Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Town Heretic]

Sheer equivocation Not what I mean by "nature." I mean "nature" in the Aristotelian sense. Nature = quiddity = form = essence.

Oh, I understood you, but (rude horn noise) why should that control the price of squid in Athens?

A crime is the serious violation of law.

It can be. Not all of it is. And this isn't a crime, so either way...

The reason that you deny that sodomy is a crime is because it does not violate the law of the State.

Rather, the reason I recognize that it isn't a crime.

In this, you betray your practical assumption, i.e., that there is no superior law, no superior court, no superior justice...

Rather, in that way I give the appropriate context for the discussion of the law that Mrs. Kentucky is having a conniption about.

already a temptation in protestant thought in general,

No, one of my best friends and a great lawyer I know is Catholic. He also understands what we're talking about. You should too, at some point.

But for all that, there is a natural law, i.e., a law which is written into the very heart, the very nature of the human being as a rational substance. The lawgiver and judge of the natural law is God. Sodomy violates that law.

So do any number of things we routinely do as human beings (not that most of us routinely sodomize anyone, but I'd bet we all have sins we struggle with) from exercising our vanity to a want of compassion or application of love. Omission, commission, it's in our nature. No sin is tiny given what the pay out is for it absent grace. And thank God for grace given all of that.

It is so perverted and so wicked a crime that it, in the traditional way of expressing this, "cries out to heaven for vengeance." [Note, I'm not making his up. Google it: "sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance" or "sins that cry out to heaven for justice."]

I didn't suggest you were coining histrionics, only using them or it, depending on how you look at it...or them.

Why do I say this? Because crime has no rights. Error has no rights.

But people do. And among those rights, often enough, is the integral freedom to err, to make poor moral choices. To sin. Our courts aren't sitting in judgment on your soul or your sin. That rests between you and God.

The social liberal will pretend that the sodomite has such rights.

That's a particularly ignorant belief to hold. A shame to wrap that much education in it. There are conservatives and Libertarians who would grant the homosexual has as much right to his liberty and error as heterosexuals who aren't being discriminated against or penalized for their sexual activities falling solidly into the sin category.

But it is just that: playing pretend; a giant masquerade. For all that, the sodomites' crimes remain crimes. The Just Judge is watching. He is taking note. And there is no escape from that Justice.

Okay. You're perfectly free to believe that. It simply can't have much to do (by which I mean anything practically) with the secular law that protects your right to think and hold for yourself whatever moral code and context seems right to you and for you.

The sodomite will not escape simply because the earthly State decides to let him play pretend.Rather the contrary: the sodomites' guilt is multiplied by this disgusting masquerade.

Practically speaking that doesn't amount to anything if you believe any sin can separate you absent grace, that the wages of any and all sin is death. 0 x 1,000,000 = 0

How terrible are the sins of the sodomite when he does them in secret:

How secret is it though, really? Especially if you're getting married. Marriage without sex is, if you go by studies, more of a heterosexual lack of practice.

I'm poking fun a bit at you because of the whole thorns of life number you're pulling. John Barrymore would blush at it. Speaking of which, the curtain is going up on the third act, so...

Nature Itself cries out in protest and renders testimony against him! How much worse are they when he drags the whole political society, the State into sins, makes the State a party and co-conspirator to his crimes? He injures not only himself, but the entire common good of the State. He not only violates the natural law in secret, but scandalizes the whole political community.

It's good of you to be concerned but this is a different kingdom.

"Rights?" Don't kid yourself. He has no "rights."

He (or she) does though. With or without our permission. And that's what the Kentucky business is about, which is why the contest ended with a jail cell and not a pew.

Before the eyes of the Just Judge, before the court of conscience, before the Natural Law, he is a criminal, and he will not escape justice.

I hope God is kinder to you than you are to others, Trad. And I hope at some point you recognize that today's sinner is sometimes tomorrow's saint. And I'm fairly certain that very strong speech isn't going to be the difference.

Whether here on earth, in purgatory (may God be so merciful!), or in Hell, he will meet his just sentence.

