualified couples?

#51 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 September 2015 - 11:19 AM

Because she is imposing her religious beliefs on others; she is not allowing others freedom from her religion. 

 No she doesn't. She refuses to perform an act, which by using common sense can be seen as absurd.

She swore two oaths that she would follow the constitution in the performance of her duties.  The act she refuses to perform is the granting of marriage licenses to those who are legally entitled to obtain them .... in violation of the duties of the of the elective office she holds and the (two) oaths she swore. 

 

If she cannot, in conscience, perform the duties of her office, the proper act on her part is to step down .... not refuse to do the job she was elected to perform.

 

 

(Pi comments:   With regard to the SCOTUS ruling on G*y marriage.)
No they don't - and actually didn't. They are not a legislative body. All they actually can do is repeal NEW legislation as being unconstitutional. Not recognizing same-s@x-"marriages" isn't new legislation. So unless some body would issue NEW legislation with the issue, they got nothing to repeal and essential got nothing to say within their mandate.  

There is nothing in the constitutional mandate of the SCOTUS that limits their rulings to "NEW" legislation.  However, keep in mind that several states have (recently) passed laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  Courts cannot act on legislation until a case comes before them.  The mandate of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution.

 

Here is what they ruled:

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. ....

 

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same s@x and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same s@x when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

 

Source: http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf 

 

Therefore, according to the SCOTUS, which is empowered by the Constitution to rule on the constitutionality of the laws, the laws were invalid.  County clerks, who are not authorized to rule on constitutionality, must comply.  Davis, by her refusal to obey this ruling, is violating her oath of office to support the Constitution.

 

 No pastor or church (that is registered as an actual (non-profit) church) is forced to do or house G*y weddings. All this decision does is say legislation which prohibits G*y marriage is unconstitutional, and by extension government officials cannot deny government issued marriage licenses to G*y couples on the grounds that they are G*y - which is what Ms. Davis did. 

  I wouldn't be that sure about that. There are already cases against service providers for not complying with the demands of those perverts.

Service providers are not churches.  Churches, in the interest of their religious freedom under the First Amendment, are often granted exemptions from various anti-discrimination laws.  Even ministries, such as AIG, take advantage of those exemptions to (legally) discriminate in their employment practices.  Business, on the other hand, do come under those anti-discrimination laws and must comply with them.

 

  Given what marriage essentially means regardless of time, same s@x marriage remain absurd regardless of time.
There is also another issue at stake. And that's the institutional meaning of marriage for society. That meaning is eroded by declaring all kind of other things to be marriages.

Well, we are in full agreement on that.

 

If you think you can demonstrate how SCOTUS is violating the Constitution have at it. 

Attributing legislating powers to themselves in cooperation with other arms of government. Now that's unconstitutional. They are also the ones imposing their religious views on others.

First, SCOTUS did not legislate anything.  The legislatures of several states passed laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.  The SCOTUS, within their (constitutional) mandate, ruled those laws violated the Constitution.  The "other arms of government" (specifically, the legislatures of various states) were in opposition to the finding of the court.

 

Second, the SCOTUS is not imposing a religious view on anyone.  Nothing keeps Davis from practicing her religion in her home; at her church; or in public places.  What she is prevented from doing is imposing her religious view on people who are legally qualified to obtain marriage licenses by refusing to grant them such licenses due to her religious beliefs.  She is doing this in the performance of her duties as an elected government official who has sworn to support the Constitution.

 

If Davis is unable to perform her duties and support the constitution because of her religious beliefs, that's fine.  As an individual, she has every right to her religious beliefs.  As a public official, she MUST follow the law.  The correct action is for her to leave her public office if she cannot, in conscience, do her job.

 

  h*m*sexuals have never been denied the right to marry. It's just that same-s@x partnerships weren't recognized as legal marriages.

h*m*sexuals were specifically denied the right to obtain marriage licenses.  In the United States, how can you get married without getting a marriage license?  In other words, denial of the license IS denial of the right to marry.

 

The Davis case is a perfect example.  She denied couples, who were legally entitled to marry the document they needed to get married.  And she did so ENTIRELY on the basis of HER religious beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 



#52 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 13 September 2015 - 11:56 AM

Yeah.... you even argue with the dictionary.   And Gilbo wonders why I say you play sophomoric games.....

Well Gilbo can see through your Formica Deep and "Hammer meet c4 Fire" responses.

Well, maybe Gilbo agrees with you that Christianity is not a religion.... he hasn't said much about it.....

 

I Scrutinize everything...if then it doesn't pass muster (is demonstrable nonsense),  I argue WHY and then SUPPORT IT!

