Posted on 09/01/2015 5:55:47 AM PDT by Nextrush
It happened in Kentucky minutes ago with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis explaining to a gay couple why she would not give them a marriage license....
Cameras were there......
Let me give you more understanding of the underpinnings of our societal structure.
For those people that follow the Bible, both Jews with the Old Testament, and Christians with the new, are well aware, and always have been aware of the story of Abraham and Sarah.
By every understanding of man, Sarah was "post-menopausal".
According to the Bible, through the power of God, Sarah had a child anyway, and through this child there came to grow the nation of Israel.
This history from the Bible leaves in the mind of Christians that understanding that fecundity is in God's hands, and it is presumptuous of man to decide whether or not a woman can have a child.
Ergo, the benefit of the doubt for a woman is built into the social structure, and is reflected in the tolerance of non-child bearing women being treated by society as if they were.
So in answer to your question, "No." No woman, fertile or not, should be prohibited from marrying. Our system is founded on the belief that progeny is in God's hands, not those of man, and this universal societal belief is reflected in our laws, and always has been.
I regard that as a defeat for society and for reason, but at this point it looks like the best we can do is a strategic retreat until we can find some more power some where.
It is my understanding that Oklahoma has changed their law to do away with marriage certificates. To effectively remove any state involvement in the process. They did this specifically with the intent to prevent any Faggot Marriage licenses from being issued, and to prevent any clerks from having to deal with the issue.
Kentucky should do the same. The message needs to be sent to the court that they didn't win, they just destroyed legal marriage for everyone else.
According to John Locke, we may go further. We have the right to punish "officials" who injure our natural rights.
Just in case it got lost in the discussion, important to remember that Homosexuality is an abomination, a sin against God/Christ.
It harms children first and foremost...remember what the Bible says about anybody that harms one of my little ones, would be better if you had a millstone around your neck and were drowned in the depths of the sea
BTW a bit of a irony that this clerk votes Democrat. If all the Davis Democrats had voted Republican , abortion gay marriage would be illegal, we would have prayer in schools etc
just sayin
You’re being ridiculous.
See laws regarding minors, incest, and polygamy.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/09/02/protest-transgender-teen-bathroom/
Right! Everyone needs to stand up against this evil and in greater numbers. No law or legislature can make perversion and disregard for the laws of the Almighty right or even advisable. Prayers, bravery and sacrifice are probably going to be required of all of us.
From the report I saw, she said she couldn't sign the marriage license due to religious objection- Sounds like a reasonable cause for concern on her part.
Why can't somebody else sign the license? Why are they trying to force her to put her name on it? The military allows for conscientious objection. The courts should too- with regard to cases like this.
The Supreme Overlords have opened Pandora's box.
I don't disagree with that, but I don't see the same moral imperative if the "injured" in a case involving a government is only injured by way of that person's status as an employee of the government (as opposed to a citizen under the legal authority of that government).
This is why I believe there is a tangible difference between a county clerk who refuses to sign a marriage certificate for a homosexual couple and private business owner who refuses to bake a cake for that same couple.
I don’t know about minors, but any laws against incest and polygamy are likely to be overturned in the very near future. There is no objective moral or legal basis for a jurisdiction that allows two men to marry each other to prohibit two related people, or six people in any combination of genders and family relationships, from doing the same thing.
I don't. I believe anything that detaches religious practice from government involvement will only promote healthy religious communities. It's the "religious groups" that have their hands held out for government money that are most at risk, and if they need government money to survive then they aren't really religious groups anyway.
So, by your logic, no matter how immoral the act is if its your changed job description to do it you have no choice. Jim Crow, Nazi Death camps, etc come to mind as real examples of of your position.
Since when does a person of faith have to take the Mark to keep their job?
Why not marry your horse? You don’t have anything against quadrupeds do you?
With these cases, we can understand that choosing between truth and lies is the same as the choice between God and mammon.
In order to obtain the mammon of this world - to be able to buy and sell and provide for daily sustenance and to get on with life in general - Fedzilla is demanding that everyone believe and embrace its lies.
Every lie beast.gov creates is another seed of destruction planted. Look at the mosques popping up like multiple melanomas on the surface of the land. Those things have taproots. While they sit there looking strangely exotic, they are busy metastasizing underneath.
"Religion" sure isn't what it used to be in this country. Not all that long ago, people recognized the obvious truth that homosexual acts aren't the acts of marriage. Now those who still understand basic truths are deemed intolerant religious crazies.
Abomination is surely the right word, because aside from the vile acts themselves, those engaging in the behaviors demand - via thug government - that the acts be embraced as normal, as if a marriage. Putting a lie in the place of truth undermines the foundation and therefore existence of society.
Marriage is supposed to be *the* rightful foundation by which the future of the nation is literally created.
Oh, there's a much deeper meaning:
>>>
Joseph -- specifically in his relationship with the wife of Potiphar -- displays the ability to control his natural drives better than any one else in Scripture. Therefore, Joseph is often known as Yosef HaTzaddik. The Kabbalistic term associated with Joseph is Yesod, meaning "foundation," as in Tzaddik Yesod Olam, meaning "a good and just man is the foundation of the world." Alternatively, Joseph is the foundation of the Jewish people. Had Joseph been killed, or disappeared in the slavemarkets of Egypt, the foundation of the nation would have been missing as well.
Perhaps now we can understand another episode in the Torah. When the Jews finally leave Egypt, Moses heads to the Nile in order to recover the remains of Joseph and to fulfill the promise to bring Joseph's remains out of Egypt. Why, at such a crucial moment, would Moses himself take on this task?
<<<
Joseph From the Kabbalistic Perspective
"Tzaddik yesod olam" is at Proverbs 10:25
25. As the stormy wind which passes, so is the wicked no more; but the righteous is an everlasting foundation:
Ezekiel 37:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.
The signing portion doesn’t have force of law; it can’t be cired in court.
Or, if the law doesn't define it then definitions are up for grabs.
When it comes to marriage, the Leftists choose to ignore common law, common practice, custom, tradition, precedent, God's law, and self-evident truth...
At least since SCOTUS ruled that the Civil Rights Act supersedes religious scruples against serving all races and creeds. Gotta go into the clergy if you want to have expanded religious freedom in who you do and don’t serve.
Those who suffer from the homosexual disorder are neither race or creed. There is a reason homosexuality was never treated as a physical malady but rather treated as a mental disorder. There is no physical way to identify these supposed unique beings. Science has yet to objectively identify the homosexual race. Regardless, if such a race were proved to exist it would be a genetic dead end.
The homosexual identification is a subjective self-declared thing that is all about homosexual sex, those who feel predisposed to engage in it and those who do not.
People have never discriminated against these fictional impossible to identify beings. Society has always discriminated against unhealthy, deadly, and disordered ACTIVITIES such as homosexual sex. The U.S. Military never had a homosexual tests to screen out homosexual beings, The U.S. Military never banned homosexuals, the U.S. Military banned homosexual activities.
As far as the Military, note the term: "Openly Serving". have you ever heard the terms "Openly Black", "Openly Chinese" -DUH!
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.