Supreme Court Decision is Illegal?!?

1. 75

   wildernessposted 9 years ago

   Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is illegal. “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our county clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the court’s ruling,”  Paxton said. 
   
   He also encourages personnel to take advantage of religious freedom in refusing to issue licenses for the legal activity of gay marriage - apparently he believes that religious freedom includes forbidding others to act legally but against what they believe God wants of those others.  While complaining that SCOTUS was "legislating from the bench" he is quite happy with "legislating from the pulpit" - that the citizens of Texas must not only comply with the law of the land but also with God's law as any individual with the ability to enforce that law might deem it to be.
   
   Interestingly, he also indicates that any clerk refusing to follow the direction of the Supreme Court might face legal action, and lose, he has a stable of lawyers ready to defend them, some even pro bono.  In effect, he wants clerks to refuse to issue licenses and suffer the consequences of losing a legal challenge.
   
   So the question might well become one of religious freedom - does a clerk charged with issuing licenses have the right to refuse to carry out their assigned duties because the people receiving those licenses will violate what the clerk thinks of as God's Law?  The clerk isn't violating any religious rule - the licensee is - can the clerk claim religious freedom in refusing a legal right but religious wrong to someone else?  An ordained minister conducting a marriage ceremony with the approval of God I can see, but a clerk issuing a license? 
   
   And what about an state AG that says the Supreme Court gives lawless decisions?
   
   http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ … nses.html/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      calculus-geometryposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      He's just posturing in front of constituents whom he (perhaps mistakenly) believes are of an extremely conservative bent because his position is an elected one. If he were an appointee, we wouldn't hear a peep out of him.
      
      He knows very well that what he's saying is complete nonsense, but he assumes his constituents don't understand how law works.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Posturing?  Absolutely.  But he DID make a point that office clerks should consider violating the decision, even though he also suggested they might lose a court case.  That could hurt a lot of people, innocently following the dictates of their AG.
         
         But the real question he brings about is just how far "religious freedom" goes in coercing or discrimination towards those that disapproved of.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            calculus-geometryposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I doubt a significant number of the clerks are dumb enough to think they could get away with ignoring laws that contradict their religious beliefs, even if the AG has gone off the deep end and told them it's ok.
            
            If history has taught us anything, it's that fiercely anti-gay politicians only open their mouths for two reasons: pandering and performing services in airport bathrooms.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I don't know about the number of clerks; it is Texas, after all.   But don't forget those that murder abortion doctors, gays and blacks, all in the name of religion.  Don't forget the KKK or even Westboro Church.  The skinheads of northern Idaho.  Refusing to supply a license isn't even in the same class, but there are far too many all too happy to force their religious beliefs onto others.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Organizations like the KKK and Westboro are what gives humanity a bad name. The leader of the KKK says they are Christians. WHAT? The fact of the matter is, anyone who believes and does the things they do in the name of Christ are sacrilegious. "Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God" (wikipedia) 
                  
                  Their gods are not the God of the Bible. There are many gods, there are many gods with the same name as Jesus Christ. But, there is only one true Jesus Christ the Son of The Living God.
                  
                  Matthew 24:5 "For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many."  -- We have been seeing that all of our lives.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, see, the problem is that they would take your very same words and say the same things about you.  You don't follow God's orders, you don't live as the bible says to, etc.
                     
                     Who is the outsider to believe?  You, simply because I like your interpretation better?  Or Westboro (or the KKK) because they are an established church?  God certainly isn't answering the question, and that doesn't leave much to go on.
                     
                     That's the big problem in the thread on violence in Islam: repeated claims that the terrorists aren't true Muslims even though they say they ARE the only true Muslims because they follow the prophets orders.  A very common occurrence - most religious people will claim that anyone that disagrees much with their interpretation/version aren't real believers, but either frauds or servants of Satan.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        "Well, see, the problem is that they would take your very same words and say the same things about you." -- That is very true. See!
                        
                        Different religions believe in heaven and hell, the resurrection etc. Some believe they are going to heaven or hell based on good deed. Some believe those very same good deeds are dead works and believe they need the Savior.

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           And some believe that god has told them to murder in His name.  Muslim terrorists are one example; there are Christians that also say the same thing.
                           