I did.  You claimed Christianity is not a religion.  In post #41, and again in post #44 showed that Christianity IS defined as a religion .... and SUPPORTED IT!

 

I don't float One Liner, Fly By Color Commentary "LABELS"...and call it a day.

That's all your "response" deserved.  I have no interest in playing (sophomoric) Clintonesque games (such as "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is'") with you.

 

Oh anything on this...

 

Can you tell me HOW this definition that you just provided....

 

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

Is different from mine...

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

I guess you really do have serious problems with comprehension. 

 

The difference is that you do not include the first five words.... religion is "an organized system of beliefs...."  Christianity has "an organized system of beliefs."  Further, the dictionary definition says nothing about man attempting to "reconcile himself to God."



#53 perry_eh

perry_eh

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 September 2015 - 01:51 PM

 

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

 

 

What source is this quote from?



#54 perry_eh

perry_eh

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 September 2015 - 02:01 PM

 

The country is well on its way to implosion, but it will be due to financial, not S@xual desires.

 

 

I would argue that these two causes are far from being mutually exclusive.



#55 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 13 September 2015 - 06:12 PM

Apparently Kim Davis is not a 1-off: http://news.yahoo.co...-204513719.html

#56 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 14 September 2015 - 12:04 AM

 No she doesn't. She refuses to perform an act, which by using common sense can be seen as absurd.

 

By refusing to perform that act she is forcing her religious beliefs onto everyone else. You have to understand that she is not working for some private company, she is a public official whose job is to hand out marriage licenses within the confines of the Constitution, and she took an oath to that effect as well. It's like a police officer arresting you and refusing to give you your Miranda rights ("you have the right to remain silent") before questioning you. The police is refusing to perform an act too, but because of their job by refusing to do that they are violating people's Constitutional right. 

 

No they don't - and actually didn't. They are not a legislative body. All they actually can do is repeal NEW legislation as being unconstitutional. Not recognizing same-s@x-"marriages" isn't new legislation. So unless some body would issue NEW legislation with the issue, they got nothing to repeal and essential got nothing to say within their mandate.  

 

As Pi said there is no requirement that the legislation be "new", all that is really required is for someone to legally challenge the constitutionality of something in a court case. Most of them don't get all the way to the Supreme Court and are handled in lower courts, but if it does make it all the way to the Supreme Court then they will make a decision on that case. 

 

I'll admit I don't know hardly anything about the specifics of the court case itself which SCOTUS based their G*y marriage decision on, but essentially a few G*y couples in areas that had laws banning G*y marriage took that law to court (I believe they sued the government saying it violated their constitutional rights and it ended up going all the way to SCOTUS), and SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated their 14th amendment right to equal protection under the law. 

 

 I wouldn't be that sure about that. There are already cases against service providers for not complying with the demands of those perverts.

 

But they are not non-profit churches, they are for-profit businesses which must comply with anti-discrimination laws. Legally it is similar to how restaurants are not allowed to refuse service to people based on their skin color; my understanding is that it depends on the local jurisdiction on whether or not S@xual orientation is a protected class like race which is a federally protected class. However, as Pi said, churches are exempt from many of these laws and I support a church's right to refuse marriage based on whatever criteria they choose. 

 

 Obfuscating "G*y marriage" with slavery is absurd. It's the famous apples and oranges. Actually it's worse it's not even fruit. Slavery is attributing a positive right over a person to a third party. There is no positive right attributed to anyone by not recognizing the absurdity of same-s@x marriages.
Be advised that slavery was already a hot topic, when the Constitution was written. It was basically an overburden from the colonial period. But that's just the historical background.

 

It's just an easy example demonstrating that sometimes laws/policies need to be changed, and that we shouldn't blindly follow tradition for tradition's sake. So when you tell me that G*y marriage has been traditionally illegal throughout world history I agree, but that is not a good argument for why it should be kept illegal. 

 

 Given what marriage essentially means regardless of time, same s@x marriage remain absurd regardless of time.
There is also another issue at stake. And that's the institutional meaning of marriage for society. That meaning is eroded by declaring all kind of other things to be marriages.

 

What marriage essentially is in the modern world is a contract between two people that provide various legal rights and economic benefits for the people involved, courtesy of the government. It is not simply a piece of paper or some religious sacrament between two people and God, it has real world effects due to the way governments set up secular marriage. When I look at marriage that way I think it is absurd to not let G*y couples get married. 

 

Attributing legislating powers to themselves in cooperation with other arms of government. Now that's unconstitutional. They are also the ones imposing their religious views on others.
Fact is that not recognizing same-s@x-"marriage" as legal wasn't even a consideration, when the Constitution was written (which makes it different from slavery). It wasn't considered before that and also not for 200 years after that.

