Christian clerks refuse to issue licences, what about judges-n-kops?

[tod evans]

I find it bewildering that these self professed Christians will refuse to issue marriage licences but their brethren regularly sign and execute warrants, often times death warrants, on other folks for drugs.

Can't they see the hypocrisy?

[tod evans]

Oh, here's a clerk story;


Kentucky clerk sued for not issuing same-sex marriage licenses

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/03/kentucky-clerk-sued-for-not-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/

Four Kentucky couples are suing a clerk who is refusing to issue gay-marriage licenses – or any marriage licenses for that matter – following a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court giving same-sex marriage couples the legal right to marry.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Thursday on behalf of two homosexual and two heterosexual couples, all of whom were turned down when they tried to get marriage licenses from Davis’ office this week.

Davis has said that her religious beliefs prevented her from complying with the Supreme Court decision, so she decided not to issue marriage licenses to any type of couple – straight or gay.

Davis is among a handful of judges and clerks across the South who have defied the Court’s order, maintaining that the right to “religious freedom” protects them from having to comply.

The Decatur County, Tennessee clerk and two office employees resigned Thursday due to their opposition to same-sex marriage, County Commissioner David Boroughs told The Jackson Sun.

However, in Alabama, all counties appeared to be complying with the Supreme Court ruling as of Thursday, lawyers representing gay couples told The Associated Press.

In Louisiana, where most parish clerks had been issuing same-sex marriage licenses since Monday, the state Office of Vital Records, which issues the licenses in New Orleans, didn't begin doing so until Thursday.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear ordered all clerks to fall in line. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway followed up with a warning that failing to do so might open them up to civil liability.

Officials have also warned defiant clerks could be risking criminal charges. Warren County Attorney Ann Milliken, president of the Kentucky County Attorneys Association, president of the Kentucky County Attorney’s Association, said clerks could be charged with official misconduct, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

Some Kentucky clerks who at first resisted issuing same-sex marriage licenses changed course this week aand agreed to sign them. However, Davis and a few others stood firm, despite the protests outside her Morehead office earlier this week.

She pledged to never issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

"It's a deep-rooted conviction; my conscience won't allow me to do that," Davis said Tuesday. "It goes against everything I hold dear, everything sacred in my life."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Ashland, requests and injunction ordering Davis to begin issuing licenses. IT alleges that her policy is unconstitutional and asks for punitive damages for violating the four couples’ rights.

April Miller and Karen Roberts, a couple for 11 years who live in Morehead, told The Associated Press that they asked for a license Tuesday and were told to try another county.

Another gay couple, L. Aaron Skaggs and Barry Spartman, called the Rowan County clerk's office Tuesday and asked to apply for a license. An employee on the phone said, "Don't bother coming down here," according to the lawsuit, and told them the clerk was refusing to issue licenses.

Two opposite-sex couples also tried to get licenses and were told by staff that none would be issued, the lawsuit alleges.

The clerks have argued that if they issue a license to no one, they cannot be accused of discrimination. Kentucky state law allows adult couples seeking marriage licenses to get them from any county. If a marriage involves minors, however, they must get their license in the county where they live.

The four couples who filed suit say that because they live, work, vote and pay taxes in Rowan County, they have a right to file for a marriage license there.

In the lawsuit, ACLU legal director William Sharp wrote that Davis' religious conviction "is not a compelling, important or legitimate government interest."

One of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, Laura Landenwich, wrote that Davis "has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform based on her religious beliefs."

[Zippyjuan]

Davis has said that her religious beliefs prevented her from complying with the Supreme Court decision, so she decided not to issue marriage licenses to any type of couple – straight or gay.

Davis is among a handful of judges and clerks across the South who have defied the Court’s order, maintaining that the right to “religious freedom” protects them from having to comply.

So religious freedoms means nobody can get married? Or in some cases, only Christians can?

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Who has gotten a death warrant put on them "for drugs"? Manuel Noriega? Anyone else?

[tod evans]

Who has gotten a death warrant put on them "for drugs"? Manuel Noriega? Anyone else?

All warrants today carry the very real chance of death.

To think otherwise is insane.

[Dr.3D]

So religious freedoms means nobody can get married? Or in some cases, only Christians can?
Let people go to their respective churches to get married. Get the state out of the marriage business and everything will be fine. Gay churches can have gay weddings and nobody will care.

[morfeeis]

Let people go to their respective churches to get married. Get the state out of the marriage business and everything will be fine. Gay churches can have gay weddings and nobody will care.