When I was a young man I howled for justice too. The older I get the more I appreciate the quality of mercy.

 

[bybee]

The mercy in a mother's heart is almost infinite. How much more so Mercy in the Heart of God?
Perhaps Trad has chosen to ignore St. Augustine's pre-sainthood demeanor?

 

[fzappa13]

People aren't moved to do a thing by tension

:chuckle:

Lucky for you that you are not within reach of my bic lighter ...

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Actually, Rev, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) invalidated those laws still remaining on the books (which typically included oral sex as well).

That's right.

Those laws could not be enforced.

The dissenting judges in the right to marry case, addressed this issue.

It in no way asserted the clown judges idea of the precedents set but was based on privacy matters.

So Yes, from the standpoint of law, interplanners line of attack is as wrong as yer defense against it.

Also for future reference, the majority referred to in the text, are those who IMO should meet with an abrupt end of their tenure.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556

2

The majority suggests that “there are other, more instructive precedents” informing the right to marry. Ante, at 12. Although not entirely clear, this reference seems to correspond to a line of cases discussing an implied fundamental “right of privacy.” Griswold, 381 U. S., at 486. In the first of those cases, the Court invalidated a criminal law that banned the use of contraceptives. Id., at 485–486. The Court stressed the invasive nature of the ban, which threatened the intrusion of “the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms.” Id., at 485. In the Court’s view, such laws infringed the right to privacy in its most basic sense: the “right to be let alone.” Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438–454, n. 10 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

The Court also invoked the right to privacy in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) , which struck down a Texas statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy. Lawrence relied on the position that criminal sodomy laws, like bans on contraceptives, invaded privacy by inviting “unwarranted government intrusions” that “touc[h] upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior . . . in the most private of places, the home.” Id., at 562, 567.

Neither Lawrence nor any other precedent in the privacy line of cases supports the right that petitioners assert here. Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the “right to be let alone.”

The majority also relies on Justice Harlan’s influential dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497 (1961) . As the majority recounts, that opinion states that “[d]ue process has not been reduced to any formula.” Id., at 542. But far from conferring the broad interpretive discretion that the majority discerns, Justice Harlan’s opinion makes clear that courts implying fundamental rights are not “free to roam where unguided speculation might take them.” Ibid. They must instead have “regard to what history teaches” and exercise not only “judgment” but “restraint.” Ibid. Of particular relevance, Justice Harlan explained that “laws regarding marriage which provide both when the sexual powers may be used and the legal and societal context in which children are born and brought up . . . form a pattern so deeply pressed into the substance of our social life that any Constitutional doctrine in this area must build upon that basis.” Id., at 546.

In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989) ; San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1–37 (1973); post, at 9–13 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:chuckle:

Lucky for you that you are not within reach of my bic lighter ...

Or my breath to help along the ignition. :rotfl:

 

[kmoney]

Whenever you post things I read them with Eric Cartmans voice in my head and this image in my mind.

Just thought I'd share that.

:chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

Oh, I understood you, but (rude horn noise) why should that control the price of squid in Athens?

...

...

...

Er...

...

Congrats. I'm speechless.

It can be. Not all of it is. And this isn't a crime, so either way...

You'll want to say that not every crime is a major violation of law, but every violation of law, major or not, is a crime? You need not put much emphasis on my saying "major." Suffice to say, a crime is a breach, violation or breaking of law.

Rather, the reason I recognize that it isn't a crime.

Rather, in that way I give the appropriate context for the discussion of the law that Mrs. Kentucky is having a conniption about.

Why do you insist on doing this? This makes absolutely no contribution to the discussion. You are simply re-wording things, though offering no substantial disagreement, to put your own position in a better rhetorical light. It's purely rhetorical.

So do any number of things we routinely do as human beings (not that most of us routinely sodomize anyone, but I'd bet we all have sins we struggle with) from exercising our vanity to a want of compassion or application of love. Omission, commission, it's in our nature. No sin is tiny given what the pay out is for it absent grace. And thank God for grace given all of that.

