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......
And just because a same sex couple have a piece of paper and a ceremony and call themselves married doesn't make it so.
I'm a Catholic. So far as I am concerned Jesus Christ defined marriage when He said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." So marriage is a lifetime union between a man and a woman. Anything else is not a marriage regardless of what others may call it. So two men or two women can get themselves a marriage license, go through the ritual of their choice, and call themselves married, but they aren't married. Not in the Biblical sense, not in the moral sense, and not in the eyes of God, which are the only ones that matter. Likewise a man can divorce his wife and then get a new partner with a new license and go through a new ceremony and call himself married as well. But again, he is not. Not in the Biblical sense, not in the moral sense, and not according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. He is committing adultery.
So that's why I'm puzzled by this woman's position. I don't doubt the sincerity of her beliefs but I think she is looking at it wrong. She says that by issuing a marriage license she is condoning gay marriage and that's violates her religion. But she isn't condoning gay marriage because there is no such thing. If she issues a marriage license to a couple where one or both had been divorced is she condoning adultery? Of course not. Oh the gay couple or the divorced couple can call themselves married, but as Lincoln pointed out calling one thing something that it is not does not make it so. So by issuing the marriage license she is not condoning gay marriage or tacitly approving it because how can you support or approve of something that does not exist? She is, at worst, allowing the same sex couple to continue to fool themselves. And while that may not be the kindest thing to do, there's no sin in that.
“I agree with you. Choosing God over Caesar is a good thing, but if Caesar pays your salary then you do what he says or find another job.”
On the other hand, the Extreme Court had no legal basis for ITS decision, either. And the 2 gays on the court should have recused themselves. So I would not criticize this courageous woman.
As is the meaning of words like "natural born citizen", "Freedom of Speech", and "Arms."
It is our duty to make sure they understand that we regard the meanings as written in iron until they get our permission to change them.
That is the entire point of "consent of the governed."
Then does that not make her a participant in a known lie? Is not deliberate lying also a sin ?
If she issues a marriage license to a couple where one or both had been divorced is she condoning adultery?
She is granting in her official capacity, state sanction of it, at least as the concept is understood by the Catholic faith. If she is Catholic, than it very much does compel her to participate in the violation of her faith in this matter.
But in this case it is voluntary rather than compulsory. I am of the opinion that there are no longer any people left who were alive before this became a known requirement of holding that office.
This is also a question of degree. All moral qualms do not possess the same degree of objectionablity. I regard killing as worse than stealing, and stealing as worse than lying.
Considering God burned to death two cities for homosexual behavior, I regard this particular type of sin as being pretty high up on his "forbidden" list.
This is on a par with providing animal sacrifices to Baal, in terms of religious obejctionability. This is a huge NO. NO.
But Rosa Parks without the support of the American people
How does one participate in a lie? You tell a lie or you tell the truth. What she would be doing by issuing the license is allow the same sex couple or the divorced couple to continue to fool themselves.
She is granting in her official capacity, state sanction of it, at least as the concept is understood by the Catholic faith.
So then it is the state sanctioning an adulterous lifestyle and not her. So then wouldn't it be the state sanctioning the same sex "marriage" and not her?
If she is Catholic, than it very much does compel her to participate in the violation of her faith in this matter.
I understand she's had four marriages with three husbands. Since most Protestant sects do not view marriage the same as Catholics do then it's pretty safe she's not Catholic.
Considering God burned to death two cities for homosexual behavior, I regard this particular type of sin as being pretty high up on his "forbidden" list.
Then some day homosexuals will have to answer for their sins. Judgement is His job, not ours.
Rowan County has a history of being a very interesting place.
I agree, but this is really not the right place to “make a stand.” A person employed by the government does the government’s bidding, or else. If a court allows anyone to make a religious exception for their job, then it’s only a matter of time before Muslims in public positions would be permitted to refuse any kind of accommodations for non-Muslims.
This woman has Courage. Adding her to my prayer list.
No, it's not. There's a big difference between a guard at Dachau who refuses to obey an unlawful command and puts his well-being at risk, and a guard at Dachau who refuses to obey an unlawful command and yet insists on collecting a salary from Hitler.
This would be more similar to a case where the guard at Dachau has the option of quitting his job.
And what is the downside to that? If we all agree that small government is the best way to go, the least we could do is be willing to walk away from a government job.
If Sodom and Gomorrah is your analogy, then you'd have to agree that there's no point in a God-fearing person clamoring for her rights to be protected while she serves as the municipal clerk in one of those places -- no?
It would seem to me that all of the self-proclaimed Christians here on FreeRepublic should be lining up to hire her, right?
What “agenda” would that be?
Along those lines, you know that if this woman does indeed lose her job, the Gaystapo would most certainly do everything in their power to make sure that no one, and I mean NO ONE hires this woman ever again for any job. It doesn’t matter if it’s picking garbage at the local dump. They will do everything in their power to totally and completely destroy her financially and personally.
Now, if there were a Christian man or woman who had a business that could use her services, I would hope that they would step up and hire her.
Sorry but you said The ayatollah was right about America and things along those lines couple times.
Alberta’s Child to fr_freak
I imagine a lot of
well-meaning folks have been devastated to learn that the Ayatollah Khomenei was
right when he called the U.S. the “Great Satan.”
BTW one of the top Iranian guys said as much as that today
Several threads concerning homosexuality gay marriage you seemed to be off the reservation shall we say, I guess living in Canada will do that to you, so many have been brainwashed.
Alberta’s Child to markomalley
This is
why any country in the world would do well to arm itself to the teeth to protect
itself from the diabolical predations of the United States of America
Couple posts on gay marriage...I wont post, but I remembered your name from several weeks ago
One was entitled moving on from gay marriage, you took issue with a number of people
Yes I guess I have too much time on my hands
B. I don't know what you mean by "off the reservation" on any issue under discussion here on FR.
C. I don't live in Canada.
Have a nice day. And don't forget to make a contribution to FreeRepublic, eh?
Ditto that! She has more guts than the armchair faux constitutionalists here on FR who say that she has no right to abide by her religious convictions, when they themselves cannot prove the freedom to abide by and practice one's religious beliefs ends in the workplace/public service.
I pity them, I really do.
If a republican is elected president he can ignore the Same-sex “marriage” decision the exact say way Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott decision. An unjust law is an unjust law and nothing in the US constitution gives them the power to decide what in the hell constitutes a marriage.......and that’s why no Supreme Court in 200 years would dare attempt to try and define what constitutes a marriage. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT!
Agree. I detest the Obergefell vs Hodges decision, but it’s the law of the land. If Davis won’t comport with the law, she’d do better to resign her office and find a job that doesn’t involve her sanctioning same-sex 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.