                           And others seem to be saying that God has told them they should prohibit people from doing perfectly legal things - that God's rules, as they see them, must be applied to everyone around them as well.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              No contest.
                              Many are deceive.

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 So they are (maybe even all of them).  And with no way to determine which ones, it behooves the rest of us to accept God's orders from none of them, thus the separation.

                                 replyreport
            2. 84

               gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Ouch but that is the truth of the matter, isn't it, hmmmm......

               replyreport
   2. 75

      aguasilverposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Fact is, if someone is a believer, they MUST deny any law that contravenes Gods will and scriptural rules, and face the consequences patiently and present a good witness to their accusers.
      
      Far better to fall foul of the secular world system than the angry will of God.
      
      They can refuse and face whatever, they can challenge the courts decision, they can elect to be judged by a party of their peers, they can solicit public opinion, they can resign and find more acceptable jobs.
      
      There are alternatives, and if they resign, then folk who feel OK doing the job can step up to the mark and take over.
      
      We are rapidly reaching another period of time when the 'Nuremberg defense' is insufficient excuse to obey illegal orders, except this time the Judge is God.
      
      Something the Supreme Court judges seem to have forgotten.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry, those who say they MUST deny any law that contravenes God's will and scriptural rules have no credibility, since they don't deny every law that does so, only those that cater to their prejudices.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!  They are simply using God as a subterfuge for their prejudice and hatred really.

            replyreport
      2. 75

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You missed the point (or perhaps not); do believers find it spiritually necessary, and is it either legal or ethical (or even god's will, considering Matt. 7:12). to force God's law onto others?  Does "freedom of religion" include "freedom from religion"?
         
         Yes, the SC has "forgotten" it - or least understand that it is not in their job description.  Others seem to have forgotten important codicil, declaring themselves judge, jury and enforcement arm of God's army.

         replyreport
      3. 81

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Fact is, if someone is a believer, they MUST deny any law that contravenes Gods will and scriptural rules, and face the consequences patiently and present a good witness to their accusers.
         
         
         Aqua, I suggest that those that have a religious objection to doing their job as assigned should consider quitting and getting another one, where they may not have to be offended. Firing them for this is well within consideration as well. Texas is a 'whole nother country' in word only. The rulings of the Supreme Court are the law of the land.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            aguasilverposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Resigning was one of the options quoted, and I agree, they should resign if they find they cannot comply with the job description.
            
            Faith means trusting in God.
            
            I rarely venture into these forums now, but I am not trying here to cause dissent, just pointing out some scriptural truths that affect all people whether they like it or not.
            
            God does have the final word, we may not like it, or approve of that, or agree with Him all the time, but His word is final, and His actions are influenced by our behaviour.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               The bible was written by men.  It is not the word of God.  Men have written and rewritten the bible to suit their respective religious needs.  Same sex marriage is now the law of the land.  It is discriminatory not to issue marriage licenses to those based upon sexual orientation.  It is within the rights of the authorities to fire those who refuse to adhere to the letter of the law regarding same sex marriage.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  aguasilverposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Your first point is an opinion, you believe it, but that does not make it fact.
                  
                  Your second point is a fact, and I have already stated that resignation is a viable option for those challenged by the new law.
                  
                  My point is simply that the law is deficient, against the expressed will of God, and liable to bring judgement on those who endorse and support it.
                  
                  It matters not one jot to me whether homosexuals are allowed to call themselves married, and I agree that all committed relationships should be entitled to equality under law as far as taxation and legal obligations are concerned.
                  
                  Homosexuals will not be able to claim their marriage as being "in the sight of God" because God never made any provision for SSM, or the condoning of homosexuality.
                  
                  If they accept that fact, then I see no problem with organized religion and the world view they hold.
                  
                  The final arbiter of who is right or wrong is God, I will let Him decide, but I would be wrong not to point out the possible spiritual implications of rebellion against God.
                  
