Clerk's office defies order; no same-sex marriage licenses

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: DeadFoot
Of course it is her fault for believing as she does.
Of course it is government's fault---they are the ones who changed the law in the midst of her term as clerk.
Have you no deeply held convictions that could not be swayed by the "world's evolving standards"?
And just so you understand---there isn't just one clerk in the country who is protesting this ruling in this manner.
I think it might not be the clerks who need to "grow up and realize" some truths. Your attitude could use a dash of maturity toward your fellow humans who hold beliefs different than your own.

Okay...

I find it rather hilarious that you're telling me to express understanding toward my fellow humans when we're talking about a woman who has been married 4 times enforcing her personal judgment on gay people based on the same religious rules that she has broken herself 3 times.

Maybe it's hard for me to understand because I'm not a complete moron.

Either way it seems kind of simple. Don't like your job? Find a new one. That's what adults do. Her "I AM THE LAW" attitude is not something that I have an obligation to sympathize with simply because she uses her religion as a shield.

a reply to: diggindirt

Of course it is her fault for believing as she does.

No one is saying that from what I've seen in this thread.

Of course it is government's fault---they are the ones who changed the law in the midst of her term as clerk.

She took the oath, and everyone knows laws and ordinances change frequently. It's not a secret.

Have you no deeply held convictions that could not be swayed by the "world's evolving standards"?

Sure, and when I they're challenged, it's time to make a decision. Do the job I was elected by the people to do, or resign.

I think it might not be the clerks who need to "grow up and realize" some truths.

I disagree. I think she does need to grow up, and realize her rights don't trump anyone elses, and vice versa. We have a constitution that protects the group, as well as the individual.

Your attitude could use a dash of maturity toward your fellow humans who hold beliefs different than your own.

So could yours. There are people in this country with beliefs different from your own, and they have rights just like you do.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

What side am I on that lost anything? Whatever, people have views on this topic that won't be changed at this time, and everything else I said is guessing and things that wouldn't surprise me to happen. People like you are the problem in this world. Too many assumptions and haven't the first clue as to what you are posting.

If you're on the side of this clerk, then you're on the losing side. So now I'm the problem huh??? Funny how it's always the others guys fault isn't it. Never the person who's defying the law because they believe some nonsense that they feel puts them above the law, nope not them, it's the fault of everyone but them.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: Klassified

Whatever. People will view this through whatever lenses they want. I hope nobody actually thought that once the court ruled it was over. Doubt this will be the last case like that. Wouldn't be surprised if a homosexual clerk refused marriage licenses to heterosexual couples at some point to make a point about this. Enjoy.

Of course, no one thought that. More than one member predicted this type incident happening. I doubt any gay person is going to do that. At this point, it seems the gays have more scruples and ethics than those who would like to send them to hell.

Christians should chill out and think.

If they believe that Gay marriage is a sin then just because they grant one a civil license doesn’t mean the sin is on them


Just like a Muslim, who by their law can’t eat pork, it that doesn’t mean that if they are at a banquet and a person asks “please pass the sausages down” that they can’t hand them the pork to the person.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

What side am I on that lost anything? Whatever, people have views on this topic that won't be changed at this time, and everything else I said is guessing and things that wouldn't surprise me to happen. People like you are the problem in this world. Too many assumptions and haven't the first clue as to what you are posting.

If you're on the side of this clerk, then you're on the losing side. So now I'm the problem huh??? Funny how it's always the others guys fault isn't it. Never the person who's defying the law because they believe some nonsense that they feel puts them above the law, nope not them, it's the fault of everyone but them.

If you can show me a single post siding with anyone on this topic, I'll leave ats today. And yes you are. Jumping to conclusions based on nothing that was ever posted because you assumed and went off half cocked from there. Yes it's people like that that are a big part of the problem. Even worse nothing even remotely close to siding or not was posted. That is a flaw in your thinking, it can be corrected , and yes you are at fault for that.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

If you can show me a single post siding with anyone on this topic, I'll leave ats today. And yes you are. Jumping to conclusions based on nothing that was ever posted because you assumed and went off half cocked from there. Yes it's people like that that are a big part of the problem. Even worse nothing even remotely close to siding or not was posted. That is a flaw in your thinking, it can be corrected , and yes you are at fault for that.

