re: “Rather than allow this get so far out of hand, perhaps she should’ve alerted the media to what was going on and then quit her job, using the exposure she would get from the situation to show her dedication to Christ and the gospel, which would be a super powerful testimony to believers and unbelievers alike.”
This is a quandary for me. I understand the issue that elected officials took an “oath”, but an “oath” to what? If the oath is that they must abide by and carry out the laws of that state, then if one cannot do that, that one should resign - right?
But then, on the other side of the coin. If you are the county clerk in the state of Kentucky, and a Supreme Court decision comes down that circumvents your state’s own laws, and, your name is now supposed to go on a civil document that is sanctioning something that you believe is a sin, immoral, and violates the law of God, to then obey the law violates your conscience and your first amendment right to free exercise of your faith - right?
So, the question is, do you resign or refuse to obey and take the consequences?
The other side says if you can’t obey the law, then you should just resign, but then we get into the realm of future court decisions that may sanction polygamy, or incest, or adults marrying children - you can’t just say, “Hey, it’s the law, I have to obey it”. Just because it’s the law doesn’t make it right or moral.
This reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Law that was part of the Missouri Comprise of 1850. That law stated that all state governing agencies and personnel (i.e. sheriff, judge, deputies, etc.), and, the civilian population of the free states MUST cooperate with the authorities attempting to capture and return fugitive slaves from the slave holding states, hiding out in a free state and/or attempting to escape to Canada.
People who believed slavery was a sin and immoral and refused to cooperate could be charged with a federal offense punishable for a fine of $1000 and even imprisonment.
In effect, the law made criminals of government officials or civilians in the free states who did not wish to cooperate or condone slavery in any fashion. This was especially egregious because slavery was outlawed in your own state, yet you could be imprisoned for refusing to cooperate with slaveholders interests. There were some civilians who were prosecuted for hiding slaves and were put in prison.
This feels like the same thing with the “same-sex” ruling by the court, which made law and “found” another “right” in our constitution. This in turn now makes criminals of any who oppose such a “union” as a “marriage”.
Exactly, when the courts approve the man/boy love freedom, do we say, “Hey, the Supreme Court ruled.”?
WHEN do we fight?
Now.
There should be no religious test to hold office. Anyone with a religious objection to homosexuality is not permitted, apparently, to hold her office unless they are willing to recant their religion.
So the federal take over of marriage has completely happened, just like we’ve been warning about for years.
Yes, except that she IS following the laws that she swore to uphold.