I finally understand why such a simple solution hasn't be accepted, they don't want to be equal they want to have their lifestyle accepted as normal and no matter how many laws are passed or court cases it never will be.

[moostraks]

I find it bewildering that these self professed Christians will refuse to issue marriage licences but their brethren regularly sign and execute warrants, often times death warrants, on other folks for drugs.

Can't they see the hypocrisy?

Likely no. I pondered the potential of this response with dh due to the fervor in so called Christian circles to make this a hill to die upon, Armaggedon and such being murmured by so many if they comply. Fire them. They either do their job or fire them. Time to start weeding out the extensive government employee list.

Let the handwringing begin. The perverse coziness of the religious with government needs to be shaken up a bit.

[angelatc]

I find it bewildering that these self professed Christians will refuse to issue marriage licences but their brethren regularly sign and execute warrants, often times death warrants, on other folks for drugs.

Can't they see the hypocrisy?

I feel the same way about this as I did about the Walmart clerks who didn't want to dispense abortion pills. If you do not like their policies, do not work there.

[tod evans]

Likely no. I pondered the potential of this response with dh due to the fervor in so called Christian circles to make this a hill to die upon, Armaggedon and such being murmured by so many if they comply. Fire them. They either do their job or fire them. Time to start weeding out the extensive government employee list.

Let the handwringing begin. The perverse coziness of the religious with government needs to be shaken up a bit.

It's just certain sects of "Christians" getting their knickers in a twist over the *****, others don't.

Yet as a collective "Christians" are okay with waging war on segments of society, they even adulate the warriors during services.....

[Zippyjuan]

Let people go to their respective churches to get married. Get the state out of the marriage business and everything will be fine. Gay churches can have gay weddings and nobody will care.

Churches are not required to marry gay people. The ruling only says that the governments must recognize such unions. Nobody's religious freedom is being denied.

[Dr.3D]

Churches are not required to marry gay people. The ruling only says that the governments must recognize such unions. Nobody's religious freedom is being denied.
Perhaps there is a problem with it being called a marriage.

Only a church can really perform a marriage ceremony.

Let the state call their union of two people something other than a marriage and nobody is going to complain.

[Zippyjuan]

Perhaps there is a problem with it being called a marriage.

Only a church can really perform a marriage ceremony.

Let the state call their union of two people something other than a marriage and nobody is going to complain.

What about civil marriages conducted at the local courthouse? Those were marriages as well. Different religions have different marriage rites as well. Yet they are all marriages.

[Dr.3D]

What about civil marriages conducted at the local courthouse? Those were marriages as well. Different religions have different marriage rites as well. Yet they are all marriages.
They need to stop calling civil "marriages" marriages. Call them something else instead of trying to co-opt what marriage really is. The state has tried to take over from the church and that's the problem here.

[kpitcher]

Perhaps there is a problem with it being called a marriage.

Only a church can really perform a marriage ceremony.

Let the state call their union of two people something other than a marriage and nobody is going to complain.
I'm legally a minister with 2 marriages under my belt. If you head over to the ulc.org you can be an ordained minister too. It's not hard to perform any sort of marriage ceremony you want. There are hundreds of recognized religions in the USA.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

All warrants today carry the very real chance of death.

So, you can't actually name anyone who has gotten a "death warrant" put on them for drugs by a Christian. I figured as much. Just more word vomit.

[tod evans]

So, you can't actually name anyone who has gotten a "death warrant" put on them for drugs by a Christian. I figured as much. Just more word vomit.

What would you call a federal warrant issued for a 65 y/o for "manufacturing" marijuana in the national forest?

What would you call a state warrant issued for some 20 y/o gang banger accused of operating a "drug house" in Harlem?

I could go on with what-ifs for days......

Folks are killed weekly, sometimes daily, by goon squads comprised of militant Christians serving warrants sought and procured by other militant Christians who are prosecutors. Then these militant Christians are often praised for their heroism and bravery during Sunday services.

I find it appalling and sickening.

But go ahead and downplay these death sentences by warrant as;
Just more word vomit....

Try explaining to the families of the dead how their loved ones weren't executed under a death warrant served up by militant Christians waging war on behalf of their other God, government........

[Zippyjuan]

They need to stop calling civil "marriages" marriages. Call them something else instead of trying to co-opt what marriage really is. The state has tried to take over from the church and that's the problem here.

