Posted on 01/01/2015 11:01:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In response to the likelihood that a federal judge will rule that a lift on the state's gay marriage ban will apply to all Florida counties, three Jacksonville-area counties have decided that they'll stop conducting courthouse weddings.
In order to avoid having to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, clerks of courts in Duval County, Baker County and Clay County have decided to put an end to all courthouse weddings in their counties, The Florida Times-Union reported Wednesday.
Although the report states that the clerks listed multiple reasons for their decision, with the state's limbo over gay marriage being one of them, the decision to stop performing courthouse weddings is due largely to trying to avoid performing same-sex weddings.
Federal Judge Robert Hinkle, who struck down the state's gay marriage ban in an August court case originating in Washington County, is set to clarify whether or not his decision applies to just Washington County or the whole state of Florida when the ban is lifted on Jan. 6. But regardless of what Hinkle rules, the three counties' new policies of not performing courthouse weddings will still take effect.
Duval County Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell told the Times-Union that after multiple meetings with her staff, whom officiate courthouse weddings, none of them felt comfortable conducting same-sex weddings and they all decided to do away with all weddings in general.
"It was decided as a team, as an office, this would be what we do so that there wouldn't be any discrimination," Fussell said. "The easiest way is to not do them at all."
The three Jacksonville metro area counties will join two Panhandle counties, Santa Rosa County and Okaloosa County, which announced earlier this month that they'll no longer be conducting courthouse weddings. However, those counties' decisions were likely due to budget shortfalls.
Nadine Smith, co-founder of the Florida gay activist group Equality Florida, said that she thinks the clerks' decisions to do away with all courthouse weddings in response to gay marriage could easily backfire and be seen as a snide and hateful move.
"I think it would be outrageous for clerks to change the rules simply because gay couples are getting married," Smith said.
The association that represents the county clerks of Florida holds the stance that Hinkle's lift of the gay marriage ban only applies to Washington County. As CBS News reports, most county clerks in Florida do not plan to begin issuing gay marriage licenses when the ban is officially lifted on Jan. 6.
Two counties in Florida, Orange County and Osceola County, have already greenlighted their courts to give out marriage licenses to same-sex couples come Jan. 6. However, Florida Family Action, a conservative group, has filed a lawsuit against the mayor of Orlando and the clerk of courts of Osceola County on Tuesday in a move to try to prevent those jurisdictions from giving out marriage licenses to gay couples.
With counties confused on whether or not to begin issuing gay marriage licenses, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a legal response this week to Hinkle officially asking for his clarification.
I'm guessing that a lot of religious people in this country don't give a flaming sh!t how the government defines marriage, and I predict that over time you're going to see more and more people getting married without ever getting "legal" recognition for their marriages.
Good post ... and you beat me to it. My sentiments exactly!
It doesn’t take a large percentage of the population to file a lawsuit and win. Remember, the government is all for protecting even the rights of “minorities” which will include atheists, either way, I hope that they hold this out for as long as can be, and that others follow suit.
Marriage was a decent thing for the state to have interest in, for the basis of encouraging a healthy family structure, and a structural template for society to go with (outlawing polygamy) however, the state lost its justification when it upheld no-fault divorce. With no-fault divorce, you no longer need important reasons such as abuse or negligence to file for divorce. This also gives good reason to not be legally married, however, because of the no-fault divorce aspect. Additionally, many so-called property or healthcare legal issues are separate from being legally married. Even if you are legally married, your spouse has no legal right to a great deal unless you set aside legal writ for those things.
This snide and hateful member of the gay mafia is pouting because the clerks will not pretend that gay "weddings" have anything to do with real marriage.
One of the things to keep in mind about "marriage" today (from a legal standpoint) is that it probably doesn't do very much for a couple that they couldn't accomplish through simple contracts.
But there were other bills that were attached to the same movement. One bill laid an unfunded mandate upon the states to maintain birth, death and marriage certificates.
Prior to 1924, this was handled at the county level, the church level, or not at all. It was rather spotty depending upon where you lived. The 1924 law standardized the whole thing. Congress passed it and Coolidge signed it into law.
This is where it gets a little strange. There was a federal agency that pushed for this particular law that wasn't actually a federal agency: the Federal Reserve. I don't know why the Fed thought this was so important. I would probably have to don my tinfoil hat to figure that one out, but it's a fact nonetheless.