I don't assert that only sodomites are criminals before the Natural Law. Everyone who is guilty of a mortal sin is a criminal in the sight of God. This is why confession, i.e., the sacrament of penance is necessary.

That said, I think you are ultimately misunderstanding the "point" of what I said. It was directly in response to Freelight's claim about "rights." There is no right to commit crime or to do evil. Period.

But people do. And among those rights, often enough, is the integral freedom to err, to make poor moral choices. To sin.

There is no right to sin. A right is a claim of justice. Every sin violates justice. There may be a "right" to non-interference from the State, but not because there is a positive right to sin.

Practically speaking that doesn't amount to anything if you believe any sin can separate you absent grace, that the wages of any and all sin is death. 0 x 1,000,000 = 0

This is what I meant earlier when I said that the denial of a superior law, of superior court, etc. is a temptation in protestant thought. Since protestants don't accept the venial/mortal sin distinction and believe in sola fide, they are left with either: "Believer" or "non-believer." All sin is equally damning, and either you are covered in the blood of Christ or not.

Ultimately, this is just wrong. Not every sin is equal. And note, I don't even say this as a Christian. I say this as a reasonable human being: not every moral offense is equal. Sodomy is particularly offensive to reason and to nature.

How secret is it though, really? Especially if you're getting married. Marriage without sex is, if you go by studies, more of a heterosexual lack of practice.

Again, I believe that you've misunderstood me. It was gay "marriage" that I meant when I talked about sodomites "dragging the State into it." It's one thing to commit a sin on your own time, secretly, and out of the public eye, observing due shame. It's another thing to flaunt it in public and demand that the State garnish it with the airs of political legitimacy. That's a particularly odious offense, since it involves, not just the sodomite, but the entire political society (or, at least, those political officials who are involved) in his crimes. It heaps up scandal and injustice upon his unnatural intemperance.

I hope God is kinder to you than you are to others, Trad. And I hope at some point you recognize that today's sinner is sometimes tomorrow's saint. And I'm fairly certain that very strong speech isn't going to be the difference.

1. I make absolutely no claims about individual sodomites. I echo Pope Francis: "Who am I to judge?"

2. I don't wish to divorce mercy and justice. It very well could be that a sodomite pays for his crimes here on earth by amending his life, seeking sacramental absolution and doing penance.

3. I make absolutely no claims about my own moral status before God. I fully consider my own sins much worse than those of the sodomite, of the murderer, of the drug dealer, etc. It is entirely appropriate to echo St. Paul and understand that my sins are the worst and that I am the worst sinner. Why? Because they are my sins. They are ways in which I have offended God.

 

[ok doser]

Why do you insist on doing this? This makes absolutely no contribution to the discussion. You are simply re-wording things, though offering no substantial disagreement, to put your own position in a better rhetorical light. It's purely rhetorical.

this is like a ping-pong game to him, trad

he doesn't really care about the law, certainly not about God's Law

 

[annabenedetti]

The reason that you deny that sodomy is a crime is because it does not violate the law of the State

Does it violate the law of the State? Yes or no.

 

[TracerBullet]

I told you that is NOT reality,

you can tell me Big Foot is real and drops by every so often to watch the game with you too but in the absence of evidence i will doubt it,

but if you want to be as biased as those that condemn gays, that's your choice.

I chose to believe science and evidence and actual experience

I actually have known gay Christians who acknowledge this fact and know they have to either live celibate or change their orientation. Sexual bondage is the same regardless of what kind it is....it get's us by our carnal nature and sinks it's hooks in, because we give into it.

If only orientation were just about sex. But it speaks volumes that you think this is the case.

 

[TracerBullet]

"homo" is short for "homosexual." That's all I ever started using it for. But then I found out homos don't like the word, so I use it to create tension. Consider the passing of chattel slavery in England. It wasn't settled by a war as it was here in the US, and it wasn't because the hearts of the people changed. It stopped because the abolitionists in England dragged the tension on the topic to such heights that people had to do something about it. People had to face the sin and either embrace it or denounce it. In fact, this is the only way for change in the direction of what's right to happen in a country short of civil war.