Why should they be called something different? Because the ceremony is not the same? Because "not a priest" presides over it? Should a Jewish wedding be called something different from a Catholic or Islamic ceremony? What is the definition of a "wedding"? A civil wedding would not be recognized by a Church but does that make it less valid legally?

[euphemia]

I find it bewildering that these self professed Christians will refuse to issue marriage licences but their brethren regularly sign and execute warrants, often times death warrants, on other folks for drugs.

Can't they see the hypocrisy?


I don't think that is necessarily hypocrisy in the way you mean it. Marriage licenses and drugs are not the same thing.

If a clerk refuses to issue a marriage license, then it is possible that a judge would refuse to issue a dismissal of the clerk and the police officer would refuse to make the arrest.

Hypocrisy has permeated our society. It's not the fault of Christians. The system is built on hypocrisy because the laws are made to favor some and not others. A fair, constitutional society would allow for equal protection under the law and would have law that respects the natural rights of citizens.

[tod evans]

I don't think that is necessarily hypocrisy in the way you mean it. Marriage licenses and drugs are not the same thing.


Government employees have always had the option of doing the right thing by their fellow man whether that's not being a part of a raid that has the potential to kill and maim or not signing their name to a document they don't agree with.

By and large, in my locale, government employees are predominantly Christian and the majority are of the Evangelical stripe.

These Evangelical Christians here in the Ozarks hoot-n-holler singing the praises of government when they're afforded the opportunity to ruin a family for "drugs" yet they bemoan being ordered by their own government to sign a document they disagree with in order to keep their job.

I see such behavior as hypocritical..

Worse I see their behavior as self serving and predatory and now manipulative to the point these worthless individuals would drag their faith into the discussion when they've already whored themselves out for 30 pieces to participate in killings that actually fly in the face of the 6th commandment.

They have, to a man, killed for money and now want to cry about signing the governments papers relative to *****......:mad:

[Dr.3D]

Why should they be called something different? Because the ceremony is not the same? Because "not a priest" presides over it? Should a Jewish wedding be called something different from a Catholic or Islamic ceremony? What is the definition of a "wedding"?
Oh that's right, I forgot to include the religion of the state. Of course the state wants to have it's own weddings.

Let the make believe weddings commence.

[tod evans]

Oh!

I'm not advocating that any upstanding government employees (if there are any) do anything against their conscience.

What I advocate to the upstanding is to quit the government that doesn't uphold your morals and values and work actively to disband it.

Or be a hypocritical whore.......

Just don't bitch about it.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Still can't name any? You should probably apologize and retract your false word vomit.


Try explaining to the families of the dead how their loved ones weren't executed under a death warrant.

Sure, if you can find one who doesn't know the difference between an arrest warrant and a death warrant, I will gladly explain it to them. I understand a lot of people went to shitty government schools and we should feel for these people and their ignorance and stupidity.

[tod evans]

Still can't name any? You should probably apologize and retract your false word vomit.

Sure, if you can find one who doesn't know the difference between an arrest warrant and a death warrant, I will gladly explain it to them. I understand a lot of people went to shitty government schools and we should feel for these people and their ignorance and stupidity.


I'm one of those "shitty government school" folks who actually had to look to Blacks for the definition of a "death warrant"...




What is DEATH WARRANT?

A warrant from the proper executive authority appointing the time
and place for the execution of the sentence of death upon a convict judicially condemned
to suffer that penalty.
(Black's Law Dictionary)

All that's missing in today's warrant service is the rubber stamp of "judicially condemned" but governments warriors don't need that pesky inconvenience in today's world.

Here's a few who suffered death by warrant service; (is that better terminology for you higher educated folks?)

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

As for apologizing.................Fuck no, and fuck you for asking and for your uppity condescension.

[euphemia]

That makes a little more sense, tod evans. But isn't this how it always is? The injustice of the system is always seen as justice to some people because it is not *their* brand of crime. When the nanny state of the big city comes after the gluttony of the backwoods, you will see that tide begin to change.

[Zippyjuan]

Oh that's right, I forgot to include the religion of the state. Of course the state wants to have it's own weddings.

Let the make believe weddings commence.

So no idea why they are not weddings? Who married Adam and Eve? Did they even get married? How did she become his wife? Did God not recognize their union because it was not in a Church with a pastor or priest? Or were they living in sin?


But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.


6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A4-3%3A24&

So they became husband and wife without a church ceremony.