                  Now I leave this discussion, enjoy yourselves, we have exciting times ahead.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     There will be alot of adjustments to be made about gay marriage. Since gay surppression has been held by 1000's of years of bronze age thinking.

                     replyreport
                  2. 79

                     colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Good word, aguasilver, I hope you come into the forums more.
                     SSM is simply just one more Biblical prophesy unfolding.

                     replyreport
            2. 81

               Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I hear what you say and personally, I agree, But what conservatives often fail to realize is that there is a big difference in my personal belief  how I conduct myself when compared with my expectations of the larger society and the rights of others. For those that believe, if it within my power I try to live peaceably among our fellow man. Let your deportment and good example quietly win people over to our point of view.
               
               For this to work, everyone must be allowed their choice to 'believe' or not. If if comes through coercion, it defeats the purpose of God having willing servants.
               
               Your voice is an alternate point of view and in our  forums, just a valid as anyones.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I wish to live with you, in your democracy, but will not follow your laws.  Instead I will make up my own laws and do what I can to ensure that you follow them.
                  
                  The alternate point of view, apparently, of the far right.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Wilderness, that is the problem with all of this. I have my belief, but my neighbor has the right to his or hers, which is just as valid as mine. The need to force others to believe and do things your way, escapes me. For that reason, the law must remain secular in its nature.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Well said!  And a very good description of why we MUST separate church and state.

                        replyreport
   3. 82

      Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Would it be acceptable for someone at the DMV to refuse to issue a driving license to a woman on the grounds that they have a religious belief that women shouldn't drive?
      The AG should be careful what he wishes for.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Wouldn't that be great?  Some clerk, quoting whatever it is the Muslims use, refuses to give a license to his wife or daughter!   Too bad he isn't female.

         replyreport
   4. 82

      Don Wposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness . . ."
      (Ken Paxton, June 2015)
      
      "Grand Jury Indicts Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, on Felony Charges"
      (New York Times, August, 2015)
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/gr … .html?_r=0
      
      Irony overload!

      replyreport
2. 52

   ghandoryposted 9 years ago

   Fact is, if someone is a believer, they MUST deny any law that contravenes Gods will and scriptural rules, and face the consequences patiently and present a good witness to their accusers.
   
   Far better to fall foul of the secular world system than the angry will of God.
   
   They can refuse and face whatever, they can challenge the courts decision, they can elect to be judged by a party of their peers, they can solicit public opinion, they can resign and find more acceptable jobs.
   
   There are alternatives, and if they resign, then folk who feel OK doing the job can step up to the mark and take over.
   
   We are rapidly reaching another period of time when the 'Nuremberg defense' is insufficient excuse to obey illegal orders, except this time the Judge is God.
   
   Something the Supreme Court judges seem to have forgotten.
   shared by HubPages 1 minute ago

   replyreport
3. 59

   Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

   Um, it's Texas Wilderness, need I say more? What else do you expect from a person who lives in a regressive state where they still wear cowboy hats and prefer the airy aromatic feel of an out-house?
   
   As a religious person. I understand the common sense reality that we live in a nation of REAL laws, not biblical beliefs or scripture which are purely “Faith Based“ ~
   
   An individual must comply with the LAW regardless of personal feelings, if the inability to issue a license or perform other job duties exists, the common sense resolution is resignation ~

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, it's not just Texas.
      http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/clerk … 4655811707  (Alabama, Mississippi)
      http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/07/kent … x-couples/  (Kentucky)
      
      People all over the country are pretty upset that they cannot force their religious beliefs onto others.  Is that "religious freedom"?  Is that where we're going now - where "religious freedom" includes the right to impose your beliefs on others?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, the "SOUTH" WILDERNESS, not all over the country ~ GEEEZ ~ Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky etc the same backward hillbilly regions which are controlled by helmet heads that have refused subsidies and DENIED anxious citizens the opportunity to purchase an essential HEALTHCARE POLICY which might save their lives someday! ~
         
         This is not indicitive of the REAL Nation ~ I mean really, what did you expect?? ~
         
         Everyone is entitled to execise "Religious Freedom" if their practice of said freedom does not conflict with R*E*A*L**** L*A*W*S ~
         
         I think you need to venture out from the sticks Wilderness, your skewed perspective of reality is beginning to shine through ~
         
         Freedom is not absolute remember? This includes religion ~

         replyreport
         1. 75

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            MY reality?  My reality is that there are nuts all over the country (think skinheads in northern Idaho, just south of the Canadian border).  If allowed they will control us all.
            