Slavery isn't a sin

So provide tension whenever you can on society's slouch toward Gomorrah. If you can't provide it, then increase it. And do it at every turn. Again - It's the only way.

Think of this when someone labels you a homophone or a bigot.

 

[Traditio]

Does it violate the law of the State? Yes or no.

No, at least, not in the U.S at this time. I fully recognize this.

 

[TracerBullet]

Again, I believe that you've misunderstood me. It was gay "marriage" that I meant when I talked about sodomites "dragging the State into it." It's one thing to commit a sin on your own time, secretly, and out of the public eye, observing due shame. It's another thing to flaunt it in public and demand that the State garnish it with the airs of political legitimacy. That's a particularly odious offense, since it involves, not just the sodomite, but the entire political society (or, at least, those political officials who are involved) in his crimes. It heaps up scandal and injustice upon his unnatural intemperance.

fifty years ago racists were saying the same thing and using natural law to justify their sad bigotry.

1. I make absolutely no claims about individual sodomites.

I think this is where you say "some of my best friends are...."

 

[annabenedetti]

"homo" is short for "homosexual." That's all I ever started using it for. But then I found out homos don't like the word, so I use it to create tension.

Lame.

So provide tension whenever you can on society's slouch toward Gomorrah. If you can't provide it, then increase it. And do it at every turn. Again - It's the only way.

In other words, make sure everyone knows you're being a bigot by being the very very very best bigot you know how to be, and that way everyone will know you're no slouch when it comes to bigotry and your fellow bigots can pin a nice blue ribbon on you. :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

fifty years ago racists were saying the same thing and using natural law to justify their sad bigotry.



I think this is where you say "some of my best friends are...."

dude - yer doing it again

comparing blacks to perverts :nono:

Lame.

In other words, make sure everyone knows you're being a bigot by being the very very very best bigot you know how to be, and that way everyone will know you're no slouch when it comes to bigotry and your fellow bigots can pin a nice blue ribbon on you. :thumb:

anna, are you bigoted against pedophiles?

 

[StanJ]

you can tell me Big Foot is real and drops by every so often to watch the game with you too but in the absence of evidence i will doubt it

So the Bible is not good enough for you? You accept man's science over God's word?

If only orientation were just about sex. But it speaks volumes that you think this is the case.

In the context of this thread, that is exactly what it is, and that orientation is a choice, no matter what the orientation is. If you don't accept that the homosexual chooses his orientation, then you can't possibly believe the pedophile, necrophile, fornicator, bisexual or those into bestiality, have no choice, and neither do heterosexuals.

If we have no choice and ARE born with our sexual orientation, then God has no rational or ability to condemn those that do it wrong and therefore would not condemn them. Paul shows in Rom 1, that this is NOT the case.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Er...Congrats. I'm speechless.

It's the squid. No one gets around the squid. lain:

Suffice to say, a crime is a breach, violation or breaking of law.

Right. From spitting on the sidewalk to premeditated murder.

Why do you insist on doing this?

The first part was to emphasize your conflation. The second part was underscoring it.

This makes absolutely no contribution to the discussion.

That's an easy complaint. I could as easily say that your conflation and stab at overly dramatic rhetoric for what essentially reduces to "It's a sin and we can't license sin or if we do God's going to get them for it later" isn't really inviting discourse.

You are simply re-wording things, though offering no substantial disagreement, to put your own position in a better rhetorical light. It's purely rhetorical.

No, it's a divide. You keep smudging the line and I keep tidying up.

I don't assert that only sodomites are criminals before the Natural Law. Everyone who is guilty of a mortal sin is a criminal in the sight of God. This is why confession, i.e., the sacrament of penance is necessary.

I didn't say you thought the only sin left on earth was sodomy, but it's the only one you're talking about and the mortal bit is just you going further into my point, which is that you're making religious distinctions that don't control in relation to a secular law that does...and I don't recall scripture saying the wages of some sin is death.

So, grace.

That said, I think you are ultimately misunderstanding the "point" of what I said. It was directly in response to Freelight's claim about "rights." There is no right to commit crime or to do evil. Period.

