ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
gee, if only we had a legal expert here at tol who could offer us his expert opinion :think:
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
gee, if only we had a legal expert here at tol who could offer us his expert opinion :think:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Excellent article and rightly said!
lifeisgood
New member
When did Congress pass the gay marriage law?
I might have missed it when Congress passed the gay marriage law.
Did Kentucky legislature passed a gay marriage law? I missed that one too?
lifeisgood
New member
It is freedom OF religion
not
freedom FROM religion
Sometimes that distinction is forgotten.
not
freedom FROM religion
Sometimes that distinction is forgotten.
Quetzal
New member
You are free to worship however you wish. The government will not charge you for that. You can't, however, take a government position and dictate the actions of your agency based on your religious beliefs. Sorry.
OK. I do see why she would be a martyr in that case. But why didn't she leave?
I guess I was turned off by hearing she was married four times. And that she is planning a book.
I need a better martyr, and then you will hear me cheering.
Now be nice, good ol' Chryso
She married 4 times but has been married only to 3 men, her current marriage is to husband #2, so she had a wedding ceremony with him 2 times.
She also didn't become a christian till after she married her current husband. She is openly repentant of her past.
Did Christ forgive you? Who exactly would a good martyr be to you?
Paul, who murdered believers before he became one for example?
Sure she can, the legislature hasnt yet met and changed the law to allow for gay marriage, the current law in Kentucky doesnt allow it, and a judge cannot create law, only interpret it. The supreme court declared a law unconstitional, and as such states need to ammend their laws accordingly - which hasnt yet happened.
The judge is also ordering licenses issued anyway without her signature, a violation itself of state law, which requires her signature to be legal.
He is the one breaking the law.
TracerBullet
New member
Davis refused to allow them to do just that
Quetzal
New member
That is a different interpretation than mine, but it doesn't make it wrong. I was speaking broadly as we move forward. I have already mentioned (in case some others missed it) that I do not think this was handled in the best way.
TracerBullet
New member
that would be Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1. This was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court last June.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 was modeled after Kentucky's anti-miscegenation law of 1885. This law was also struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court in 1967.
Interestingly enough Kentucky never passed any laws saying interracial couples could marry. I wonder how those couples are managing to get away with claiming they are married. Hmmmmmm.
lifeisgood
New member
Next thing will be that pastors cannot refuse to marry man/man, women/women, man/woman/woman, etc. man/woman/beast?
Really?
Acts 5:29 --- Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
What did God say?
Genesis 2:24 --- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
TracerBullet
New member
Quetzal
New member
Slippery slope fallacies hold no weight with me. Don't try.
I am having a secular discussion, these do not hold weight with me either.
TracerBullet
New member
what an incredibly stupid statement. You can't compel anyone to perform a wedding ceremony. There are pastors that still refuse to officiate interracial marriages and that is perfectly legal
lifeisgood
New member
So as my POV does not count with you, then I have no rights at all in your sight. Got it.
lifeisgood
New member
Next time, please, read for understanding before declaring that the statement is incredibly stupid.
It is a sin to "assume the worst" about someone, i.e., that he or she is committing a sin, though you have no evidence for this. It's also a sin to revile, slander and calumniate people.
Just pointing that out.
Quetzal
New member
Not what I said. I said slippery slope fallacies do not hold weight to me. I also said a Biblical argument does not hold weight with me because my comments are not Biblical in nature. Stop looking and trolling for an excuse to cry "oppression".
lifeisgood
New member
Translation: Your opinion, lifeisgood, does not hold weight to me quetzal. Got it.