            Of course there are others as well - the idiots in Seattle, Wa. that think raising minimum wage beyond the ability of a business to pay won't raise prices or close businesses.  Or that thinks an "essential healthcare policy" (earning insurance company profits) means one that has a deductible of 1/2 a years earnings. 
            
            On the other hand, there are some reasonable folks that do refuse to accept charity, charity others are forced to supply whether they want to or not.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               NUTS not FOOLS Wilderness ~ The latter seem to congregate in a place where politicians constantly advocate a contempt for the United States ~
               
               Unless you live in the deep, remote WILDERNESS of Alaska, where waking up and spending half the morning wrangling a squirrel breakfast with a pea-shooter and carting it back to your cozy little igloo is a necessity, it is virtually impossible for any individual to survive on $7.75 per hour -
               
               In a civilized society, a reasonable wage is expected and deserved, despite what greed driven Wall Street Corporate execs think, let them adjust earnings expectations DOWNWARD for a change and test the loyalty of their fickle cohort pals and investors ~
               
               Working Americans are now demanding a decent, livable wage and I support them 100%
               
               Sludge Producers like BP Petroleum rake in 100’s of billions each and every year yet their employees are expected to endure a financially fragile life style hovering just above the poverty line, this is unacceptable in the REAL world ~

               replyreport
         2. 84

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I guess this is one challenge I am too tired to meet tonight. "How to politely tell you how arrogant and prejudiced your comments make you to seem to be."
            
            "...the "SOUTH" WILDERNESS, not all over the country ~ GEEEZ ~ Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky etc the same backward hillbilly regions which are controlled by helmet heads
            
            Do you really feel so confident in your superiority that you can lump such a large part of our nation in such a descriptive category?
            
            "... refused subsidies and DENIED anxious citizens the opportunity to purchase an essential HEALTHCARE POLICY which might save their lives someday!..."
            
            That appears to be an emotional perspective... because it ignores the rational, (and facts) pertaining to the reasons many states did not expand their Medicaid programs, or participate in  the Federal subsidies scheme. Not a very superior way to make a point.
            
            Admittedly I don't know you or your life circumstances, but if a conclusion must be drawn based on your comments; I would guess that you are someone that is very comfortable with yourself based on your own emotional validations - unencumbered by the complications of facts or understanding of folks that don't see the reality of life the same way you do.
            
            But we all can't be on your A-Team, so I will continue to be comfortable where I am too... realizing that intolerance and predudice are not very profitable traits to maintain.
            
            Just sayin' GA

            replyreport
            1. 79

               colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               +1
               I like that statement.

               replyreport
            2. 59

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               So now Obamacare is a scheme? You conservatives are really desperate now ~ Geeez ~
               
               Allocating taxpayer funds to ensure EVERY AMERICAN has adequate insurance to cover medical expenses is a necessity in a civilized world ~ And don't worry, when Texas & Alaska sucede from our union, a forefeiture of health care rights and retirement rights will be forthcomming ~
               
               It's amazing how I hear all this nonsense about contempt for sharing our the wealth with those Americans who need and deserve it, yet not a word of dissatisfaction regarding HUGE tax breaks and taxpayer monies that are gifted to oil companies and others each and every year ~ Greed Driven Companies that continue to destroy our environment day after day ~ Just Amazing ~

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  If you want to share your own wealth, have at it.  You have no ethical right to "share" others wealth by taking it to do with as you please.  Robin Hood is a failed philosophy when it comes to morals and ethics.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not so sure you actually live in America Wilderness, your ignorance of historical and basic facts is astonishing ~
                     
                     Wealth is already SHARED in America, it's a component of the fundamental structure ~  The problem is the current direction in which some of the monies are funneled ~
                     
                     If you are unwilling to pay your share of taxes and participate in improving our nation as we progress, either suffer the legal consequences or perhaps move to an unstructured "Loaner" county, there are plenty of those around our planet ~
                     
                     My concerns are with hard working individuals, senior citizens who face the non-stop deliberate attack by conservatives almost daily, veterans, who need to endure the constant ridiculous GOP "Benefit Cut" proposals,. minorities who need to endure the constant rasists attitudes by republicans, and of course the income challenged ~
                     
                     I'm not concerned with the greedy conservative CEO who is unwilling to reduce the number of Bentlys He/She is willing to puchase annually as opposed to providing critical healthcare to his/her employees ~ It's insane ~

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        So it is (wealth shared) - the liberals continually expand that premise - but it was no part of the founding of the nation any more than religious control was.
                        
