Wow! I thought every Christian knew that one. :BangHead:
Already: Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by carpro, Jun 30, 2015.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The law actually puts the requirement on the employer to support religious preference. If there's someone else who can issue the licenses, and has no problem with it, then she can't be fired for not doing it. She takes care of those licenses that don't violate her religious beliefs; the other employee(s) take care of the rest.
We know what our jobs require before we start; this job, however, did not require this when she started. They've changed the job requirements on her.
When Paul was told by the ones who made the laws of the day that he couldn't preach in the streets, he preached anyway. This woman's not a preacher; but the principle applies. It should apply for all of us. And those Christians who think otherwise are justifying their actions by saying, "my employer makes me do it" rather than asking "am I pleasing my God by doing what my employer makes me do?" -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
This thing will go down like George Wallace's stand in the school house door. Obama will federalize the Texas national guard and they will compel Hood county to issue SSM licenses.
Wow, can't wait to see the posts on BB when that crap storm happens. -
As Don implied, if she's not the only person in the office to issue licenses, it's actually no big deal.
However, if she is the only one who can, she has a legal obligation to do so.
No man can serve two masters. If she's in that position, she has to decide which "master" to disobey: God or the government.
If she disobeys the government, she's (imo) hurting the testimony of Christians,not helping it. If she disobeys God, she's violating her own conscience, and sinning.
The only way for her to further the testimony of Christ (again, imo) would be to step down from the position. Otherwise, either way she's hurting her testimony through disobedience. -
-
Either resign or be fired. And if the County refuses to obey the law, the Justice Department needs to press charges and have them fined for every day they refuse to comply with the law. -
-
May I play Devils advocate here
Suppose a mixed race (heterosexual) couple deicide to get married. They go to Hood County for a marriage license, but the clerk states her religious beliefs prevent her from issuing a license.
Would you support her decision?
How about if one was a Southern Bap and the other were a Mormon..... -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1.) Paul was not a government official enforcing the laws of Rome, he was a private citizen.
2.) If we were talking about a private citizen - who does not represent the government - then I would be on your side of this.
3.) She took an oath to uphold the law as part of her job. If she believes that she is personally endorsing every potential marriage that comes before her, she has been making some terrible choices. I live adjacent to Hood County and used to be a part owner of a business just outside of the Granbury city limit (Acton, Texas), so I had the opportunity to see a lot of dysfunctional marriages on display. Does she feel responsibility for those?
-
She wasn't elected to issue same sex marriage licenses. That wasn't part of the job description.
She could resign and the county could hold a special election to fill the vacancy. She could then run on the platform of issuing marriage licenses only to male and female applicants. My guess is she would be re-elected overwhelmingly. I know the citizens of Hood County. They will stand behind her.
But none of that is necessary. She doesn't have to resign and she will be defended by the AG of Texas. She will do her Christian testimony a world of good to make this stand. It needs to be done. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
SSM is now a civil rights issue, just like desegregating the schools was in Wallace's day. There is precedent. Plus the precedent holder is John F. Kennedy. I can already hear Obama invoking JFK's name as he gives the executive order. This will be a slam-dunk for Obama.
And the wailing and gnashing of teeth on BB will be heard over in China. -
-
Well, here we go again. The same thing did happen a few years ago when some county clerks did issue these marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite the laws on the books at the time saying it was illegal.
And Obama had better NOT get the big bad federal government involved in this, he will only yet again look like the petty Third World dictator that he wants to be. Federal gun regulations and immigration laws are routinely violated by states in particular, think Chicago's gun control and sanctuary cities. Ignoring laws are par for the course in the USA now. -
She was elected by the citizens of Hood County, represents them and serves at their pleasure. I am sure they will stand behind her decision. If not, we'll hear about it. -
From what I read the court didn't rule that it was their civil rights that were violated. They ruled that they had a right to their dignity at least that is what Anthony Kennedy ruled. They had a right to dignity which the constitution doesn't contain so they didn't rule on the constitutionality of the union. So if this ladies dignity is being violated by issuing the license then she too has a right to her dignity in refusing to issue the license.
Is this clerks dignity in jeopardy by issuing the license, if it contains her name as county clerk then it dies and she has right to her dignity and not having her name associated with the union. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. The County Clerk's web presence is on the Hood County government website and is an elected office of the government of Hood County.
2. The Hood County Clerk herself is referencing the Texas State Attorney General as her legal guide, showing that she recognizes the State of Texas government. Moreover, Hood County is part of Texas.
3. Texas is part of the union of the United States.
4. The United States is founded on a Constitution that includes the 14th Amendment which has historically been understood to apply the civil rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to persons in all of the states in the United States. It also guarantees equal protection under the law.
5. Both the County Clerk and the Attorney General of the State of Texas are justifying their positions in terms of religious liberty which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are incorporated through the 14th Amendment - otherwise the 1st Amendment protections would be irrelevant to the states. Therefore, they both recognize the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment being applicable here, as well as the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment.
6. The final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The Court can overrule itself or the Congress and the states can amend the Constitution, but that's about it.
7. Therefore, the Attorney General of Texas and the Hood County County Clerk's office does not have a legal leg to stand on in this case.
Where is the logical/legal error in terms of the political structure and laws of the United States?
Page 2 of 3