That's how we got into this mess.
Hard to gauge whether to view this as a victory or a defeat (in a way, it’s both), although I’m leaning more toward the former, since it’s refreshing to see there are some quarters of this country that still have the moral backbone to stand up to this evil rot.
As to the country as a whole, as long as we have a federal government (and, a sick culture) that has sunk into such sheer depravity as to legally and morally equate two perverted dudes as the same as a husband-and-wife, America can just burn to the ground as far as I care. I’ll never lift a finger to help such a country.
Marriage is traditionally both a christian sacrament and a civil contract
Holy matrimony is about the orderly regulating of the family and especially children
The civil marriage contract is about property and money
Queers have no interest in children and as you say, their contract is all about money. Any good lawyer could draft a binding contract that wold serve
God bless these people. May they stay strong. Pray for them, please. They will come under attack.
It started in England during the Reformation/Henry VIII where before the church marriages were the only ones. The clerks of the towns usually asked for the church marriage records to keep civil records. Later they figured out how to bypass the church altogether and just issue marriage licenses as a power against the Church of Rome, since the Church of England belonged to the king/govt. When the Puritans came and the Dutch also, same thing was in effect except that these churches were the governing bodies there in Mass and New Netherland. In New England pre-USA Constitution all the marriages are church weddings. After the Constitution the States/counties/towns decided to use the civil records act as a way to obtain a new tax base and take power away from the churches, repeating the English usurpation of marriage by and into the govt.
If you check your genealogies you will find that ALL YOUR ANCESTORS` 18th century weddings/marriages are church marriages.
cf “Marriage entries recorded the date and place of marriage. Information included the ages of the two parties, their residences, marital status, occupations, fathers, and even their fathers’ occupations. Civil copies of marriage entries are duplicates of original church entries. Thus, since it was the duty of the minister to forward copies of all of the marriages he performed, the vast majority have been recorded at the civil level, even in the early years of civil registration. However, always be sure to check the original [ORIGINAL!]church record since there are often discrepancies between the civil and ecclesiastical copies of the same record. Clerical errors happen! We blogged about this recently. http://www.progenealogists.com/greatbritain/englishcivilregistration.htm
That’s a very confusing poster, because the initial impression is bound to be that A.E. Newman is saying “Resist Insanity”, just as he said, “What me Worry?”
The truth is that the reader, or viewer, has always been enticed to identify with this character, just as with, e.g., Beavis and Butthead. The attraction in both cases is the complete freedom of will that they express. I’m down with that.
I’m guessing L, not T.
Right, but when “Just” Law promotes vile, evil, irrational, unnatural use of the human body—they normalize Vice and destroy Virtue and understanding of Natural Law (basis of American jurisprudence and Right Reason—which is necessary for Just Law.)
All Just Law has to promote “public Virtue” (Montesquieu). When laws promote vile, evil, unnatural behaviors——it ceases to be Law (Nuremberg Trials).
The courts are flipping two thousand years of Christian Ethics (and erasing the Constitution and our Rule of Law) for Satanism and paganism and islamic ethics which embraced sodomy and pederasty.
Actually, a great deal of issues that people falsely associate with marriage come from contracts separate from marriage, such as advanced healthcare directive and will & testament, and that is just for started. Plus being legally married obliges you to pay more taxes individually as well.
It's Florida. The better question is, "if you marry your sister, is she still related ?"
I think State Government should start moving out of the business of marrage licences all together. This is a relgious not civil matter at heart anyway. The only reason the State got involved in the first place was for child custody control.
Well ever sense the lawless Federal Employees in black robes issued their nonsensical edict that marriage to have nothing to do with producing and raising children State involvement is now simply about a tax break.
Real marriage is between a man and woman for the sake of their natural children. This is a reproductive union under God not State. State involvement belittles and attempts to redefine that union into something hopelessly weak and ultimately pointless.
The State is the reason people today have no idea what marriage is about and as such are largely incapable of the commitment.
I agree. If they can’t do it right, they shouldn’t. However, since there are people who will and do get a state marriage license, it still goes on and will go on. We can all agree on what should be done. But the closest to that is simply give the marriage licenses and not perform an actual wedding. That is what a few districts in Florida are doing right now. Count on lawsuits and other legal action to say, “you can’t do that!”
True, but I don’t think churches are obligated to perform civil marriages.
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.