                        If you wish to change our society into socialism or communism..."move to an unstructured "Loaner" county, there are plenty of those around our planet"
                        
                        I understand your concerns, and share them.  I just don't see the answer as stealing from a third party to provide for them, ruining the economy in the process.  I also understand that you think we can, as a nation, provide cradle to grave support for millions of people, but you are mistaken.  I understand that you are quite happy to shift the burden onto your children and grandchildren; I'm not.
                        
                        Finally, I understand that your morality is set aside for some of the population because you find their legal activities abhorrent (just as the religious do).  They don't matter because they don't agree with your stance on providing for those that won't do it themselves.  I get it, I just don't agree with it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           It dosen't matter what our contry was founded on Wilderness, what matters is that we are a nation that has and will continue to progress forward, it's human nature ~
                           
                           A cohesive country requires community participation and taxes are essential to maintain a vibrant economy and well being for all, not just a select corrupt few ~
                           
                           I don't understand how I'm ruining the country? George Bush, our inept yet very "Special" president actually destroyed this nation by giving away ALL our wealth to his cohorts, don't remember that do you Wilderness?
                           
                           President Obama and Progressive Liberals have perfomed a literal miracle over the last 7 years to piece this economy back together again ~ These are the actual facts not conservative lies ~
                           
                           Consider yourself lucky to have an intelligent, calculating, thinking president for a change like Obama rather than an incompetent "Special" individual like a Bush ~

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, I have to back you on this, AP...

                              replyreport
                           2. 75

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Umm.  You DO understand that "progress" does not mean killing all incentive to work?  That it does not mean that some idiot politician will dictate how and where you must spend the fruits of your labor?  That it does not mean spending the future now for what we want but cannot afford?  That "community participation" does not mean sitting back and drawing a charity check for life?  I know those are the liberal way, but do you agree with them?
                              
                              I think ALL of our presidents have been "intelligent, calculating thinking".  For the large majority that means figuring out how to better themselves (and their party, of course) and hang what happens to the country or it's citizens.  And that most definitely includes Obama.

                              replyreport
            3. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Agree that he does over generalize, which dilutes his point.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Panther, I think you confuse the word comprehensive with generalize, that's usually typical when conversing with a member of the GOP ~
                  
                  But let's bring it down a bit ~ Right now, you have individuals in Texas, a state which has elements within who are actually salivating to sucede from our union because they despise just about everything America stands for, who are subjecting the courts to frivilous actions primarily due to their refusal to provide healthcare to all Texans ~
                  
                  On the flipside, not word one about a genuine injustice as it relates to individual firearm rights ~ Nowhere in the constitution does it state you as an unaffiliated individual have the Right to own a gun ~ It doesn't exist, yet I assume we'll never see an esquire attack that with such ferocity ~
                  
                  It's pretty simple and uncomplicated ~ We have REAL Laws and Biblical Scripture in this country ~ REAL Laws TRUMP Scripture in the REAL Nation ~ There are however other places around the world where this is reversed, but not here ~

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't have an issue with your point of view, and don't really have much of an issue with the way you present it.  I just think that you're over the top in your characterization of certain groups.  That said, others here think I am over the top, so it's simply a matter of where each individual draws the line.
                     
                     Somewhere in one of these posts GA quoted me several times in my slamming of certain people.  I attempted to clarify exactly what I meant because I want to be crystal clear about my judgments and why I make them.
                     
                     So, while I might consider your characterizations over the top, it doesn't matter at all, because someone else will agree with you, and someone else will agree with me, and someone else will agree with neither of us. 
                     
                     That is all.  ;-)

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I try to be as factual as possible Panther and really don't think I've yet reached the point of being "Over the Top" but it's OK, someday we'll be married and put all this behind us ~
                        
                        Unless of course you're already wed, in that case, strike this entire post from the record ~

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                  2. 75

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, REAL Laws, like the second amendment that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  Yes, it is understood that some people would like to ignore that law and pretend it doesn't exist, exerting their control over others for no other reason than they don't like guns or are afraid of them.  Exactly as some people would exert their control over gay marriage for no other reason than they don't like it or are afraid of it.
                     