Fine, if you're not on her side then nothing I said applies to you then I guess it was my mistake and I misread your post. No problem.

It just seemed like you were defending her willfully choosing to break the law, denying the rights of others and hiding behind her religion. But if you weren't and I read it wrong then I must have made a mistake and I apologize for confusion.

No need to get crazy. If you don't mind would you tell me where you do stand on this then so I don't get confused again then??

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: Klassified

Whatever. People will view this through whatever lenses they want. I hope nobody actually thought that once the court ruled it was over. Doubt this will be the last case like that. Wouldn't be surprised if a homosexual clerk refused marriage licenses to heterosexual couples at some point to make a point about this. Enjoy.

Of course, no one thought that. More than one member predicted this type incident happening. I doubt any gay person is going to do that. At this point, it seems the gays have more scruples and ethics than those who would like to send them to hell.

Maybe. Topics like these with so much emotion running so high on both sides brings out some unexpected responses. Not saying it will, just not surprising. As far as trying to send people to hell, from what I understand that is above earthly capabilities so good luck with that.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

If you can show me a single post siding with anyone on this topic, I'll leave ats today. And yes you are. Jumping to conclusions based on nothing that was ever posted because you assumed and went off half cocked from there. Yes it's people like that that are a big part of the problem. Even worse nothing even remotely close to siding or not was posted. That is a flaw in your thinking, it can be corrected , and yes you are at fault for that.

Fine, if you're not on her side then nothing I said applies to you then I guess it was my mistake and I misread your post. No problem.

It just seemed like you were defending her willfully choosing to break the law, denying the rights of others and hiding behind her religion. But if you weren't and I read it wrong then I must have made a mistake and I apologize for confusion.

No need to get crazy. If you don't mind would you tell me where you do stand on this then so I don't get confused again then??

None of my post have been about a side. My first two post were basically if she feels that strongly keep fighting but be prepared to accept the consequences. At that point I wouldn't want to hear complaining as the law was laid out and she chose to violate it. Otherwise she needs to do the job as required or walk away

The last post was more about that people have chosen sides for the most part and the whatever was a reference to that ( whatever arguments won't change minds at this point) not trying to be dismissive. That's the extent of my side choosing, laying out as is stands. This lady needs to make a choice be prepared for the reaction of what she chooses to do.

Seems like an exercise in futility at this point. There's no way she can win this. Check mate. Do your job or leave, I guess she deemed the theatrics necessary.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

I agree, her time is up and she's already made her choice. Even after being ordered by a judge specifically to do her job she still refuses. So ya, it's time for her to go, but that's her choice to do so.

I think people need to look at this from those who are trying to get married as well. It's all fine and nice for all of us to sit here and debate it or for other people in society to fight about it based on their morals and ideals and stuff. But the fact is that while you, me and the other guy have our fun debating it, these people trying to get married are being effected in very real and serious ways.

Without marriage being legal, it doesn't matter how long they've been together or how much they try to support each other, without the certificate there are some legal walls they cannot get passed. Imagine if your wife or husband was in the hospital but since you couldn't prove "legal marriage" you aren't considered for the decisions being made with their care. Or other legal matters where just being a "partner" doesn't qualify you as being meaningful or legally binding. All because some Idealist woman wants to sit in judgement of you and your life so she can keep believing what she wants.

There are real world consequences for people like this clerk and her actions that they don't even consider. Lives are being made worse, people suffer and families torn apart. Not by those who are involved, but by outsiders who care only about themselves and their beliefs when it doesn't even involve them.