[Dr.3D]

So no idea why they are not weddings? Who married Adam and Eve? Did they even get married? How did she become his wife? Did God not recognize their union because it was not in a Church with a pastor or priest? Or were they living in sin?

"Therefore, what God has put together, let no man separate".
It certainly wasn't the state that married Adam and Eve. God does not join two men or two women in marriage. That kind of perversion would be expected from the state.

The state has it's own religion, it's called secular humanism. I guess if it wants to call what it does a marriage, it can, but it would be better if it just got out of the marriage business altogether.

You are nowhere near as fun as the last Zippy. You bore me and I'm not going to waste anymore of my time with you.

[tod evans]

That makes a little more sense, tod evans. But isn't this how it always is? The injustice of the system is always seen as justice to some people because it is not *their* brand of crime. When the nanny state of the big city comes after the gluttony of the backwoods, you will see that tide begin to change.

I can only hope that "change" comes in the form of less government...

[euphemia]

Sorry, tod evans, sometimes these discussions come across to me like we should ban manhole covers because the cat's on the skateboard again.

In the bigger picture, I think people have their own pet issues, and it doesn't surprise me when people want to use government to limit freedom because it doesn't affect what they do in everyday life. If people would step back and look at the big picture, they would see that the Constitution does not permit government to limit anyone's freedom. The Consitution requries government to protect the natural liberty of all citizens.

[tod evans]

I don't want to "ban" anything...

My philosophy is pretty simple (I'm a simple kind of guy);

"Everything government gets involved in it fucks up."

The federal government started out coining money and trying to provide a national defence.......Maybe starting over with ONLY those two objectives would be a good idea?

Fire all the rest and sever all pensions including SSI and medicare/aid etc....

Give the next generation a fighting chance....

Our parents and our generation have screwed up enough, if we're responsible I'll stop screwing up and eat my mistakes...

[euphemia]

I know, but sometimes the way arguments are presented come across to me as something different than what is meant. Refusing to sign off on a marriage license because of closely held religious convictions is not the same principle as drug enforcement laws.

In the total scheme of things, you are right. Christians need to be very careful about how their faith informs their actions--both privately and in the workplace. It is wrong for spycams to be everywhere, but that doesn't mean a Christian can do whatever she wants in the presence of a camera and hope to avoid consequences.

[tod evans]

I know, but sometimes the way arguments are presented come across to me as something different than what is meant. Refusing to sign off on a marriage license because of closely held religious convictions is not the same principle as drug enforcement laws.

In the total scheme of things, you are right. Christians need to be very careful about how their faith informs their actions--both privately and in the workplace. It is wrong for spycams to be everywhere, but that doesn't mean a Christian can do whatever she wants in the presence of a camera and hope to avoid consequences.

I would hope, given the latest from the Supreme Court, that Christians might begin to question their faith in government.

There are literally generations of Christians who have padded their pockets with public monies under the guise of "public service"...

Well the 60's changed the demographics and we're just now seeing the first fruits of those policies, it'll get much more interesting if Christians don't use the collective power they possess to squash government as she sits and try to govern only themselves in the future.

It may be too late to shut 'er down without a literal war in this country but something will change, it has to....

For my grandparents and parents generations the Catholics ran most local governments and decided most policy in DC, then the Protestants really got a foothold in more than a few rural areas in the 60's, about the same time the hippies and agnostics started speaking out, civil rights legislation was enacted and here we are today trying to cope with a hodgepodge of semi-conflicting interests vying for power to control the others...

Right now "Christians" of all stripes still control government, and personally I think their control of local governments is wise, if they're the majority, but on a national level, due to schisms in the various churches, their power is waning quickly so their ability to rein 'er in if you will is fleeting...


But I'm just some ol' dumb-assed ol' hillbilly who can't grasp the important things government does.......:rolleyes:

[euphemia]

There are also hoardes of Christians who have lost their lives because of a misappropriation of government. And the Church.

I think Christians can, and should, serve at all levels of government, but they should do so in such a way that does not infringe on the Constitutional liberties of any citizen. Government is not a substitute for the church, and it is also not a means for Christians to absolve themselves of a personal responsibility toward widows, orphans, and the poor. In other words, a so-called Christian ethic does not allow for people to be fleeced for entitlements. A Christian ethic puts the responsibility squarely on the believer to honestly earn money that can be freely given to church, charity, or directly to someone in need.

That's a little bit off what you meant when you started this thread, but I appreciate you letting me follow the little rabbit trail.