                     It always makes me giggle when people declare a political party perfect because they like some of the platform, all the while pretending it isn't just like the opposing party.  The pot calling the kettle black, in other words, as both parties are about as black as you can get.

                     replyreport
            4. 59

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I never claimed to be Superior G.A., I'm just living in the here and now, not in the past ~

               replyreport
4. 84

   GA Andersonposted 9 years ago

   After reading this and other threads about the recent court decision concerning same sex marriage, I am left with a less than flattering impression of many of the commenters celebrating, (or expressing agreement with), this decision.
   
   It appears that resigning a clerk's position to avoid appearing to condone same sex marriage is viewed as " imposing their religious beliefs."  How is that? They aren't  picking and choosing and discriminating -  they are saying I can't do this so I have to quit. Sounds like standing on principal to me - whether or not we agree with those principals isn't important.
   
   The news stories and examples I have seen don't seem to show religious fanatics, yet they are compared to real fanatics like; skinheads, KKK, and Westboro Church.
   
   It also seems that pro-decision commenters think anyone opposed to the decision is a human throwback. Hell, even cowboy hats now seem to be a symbol of social ignorance.
   
   I do note that there are many instances that fit and illustrate the OP's point, but the responses to that post seem to lump all anti-decision folks in that idiot category. Seems wrong to me.
   
   There are more than enough shallow and bigoted people opposing this decision to fill the news spots, but I don't think they represent the majority of anti-decision folks, and I certainly don't think displaying an I am more intelligent and socially enlightened than you attitude and condemning religious as passe' is very flattering either.
   
   At least that is the impression these responses have left on me.
   
   GA

   replyreport
5. 57

   SergioBentancorposted 9 years ago

   I think it's okay that we respect others and respect the Gay marriage. I believe that all should respect for who we are as people and we should not judge anyone for their sexual condition. But I also believe that if a minister does not want to marry a same-sex marriage because he believes may violate their religious beliefs, the state should not force him. Otherwise we would be respecting the rights of another, to violate others.
   Everyone deserves respect and who are not also agree, as long as it does not reach the aggressiveness as I have seen that happen.  Many do not agree, but come to the aggression and that is no longer any good. greetings

   replyreport
   1. 79

      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that the aggression stage is not the place to be. 
      United is the place to be, humans, hubbers, you picks.

      replyreport
6. 75

   jlparkposted 9 years ago

   Civil servants, Public Servants, Government Servants - what ever you call them, they are working FOR the government, so they need to follow what Law entails.
   
   Their job is not to preach their religion to all who come in - or they'd have been a preacher, pastor, or Bishop.
   It's not to convert everyone - or they'd have been a missionaries, evangelicals or preachers.
   It's not to enforce that everyone lives under their religious law - or they would be in a country with Sharia Law (and mostly be male...)
   
   The option is to resign, or find another job within the same company that does not have them dealing with marriage certificates at all - be they heterosexual couples, or homosexual couples. IF they cannot do that with good conscience, then they need to find another job.
   
   I am a Nurse - I am required to treat everyone whom has been entrusted into my care - be they paedophiles, junkies, vehemently anti-gay, anti-woman, racist. Whether they try to convert me to their religion (and yes, I've had that), \try to convert me to their way of thinking on homosexuality, abortion, race, religion etc etc. I am to treat them as I would treat anyone else - and I do - they all receive excellent care to the best of my ability regardless of the way in which I am treated by them, and regardless of the views they may hold that I disagree with. Why??? BECAUSE THAT IS MY JOB. It's not my job to change their mind (unless it's about smoking, or drinking too much...thats health promotion!), it's my job to care for them.  I am a PUBLIC SERVANT. I follow the law of the land, and the laws of my profession. If I was religious, in my personal life - I would observe my religious laws, but I do not hold anyone bar me to those rules because religion is PERSONAL.
   
   If these clerks disagree with the ruling - and it will affect the way they do their jobs - they need to find new ones. Simple, isn't it?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, it is quite simple and most appropriate... Thanks

      replyreport