Homosexual people have the same right to live a happy life as anyone else and for someone outside their lives and not even involved, they should be more considerate of the pain and suffering they cause by their actions.

a reply to: mOjOm

Wish I could give more than one star.

a reply to: mOjOm

From the perspective of someone who this affects;

1. I don't think anyone minds that she is Christian - each to their own
   
2. I don't think anyone would care if she morally objects to same sex marriage if she keeps her opinion to herself and does her job in a friendly and professional manner
   
3. I'm sure that there are gay clerks out there who issue opposite sex marriage licenses and dont give it a second thought
   

These marraige licenses are being issued by the secular government whom she represents, not the Church. The Church (non profit ones) is free to say no to holding same sex marriage ceremonies because that is where freedom of religion comes into play.

Basically lady, if you don't want to do your job your beliefs do not give you special protection. End of story.

a reply to: markosity1973

Actually many modern Christians, if not most
would have been put on the rack during the inquisition. Modern religious people tend to cherry pick beliefs so much they would have been considered to be servants of the devil.

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: DeadFoot
Of course it is her fault for believing as she does.
Of course it is government's fault---they are the ones who changed the law in the midst of her term as clerk.
Have you no deeply held convictions that could not be swayed by the "world's evolving standards"?
And just so you understand---there isn't just one clerk in the country who is protesting this ruling in this manner.
I think it might not be the clerks who need to "grow up and realize" some truths. Your attitude could use a dash of maturity toward your fellow humans who hold beliefs different than your own.

Okay...

I find it rather hilarious that you're telling me to express understanding toward my fellow humans when we're talking about a woman who has been married 4 times enforcing her personal judgment on gay people based on the same religious rules that she has broken herself 3 times.

Maybe it's hard for me to understand because I'm not a complete moron.

Either way it seems kind of simple. Don't like your job? Find a new one. That's what adults do. Her "I AM THE LAW" attitude is not something that I have an obligation to sympathize with simply because she uses her religion as a shield.

I'm asking you to extend understanding to a fellow human being. To refuse to do so is to continue the division and acrimony. That seems pretty moronic to me.
What good is created by your judgmental attitude? Have you walked in her shoes? Have you ever had your moral convictions challenged in the way hers are being questioned? Ever had the rules changed on you in midstream?

I'm not asking you to accept her beliefs or approve her behavior, just extend a bit of human compassion for another member of the species.

a reply to: Klassified
You are preaching to the choir here.
You have a completely mistaken impression of my reply. I am saying that name calling and the other childish behaviors I see when this subject comes up is immature.
I have no problem with beliefs different from my own, I can agree to disagree without acting like a child in the sandbox.
I don't agree with this woman. How many times do I have to state that? (Had you read any of my previous posts, you could have avoided embarrassing yourself.) But I do understand the issue and I do have compassion for all involved.

originally posted by: diggindirt

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: DeadFoot
Of course it is her fault for believing as she does.
Of course it is government's fault---they are the ones who changed the law in the midst of her term as clerk.
Have you no deeply held convictions that could not be swayed by the "world's evolving standards"?
And just so you understand---there isn't just one clerk in the country who is protesting this ruling in this manner.
I think it might not be the clerks who need to "grow up and realize" some truths. Your attitude could use a dash of maturity toward your fellow humans who hold beliefs different than your own.

Okay...

I find it rather hilarious that you're telling me to express understanding toward my fellow humans when we're talking about a woman who has been married 4 times enforcing her personal judgment on gay people based on the same religious rules that she has broken herself 3 times.

Maybe it's hard for me to understand because I'm not a complete moron.

Either way it seems kind of simple. Don't like your job? Find a new one. That's what adults do. Her "I AM THE LAW" attitude is not something that I have an obligation to sympathize with simply because she uses her religion as a shield.

I'm asking you to extend understanding to a fellow human being. To refuse to do so is to continue the division and acrimony. That seems pretty moronic to me.
What good is created by your judgmental attitude? Have you walked in her shoes? Have you ever had your moral convictions challenged in the way hers are being questioned? Ever had the rules changed on you in midstream?

I'm not asking you to accept her beliefs or approve her behavior, just extend a bit of human compassion for another member of the species.

Do you extend compassion for your fellow KKK members?

