Posted on 04/30/2014 8:13:57 AM PDT by Flame Retardant
Maybe if the Wiccans and Satanists have some historic religious precedence to show that homosexual marriage is a part of their religion.
moral of the story:
if you have fags, fag friendly, progressives, or any flaming liberals in your organization...
1. do everything you can to oust them from the organization.
2. if they are interviewing, fail them.
3. if you discover your supplier is on the left, take your business elsewhere.
any interaction with these people will only lead to more drama and problems.
Another idiot.
$ x 30
NO.
Up is down.
Right is wrong.
Abnormal is normal.
Good is evil.
the law does stop them from conducting ceremonies
I saw that same law with different wording yesterday.
How was it worded differently?
Freegards
51-6 “No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage ** under the laws of this State **
I lost you. I must be missing something, they look the same, unless ‘under the laws of this State’ was missing in the one you saw yesterday? Sorry if I am being dense.
Freegards
That’s what is missing. It implies that there is a difference between performing a wedding and performing a wedding under the laws of the state.
The basis for the lawsuit is a North Carolina statute which makes it a crime for a clergy member to perform a wedding ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.
The correct resolution of the lawsuit would be a ruling that it is unconstitutional to apply that statute to clergy who perform a religious wedding ceremony so long as no one is claiming that the marriage is legal. The correct resolution is not to say that the State must recognize as legal any marriage that any clergyman wants to perform.
I took it to mean if you are allowed to act as a representative of the state in legal marriage, you aren’t allowed to perform a wedding ceremony and leave the license out. So if a person isn’t qualified in the eyes of the state they can perform all the ceremonies they want, but if a pastor is qualified in the eyes of the state they then can’t have a ceremony without state involvement.
I don’t even know if it is enforced on the state’s end or what. I do know that sometimes pastors refuse to have a ceremony for people who don’t want the state involved for the reason that the state considers it illegal to so.
Freegards
No it's not. The key point is why are these so-called 'clergy' protesting God's creation and His sacrament of marriage.
But in North Carolina, clergy are often faced with a troubling decision — "whether to provide those services or break the law," Guess said. "That's something no clergy member should be faced with.".
The troubling decision for these 'clergy' should be “Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you [the world] rather than to God ...
It would appear that they don't consider or mention God at all.
Of course the Constitution says nothing that can resolve this conflict. That’s why John Adams (IIRC) said somthing like: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
The Constitution is not a blueprint for our society—which the Left has always pretended it is.
This is an example of why the only way to really solve the problem is to effect a separation of marriage and state.
“This is an example of why the only way to really solve the problem is to effect a separation of marriage and state.”
Essentially ending marriage as a social construct except for attacking the church for discrimination.
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.