 

SCOTUS did not make any legislation, they ruled that laws banning G*y marriage were unconstitutional and thus no longer applied. In that respect SCOTUS can and does influence legislation/laws, but if it couldn't then judicial review would be pointless. 

 

They aren't imposing any religious view on anyone. 

 

Again the 'timing' of the legislation in respect to when the Court hears the case is completely irrelevant. If something is unconstitutional it doesn't magically become constitutional after so many years of it being law. 

 

 h*m*sexuals have never been denied the right to marry. It's just that same-s@x partnerships weren't recognized as legal marriages.

 

The whole point of the right to marry is that it is a legal marriage accepted by the government. That is what this whole debate is about: do G*y people have the right to get legally married? SCOTUS says yes. So when Ms. Davis on behalf of the government refuses to issue government marriage licenses to G*y people she is unequivocally violating their constitutional right to marriage. If Ms. Davis was a church pastor and refused to marry a G*y couple in the eyes of God then she would not be violating their constitutional right to marriage. The crucial piece of information is that Ms. Davis is acting on behalf of the government as a government official, not on behalf of a private company or church. That is a very important distinction. 

 

And that makes it now justifyable? Just because it's compliant with form. Now by that reasoning judges jailing slaves for not returning to their masters would also be fine.

 

I always knew that the judge had every legal authority to jail Ms. Davis for contempt of court, that is a fairly common punishment for contempt of court here in America. I originally thought it was over the top, but upon reflection I think the only better option would be to have Ms. Davis do community service instead of working at the clerk's office until she was no longer in contempt of court, but I do not know if the judge has the authority to do that. If not then I think the judge did the right thing. 

 

I agree that legality doesn't equal morality, and in some cases the moral thing to do is disregard the law (which many people did when it came to runaway slaves via a concept known as jury nullification). But, you should tread very carefully when disregarding the law; there is a fine line between being morally scrupulous and advocating lawlessness. I don't have all the answers on when it is and isn't appropriate to ignore the law, I don't think anyone does, however I do not think this G*y marriage case even comes close. 

 

She is, in essence, complaining that she can no longer practice her religious bigotry while in the official capacity of a government position. In my estimation that is not a good reason to defy the law. 



#57 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 September 2015 - 05:38 AM

What source is this quote from? ..... Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

ENOCH2021



#58 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 September 2015 - 06:54 AM

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

What source is this quote from?

 

ENOCH2021

 

 

Yeah.... I kind of thought so.

 

Enoch will excuse me if I don't accept him as an authority on what words mean.  (Or not.... I really don't care, I still decline to accept Enoch as an authority on word meanings.)



#59 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 September 2015 - 07:32 AM

Yeah.... I kind of thought so.

 

Enoch will excuse me if I don't accept him as an authority on what words mean.  (Or not.... I really don't care, I still decline to accept Enoch as an authority on word meanings.)

 

 

And I deny any Authority Whatsoever regarding anything you have to say regarding SCIENCE...with actual SUPPORT: http://evolutionfair...es/#entry126307

 

 

SPECIFICALLY, you can't (and Haven't) refuted "My" definition of religion SIR:  AGAIN...

 

 

Can you tell me HOW this definition that you just provided....

 

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

Is different from mine...

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

??

 

Still waiting   :kaffeetrinker: 



#60 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 September 2015 - 09:39 AM

Yeah.... I kind of thought so.

 

Enoch will excuse me if I don't accept him as an authority on what words mean.  (Or not.... I really don't care, I still decline to accept Enoch as an authority on word meanings.)

And I deny any Authority Whatsoever regarding anything you have to say regarding SCIENCE...with actual SUPPORT: http://evolutionfair...es/#entry126307

First, this isn't about science, it's about the definition of religion.

 

Second, I will note the post Enoch links is in the discussion where he "schooled" me on the definition of an "independent variable" by saying exactly what I had been saying all along.... that the "independent variable" is one being controlled by the experimenter.   Then I provided five parameters of the variable(s) under control of the experimenter.

 

 

SPECIFICALLY, you can't (and Haven't) refuted "My" definition of religion SIR:  AGAIN...

I don't need to refute your definition.  It has exactly the same validity/authority as one given by a kindergarten student.

 

 

Can you tell me HOW this definition that you just provided....

 

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

Is different from mine...

 

Religion: man's attempt to reconcile himself to GOD through: rituals, practices, ceremonies ect.

 

??

 

Still waiting   :kaffeetrinker: 

Already answered in post #52.

 

Do you have anything substantive to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here to nag others?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: homosexualmarriage, rights, freedom

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users