Do you extend compassion for ISS to hold their beliefs and practices?

Do you extend compassion for the Nazis who killed 6 million people for their beliefs?

If not, why should I extend compassion for just one more bigot?

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

remember hobby lobby and friends, you know they didn't like the mandate for birth control so they threw a fit and the gov't stepped in and now they don't have to? the court decided that it was "too burdensome" of a law for them to follow.

well, that "too burdensome" bit is applicable here....maybe....unless the fact that she is an elected official negates it. but if an employer can accommodate someone's religious beliefs without it being an undue burden, they should. the question is though would it be an undue burden for the country to accomodate the clerk, maybe find her another position in the company or something...

as far as compassion....
well sorry, I remember the hobby lobby discussions....
if you don't want babies don't have sex.....
translated to fit this one....
well if you don't want your beliefs challenged in your job, well, don't have beliefs!!
if they want their company to provide them insurance that covers birth control, well they can just find another job.------
if you don't want to do a part of your job, then find another job!
didn't see that much compassion flowing then either...

a reply to: diggindirt

I'm not biting that, sir.

A woman who thinks her personal beliefs are above people's constitutional rights doesn't deserve my respect. She obviously harbors none for other people. Respect is given where due, not where demanded.

Extend your human compassion to her children when you think about how much fun they are going to have in school now that her mother openly claims to be above the country they live in.

Extend your human compassion to the people who are currently unable to receive health benefits for their significant other because this woman refuses to issue them a marriage license.

Extend your compassion to anyone who doesn't have visitation rights for their hospitalized significant other because this woman refuses to do the job that she was elected to do.

Extend your compassion to those who don't get the protection of their shared property should something happen to their significant other.

I do all of that.

Once I'm done with all that compassion, the only fluffy feelings I have left for the villain in this scenario are pity that she hasn't figured out where to shove her baseless, bronze-aged opinions....

...Perhaps it's because she doesn't believe in sodomy.

Lol, but seriously, I really despise people who create problems for others based on "their"... "opinions"; call me crazy, but I just don't care about her at all.

I can't even begin to imagine what qualities she might have that would excuse her public displays of self-centered attention seeking and obvious megalomania.

a reply to: DeadFoot

Extend your compassion to anyone who doesn't have visitation rights for their hospitalized significant other because this woman refuses to do the job that she was elected to do.

ya know, I'm sorry, this is something that we should all be griping about. I know, the hospitals probably do this to try to limit visitors but well, what if my family are kind of irratating to me, does the hospital really want to limit me to them when all they are going to do is raise up my blood pressure and stress me out? what if all my family members live far away but I have a few close friends nearby, why should I not be allowed their company? who knows even in a comatose state maybe I would prefer that someone be with me, even if it's not a family member.

a reply to: Klassified

My opinion on all marriage laws.

It has recently occurred to me that legal marriages that are recognized by the government should be considered a violation of the separation of church and state.

Why are there any marriage laws? Why are there any tax breaks?

People without school age children are actually taxed unfairly by current standards. People with school age children not only benefit from the social education program they also receive tax breaks for even having children. While the person with no children not only pays taxes to support public education but they don't receive tax breaks simply because they dont have school age children.

Why do these laws exist? Why do our laws encourage child bearing? Wouldn't a true separation of church and state be void of all marriage laws and any tax breaks for marriage or children?

We need laws to deal with separation because in many situations one partner works for income while the other partner works to take care of the home. At the end of such a partnership I agree that the one who sacrificed work for homecare should be eligible for alimony and child support when children are part of the partnership. But I believe all of these issues would be better resolved by arbitration.

Why does the government need to be involved in marriage at all? What business is it of my government what my living situation is? Marriage laws end up complicating things without providing any benefit to society.

We need to protect the individual from cheaters, abuse, and even amicable separation do to lack of desire. And we need to protect the welfare of children. But what are the rest of the laws for?

Eliminate all laws not associated with separation and the welfare of children. Other than those two issues, I see no reason why the government belongs in my bedroom or yours.