Posted on 09/27/2011 11:59:59 AM PDT by IbJensen
Don’t like homosexual marriage? resign
Don’t like abortion or birth control? Resign
Don’t like handling pork?...uhhhh
Insist on wearing a head scarf?....uhhhh
Don’t like being in the same pool/gym/office as opposite sex?...uhhhh
I can’t wait to hear about the first muslim fired for refusing to perform homosexual marriage
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction.” Gal 6:7-8
Pretty simple, actually.
Colonel, USAFR
I’m against same sex marriage, but I agree. If your conscience doesn’t allow you to do the job, the honorable thing to do is quit. The fact that Obama has decided not to enforce immigration laws doesn’t make it right for other officials to pick and choose what laws to follow.
“Drew Courtney, a spokesman for People for the American Way points out: “She has a job to do.”
So if an officer told a subordinate to shoot innocent civilians then Drew Courtney would be ok with that?
The Gaystapo knows no shame.
Is it ok for the state to use its police power to force people to call it marriage when that is the one thing it most definitely is NOT?
This the same sort of dumbness that once almost gave us a legislated value of "pi". But enough people saw through that one.
Homosexualists and statists, a match made in hell. She even made accomodations for someone else to sign the piece of paper saying the impossibilty is legit.
Freegards
“Is it ok for the state to use its police power to force people to call it marriage when that is the one thing it most definitely is NOT?”
I will call it “sodomite play-pretend marriage” even if they put me in front of a firing squad.
Mark Twain said that everyone complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.
This is not weather, folks. Things can be done.
“Would it be okay for a clerk to refuse to marry a person that is Jewish to person who is Christian? Would it be okay for a clerk to refuse to marry an interacial couple?”
You are equating a mental disorder characterized by a compulsion to engage in disgusting perversions with:
1. Religious conviction, and
2. Race.
Where would I draw the line? I don’t know exactly, but well before I got to that sort of lunatic idiocy.
“Would it be okay for a clerk to refuse to marry a person that is Jewish to person who is Christian? Would it be okay for a clerk to refuse to marry an interacial couple?”
You are equating a mental disorder characterized by a compulsion to engage in disgusting perversions with:
1. Religious conviction, and
2. Race.
Where would I draw the line? I don’t know exactly, but well before I got to that sort of lunatic idiocy.
Should we not “draw the line” somewhere?
Of course it's not "ok" that the state did this, but the fact is that the state has the legal (as opposed to the moral or ethical) power to do so, and it is the responsibility of town clerks to execute the laws as written.
Getting back to trumandogz's question - would you be OK with a Jewish town clerk refusing to sign certificates for a Jew marrying a non-Jew (since Judaism prohibits intermarriage)? How about a Catholic town clerk refusing to sign certificates where one or both of the applicants have been divorced?
Town clerks have limited (read: no) discretion in these matters for a reason - if you open the door to allowing public officials to shirk their duties under the law based on certain religious beliefs, how can you prevent other public officials from doing so with regards to other religious beliefs?
Dear Ms Belfori, your situation stinks on ice and I’m sorry to hear of it.
Here’s a suggestion: put on a hajib and threaten to sue them all for religious persecution.
Of course we should "draw the line" somewhere, and that somewhere should not allow perversions like same-sex "marriage." Unfortunately, the State of New York, acting through its elected officials, disagrees.
As to the town clerks, I believe that the proper place to "draw the line" is for the town clerks to execute the laws they are sworn to uphold. Allowing public officials to fail to execute the law because they disagree with it (no matter how much we agree with their disagreement with it) undermines the rule of law.
Should we not “draw the line” somewhere?
There is a line?
The people of New York State will have to change the law. But, until then the clerks will be forced to comply with the law, just as they were forced to comply with the law prior to the legalization of gay marriage.
It could take a civil war to, finally, end all of this ongoing and worsening “political correctness insanity”! The question is when, if ever?
Somehow they have managed to do it. Public officials have been bending the rules in favor of what amounts to no less than a religious view of the all-powerful state, in despite of the law, for most of my life. Apparently it's not a problem when the religion of secularism is the one so favored. Of course, that religion teaches that what the state calls marriage, IS marriage, but all that is meant is a sort of semipermanent legal arrangement.
Hey, they can call it marriage if they want, but then the mystical union between a man and a woman which has both a long pedigree and is recognized all over the world, would have to be called something else. Propose that, and see how far it flies.
Your examples don't serve you well, because both Catholics and Jews are long contributors to the theory and practice of marriage, and they definitely both consider that it can only exist between a man and a woman. Your hypothetical town clerk might suspect that a marriage can't exist between this particular man and woman, but that has always been the job of the couple, their families, and their friends to sort out, and in the America I remember, that's exactly what would happen,and the town clerk would know it. Only way they could handle it, since neither Catholics nor Jews are so monolithically consistent that they all agree what is a barrier to a marriage.
The people of New York need to change the law.
This town clerk in New York has no more a right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, than a town clerk Texas has a act against Texas law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Would it be okay for a clerk to refuse to marry a person that is Jewish to person who is Christian? Would it be okay for a clerk to refuse to marry an interacial couple?
In a marriage license, if I'm not mistaken, there is no reference to any person's religion....therefore a clerk has no knowledge if she is signing off on a Jewish/Christian marriage or not. Besides that, even the strictest of religions see a homosexual "union" as MUCH worse than marrying outside one's faith. In any event, since no one in government has a right to know a person's religion...its immaterial to the clerk who cannot know that.
Except for perhaps the Arian Nations, NO recognized religion today understands cross-racial marriage as wrong. The bible and Church tradition are silent on that issue--condemnation of "miscegenation" as it was once called, was a pseudo-scientific theory, and a cultural practice, NOT religious (even if people tried to make it so).
A homosexual couple though is entirely obvious--and--has it's ethics fly in the face of 4,000 years of recorded ethics in the history in ALL cultures. Even the ancient Greeks, who fully accepted homosexual practice....never pretended homosexual unions were marriage.
To force someone to participate in something their ancient faith has ALWAYS condemned (and ALL forms of Christianity have--until liberal Protestants over the last 30 years became "smarter" than all that....) is a straight-up denial of religious freedom, plain and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.