[tod evans]

Sorry for going off on a tangent......:o

[euphemia]

No, you are absolutely right. We need to keep talking about how to apply principles of freedom in the big picture. It's not about what you want or what I want. It's about how you and I and everyone else enjoys the same protection of liberty regardless of what the particular practice is.

[tod evans]

No, you are absolutely right. We need to keep talking about how to apply principles of freedom in the big picture. It's not about what you want or what I want. It's about how you and I and everyone else enjoys the same protection of liberty regardless of what the particular practice is.

Shutting down the federal leviathan and getting government local where the governed can knock on the governor's doors is the only way I can see that makes sense..

But then this big homogenous everything for everybody experiment would be over and there are way over 50% who only exist at the federal governments leave....

[euphemia]

Absolutely. I think having to face the citizen and explain the stupidity is the only way government can be held accountable. I can practically see the state capitol from where I live. I'm not above calling and making an appointment with a state senator or rep to go down and ask a question that will get an answer before I leave.

[charrob]

It certainly wasn't the state that married Adam and Eve. God does not join two men or two women in marriage.


What about preachers that do? Last year for our vacation we sailed down the Chesapeake Bay making 1 and 2 day stops all along the way. One of the places we stayed was a gorgeous old plantation house turned into a bed and breakfast, on a point, surrounded on all three sides by water, and acres and acres of property right next to a wildlife reserve. At the end of the point there was a huge old wooden cross where many couples choose to get married according to their website. We only stayed one night because it was expensive and stayed at the marina where our boat was docked the next night. One of the innkeepers was a preacher and they also cater the many weddings that are there. After staying there the next morning at breakfast we realized that it wasn't just heterosexual marriages performed there. Apparently they do both. So what about that? Are you saying the minister there does perform weddings when those ceremonies are composed of 2 heterosexuals but that same minister performs something else when those ceremonies are composed of 2 homosexuals?

Personally i could care less about this stuff. People should be free to do whatever they want and governments should stay out of the licensing business altogether. But in this case, the minister performs ceremonies for apparently any 2 people who want them. Are you saying only "some" of those ceremonies are legitimate?

[euphemia]

Up until this week, yes, unless state law provided differently.

[charrob]

Up until this week, yes, unless state law provided differently.


Yes, this was in Maryland, where state law provided differently...

[tod evans]

Personally i could care less about this stuff. People should be free to do whatever they want and governments should stay out of the licensing business altogether. But in this case, the minister performs ceremonies for apparently any 2 people who want them. Are you saying only "some" of those ceremonies are legitimate?

In the federal governments eyes only hetrosexual marriages were legal until last week.

Didn't matter what state law was if ***** wanted federal marriage benefits they were screwed until last week.

This thread started out about how I found Christians employed by government to be hypocritical after the ruling but it's morphed......:o

[charrob]

In the federal governments eyes only hetrosexual marriages were legal until last week.

Didn't matter what state law was if ***** wanted federal marriage benefits they were screwed until last week.

This thread started out about how I found Christians employed by government to be hypocritical after the ruling but it's morphed......:o

Sorry. btw, totally agree, those gov. workers complaining after the ruling seem hypocritical to me as well when they're the same ones who cheer on endless foreign interventions that kill people, etc. The last time i went to church the minister had us bow our heads to pray that our troops around the world would "continue" to keep the peace. I really had to bite my lip.

[Dr.3D]

In the federal governments eyes only hetrosexual marriages were legal until last week.

Didn't matter what state law was if ***** wanted federal marriage benefits they were screwed until last week.

This thread started out about how I found Christians employed by government to be hypocritical after the ruling but it's morphed......:o

Isn't government benefits what this really is all about? I doubt this would have been an issue if there were no benefits involved.

As I said in the beginning of this thread, elimination of the government involvement would be the solution.

No benefits and no need for licenseing would have solved this problem.

[tod evans]

Isn't government benefits what this really is all about? I doubt this would have been an issue if there were no benefits involved.

As I said in the beginning of this thread, elimination of the government involvement would be the solution.

No benefits and no need for licenseing would have solved this problem.

Maybe......

After listening to some of the more militant ***** I have to wonder.

What scares me is that some "Christians" refuse to look at what they've done to others in the name of government and only see what government is doing to them....

[torchbearer]

So religious freedoms means nobody can get married? Or in some cases, only Christians can?


well, marriage being a religious sacrament is kinda beholden to the religion that is performing it.
A contract of partnership, with spousal insurance and inheritance, etc.. involved can be done without a permit.