I'm fairly sure I responded directly on the point, which is that many a right carries with it the ability to use it for good or for sin. Baring a use that impinges on someone else's right it's between you and God. That's how we function and how disparate beliefs can occupy the same compact without violence and subjugation that typically, historically went with the dominance of one form of religion mingled with the power structure.

There is no right to sin. A right is a claim of justice.

You said the first part. As to right, in this compact a right is that to which you are entitled by birth. One of the things we believe is that you should be free to enter into contract, understanding that contracts are the means by which we attain all sorts of things that serve our happiness.

Every sin violates justice.

See, that's really just a fancy way to conflate secular and moral law, to presuppose the necessity that isn't, in fact, part of our compact. The state neither endorses nor denies your claim, rather it supports your right to make it and hold it, subject to the understanding that you are not free to impose it simply because you believe it is so.

This is what I meant earlier when I said that the denial of a superior law, of superior court, etc. is a temptation in protestant thought.

I'm just not interested in the blending of snobbery and self-congratulation you've integrated into your particular religious view.

Not every sin is equal.

That's a nonsensical statement. Sin is only a description of disobedience to God, willful disobedience. And scripture is clear as to the lack of relative value in it in consequence.

And note, I don't even say this as a Christian.

Of course you do. Remove your religious views and you've no argument at all.

I say this as a reasonable human being: not every moral offense is equal. Sodomy is particularly offensive to reason and to nature.

I understand you feel that way. I simply don't hold it as a particularly rational view.

Again, I believe that you've misunderstood me. It was gay "marriage" that I meant when I talked about sodomites "dragging the State into it."

No, that's what I thought you meant. But you're really just saying the same thing in a different way. It reduces to the same essential complaint and conflation. And I'm still talking about the law in Kentucky and the compact. Not to oppose moral law, but to note what is and isn't actually happening here.

1. I make absolutely no claims about individual sodomites. I echo Pope Francis: "Who am I to judge?"

But you've done little except that and if you deny all you deny the individual, if you condemn all you condemn the individual.

2. I don't wish to divorce mercy and justice.

I'd hope not. Making the cross superfluous would have to be a pretty large sin on your scale, I'm thinking.

3. I make absolutely no claims about my own moral status before God. I fully consider my own sins much worse than those of the sodomite, of the murderer, of the drug dealer, etc.

So you think sin is a matter of degree and hold yourself lower than a murderer or sodomite? Then who in God's name are you to lecture anyone about morality and what the devil have you done?

Or didn't your mean it?

It is entirely appropriate to echo St. Paul and understand that my sins are the worst and that I am the worst sinner. Why? Because they are my sins. They are ways in which I have offended God.

I don't know...that sounds like a proud way to humility and invites only admiration on the face of it, while you heap coals on the heads of those you actually, demonstrably despise.

 

[TracerBullet]

dude - yer doing it again

comparing blacks to perverts :nono:

I'm not comparing blacks to racists

anna, are you bigoted against pedophiles?

Lame

 

[Traditio]

fifty years ago racists were saying the same thing and using natural law to justify their sad bigotry.

1. I've already addressed this stupid rhetorical point earlier in this thread in one of my initial replies to Jose Fly.

2. More importantly, this claim is irrelevent. This isn't an argument that I'm speaking incorrectly. It could be the case (as I claim) that, even if racists were saying the same thing and arguing from natural law, that they were doing so incorrectly, whereas I am doing so correctly. You haven't ruled this possibility out. In fact:

3. I've given a natural law argument earlier in reply to Selaphiel. I won't bother reposting it, since you've shown absolutely no capacity or willingness to read, put serious thought into the matter or reply with anything more than superficial liberal propoganda. But if you are genuinely interested, look for it yourself.

:idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Lame.

In other words, make sure everyone knows you're being a bigot by being the very very very best bigot you know how to be, and that way everyone will know you're no slouch when it comes to bigotry and your fellow bigots can pin a nice blue ribbon on you. :thumb:

anna - are you bigoted against men who beat their wives and children?