Good!!

[Cato]

Instead what we have is 5 black robes finding a right to habitual sodomy in a document that says exactly nothing about marriage period.

Only a true Christian is stupid enough to boil down same sex marriage so all that's left is ass fucking. Thank you for demonstrating what your true heartburn is Chad.

Your definition of tyranny needs work. How precisely is it tyrannical to allow consenting adults to enter a legally recognized relationship, but denying them the right for the sake of ancient religious dicta is the measure of freedom? You're confused.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The Supreme Court also gave us Dred Scott. Let me ask you this. Do you believe there is anything that the Federal government cannot rightfully control or regulate?

Strictly speaking, the Dred Scott case was in full compliance with the Constitution at that time because the Constitution deprived black people of all rights and legal protections.

[Redbeard The Pink]

You really don't see a difference between the two?

In one scenario, you have a stupid fucking bitch refusing to comply with a law that grants people their rights.  The stupid bitch was given EVERY opportunity to avoid jail time.  She was told as long as she didn't interfere with her co-workers issuing the licenses, she wouldn't go to jail.  But the stupid cunt said no.  It's against her religious beliefs.  So she gets to decide for the entire county that the supreme court is wrong, and she's not going to hand out marriage licenses.  Apparently this is 'standing up for your beliefs' according to some.  What it really is -- standing up for bigotry.  

In the other scenario you have someone who is trying to disobey the law because it deprives someone of rights they may not have by law, but should fucking have anyway.

Civil Disobedience has it's time and place.  This isn't one of them.  The fucking cunt should be thrown in jail for refusing to comply with an order that gives other their rights, and doesn't interfere a fucking bit with her own rights.

No law was actually passed. SCOTUS rulings are NOT the law. The Constitution of the United Sates is the law. Instead what we have is 5 black robes finding a right to habitual sodomy in a document that says exactly nothing about marriage period. You're a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot who justifies tyranny in pursuit of your progressive utopia.

No, what you have is 5 black robes finding it unconstitutional for the government to offer rights and benefits to one group but not another. They're not granting rights to anyone; they're saying that when legislation grants rights, everyone must have equal access to them.

Besides, no matter what you do there will always be people doing butt stuff.

[robvalue]

You sure have a low opinion of your God if you think sodomy is of huge concern to him. And of course, this law isn't about sodomy, it's about marriage. If you can't differentiate between these, it's time to get your coat.

God is now so powerless he can't even sway a vote between 9 people in his favour. He used to just dispense with free will to get his way.

I wonder, is allowing gay marriage part of God's plan, or does the Supreme Court have the power to thwart God's plan?

Time to get your mind out of other people's arse holes. I can't begin to imagine what a warped sense of priorities a person has when they obsess over what other people do in their bedroom like it's of cosmic importance.

[downbeatplumb]

I'm curious to see if she gets re-elected.

Why do you have elections for admin?  stupid way to run a country.

[MTL]

That would be a bit like arresting Rosa Parks, though.

Rosa Parks was covered by the 14th Amendment.  It was therefore criminal to discriminate against her.

yes, and the 14th Amendment was cited in the ruling on same-sex marriage.

from Wikipedia: Obergefell v. Hodges

[MTL]

Personally  I find myself conflicted on this issue. One the one hand, I do not see how a government employee can legitimately claim to engage in civil disobedience. I mean aren't you rebelling against the system of which you are a part. It would be like a soldier suddenly deciding to be a conscientious objector but still want to stay in the military. On the other hand, it creates a tacit religious test for public office. In other words, no evangelical Christian can serve as a public official that even tangentially endorses homosexual conduct.

I love this part:

" It would be like a soldier suddenly deciding to be a conscientious objector but still want to stay in the military. "

However, I have a slight issue with this line:

" no evangelical Christian can serve as a public official that even tangentially endorses homosexual conduct. "

The law does not ENDORSE homosexuality.  It is not being PROMOTED.

It is simply being ALLOWED.

Anyway, that's not the main point, here.

You are observing the conflict between being a Christian and working in a job that tolerates homosexuality.

What I have been trying to get Christians to realize (and will make it possible for them to work such jobs)

is that there is really nothing preventing you from being BOTH a good Christian,
AND a supporter of secular equality.

Indeed, as a Christian (nevermind as an American)
you might even view it as your RESPONSIBILITY to promote equal rights for all.

Remember:

Jesus never expected His followers to go out and try to compel non-Christians to live
according to Christian morals.

Jesus never told you to endeavor to pass His teachings into Civil Law.

If I were personally a Christian, myself,
I would not only tolerate,
but PROMOTE equal secular rights for the LGBT, because

1. I would believe that the power of God to prevail is far, far greater than any amount of legislation;
by removing political roadblocks, I demonstrate my faith.

2. Jesus didn't want people coerced into living according to His teachings;
He wanted them to come freely...even when they could just as easily go the other way.

3. Christians believe God only values what is in a person's heart,
...and in their hearts, those gay people still very much want to get married
regardless of whether or not the laws of man say it is legal or not.
....so, I accomplish NOTHING in the way of "serving God", by limiting the rights of non-Christians.

4.  ....therefore, to limit their rights would only serve the purpose of accommodating my OWN comfort-level,
and there is something particularly unsavoury about a Christian who is

- doing something God never asked them to do
- then trying to claim they are only doing it to serve God
- when they are actually doing it to serve themselves.

If I was God, that would piss me off.

[MTL]

Gah, it's pretty scary when people support sending someone to jail over this. If the tables were turned and the supreme court banned gay marriage and a clerk defied that order and went to jail, you would all be outraged. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

No.

There is a difference between defying a good law, that protects human rights, because you don't like it,

versus defying a bad law, for the sake of standing up for human rights.

Kim Davis is the Anti-Rosa-Parks.

[MTL]

I thinking sending the clerk to jail was over the top. If someone refuses to do their job, you fire them, not send them to jail.

The way I understood it, they would have just fined her and let her go if she had agreed to start issuing marriage licenses when she got back to work, but she said she'd go right back to refusing them. She legitimately left them no other option but to lock her ass up. She broke the law, was caught, and had to be punished by fines or jail, and this bitch pretty much chose jail. If that's where she wants to be, fuck it.

It is a little sad that most martyrs don't have the good decency to die any more. I don't think it should count as martyrdom unless we get to nail her up and set her on fire or something.

 

[robvalue]

Personally  I find myself conflicted on this issue. One the one hand, I do not see how a government employee can legitimately claim to engage in civil disobedience. I mean aren't you rebelling against the system of which you are a part. It would be like a soldier suddenly deciding to be a conscientious objector but still want to stay in the military. On the other hand, it creates a tacit religious test for public office. In other words, no evangelical Christian can serve as a public official that even tangentially endorses homosexual conduct.

I love this part:

" It would be like a soldier suddenly deciding to be a conscientious objector but still want to stay in the military. "

However, I have a slight issue with this line:

" no evangelical Christian can serve as a public official that even tangentially endorses homosexual conduct. "

The law does not ENDORSE homosexuality.  It is not being PROMOTED.

It is simply being ALLOWED.

Anyway, that's not the main point, here.

You are observing the conflict between being a Christian and working in a job that tolerates homosexuality.

What I have been trying to get Christians to realize (and will make it possible for them to work such jobs)

is that there is really nothing preventing you from being BOTH a good Christian,
AND a supporter of secular equality.

Indeed, as a Christian (nevermind as an American)
you might even view it as your RESPONSIBILITY to promote equal rights for all.

Remember:

Jesus never expected His followers to go out and try to compel non-Christians to live
according to Christian morals.

Jesus never told you to endeavor to pass His teachings into Civil Law.

If I were personally a Christian, myself,
I would not only tolerate,
but PROMOTE equal secular rights for the LGBT, because

1. I would believe that the power of God to prevail is far, far greater than any amount of legislation;
by removing political roadblocks, I demonstrate my faith.

2. Jesus didn't want people coerced into living according to His teachings;
He wanted them to come freely...even when they could just as easily go the other way.

3. Christians believe God only values what is in a person's heart,
...and in their hearts, those gay people still very much want to get married
regardless of whether or not the laws of man say it is legal or not.
....so, I accomplish NOTHING in the way of "serving God", by limiting the rights of non-Christians.

4.  ....therefore, to limit their rights would only serve the purpose of accommodating my OWN comfort-level,
and there is something particularly unsavoury about a Christian who is

- doing something God never asked them to do
- then trying to claim they are only doing it to serve God
- when they are actually doing it to serve themselves.

If I was God, that would piss me off.

Haha. Does the law endorse and promote me slapping myself in the face for 23 minutes? Because that's what I do every day, right in front of the police station and they've barely bothered me about it. They must be promoting it.