KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[TranquilMind]

Is it part of the real xian faith to restrict others from doing what they are able and willing if it conflicts with your own personal belief? 

 

Why do you think more real xians don't go to jail in when their sincerely held beliefs conflict with the law? I ask because she didn't simply quit her job (or pass that one element on to others), as most real xians might. 

I don't know what an "xian" is, nor anyone who practices "xianity".  So, I have no response for this.   

 

Shall I call you a heathen in order to demean your beliefs?    But wait, I'm more rational and respectful than that. 

[LucyStoner]

I think the majority of Americans do support it now, and support is growing (particularly considering it is mostly older people who object).

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

 

It's similar to how the approval rating rose for interracial marriages:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

Of note is that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, roughly 80% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At the time of Obergefell, roughly 45% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. Which one is it that an activist court forced on the majority of Americans?

 

A majority of Americans support gay marriage.

 

A majority of Christians support gay marriage.

 

Change may be hard, but it's here.

[Stacia]

The definition of marriage has been widened--and not by the people of KY--to include (for now) two same-sex partners. To her, the everyday outworking of that change is that *her job has changed*. She is now having to have her name on documents that legitimize lawful unions that were previously not lawful, indeed they were constitutionally banned in her state.

She doesn't have to like the SCOTUS ruling. But she's not just a citizen of KY; she is also a citizen of the USA. She can't just cherry-pick which rules she decides to follow, she has to follow the ones that are legally in effect.

[Wildcat]

nm 

 

Changed my mind.

 

[albeto.]

I don't know what an "xian" is, nor anyone who practices "xianity".  So, I have no response for this.   

 

Shall I call you a heathen in order to demean your beliefs?    But wait, I'm more rational and respectful than that. 

 

We've been over this. X is the greek letter that stands in for the word "christ."

 

It's not an insult, it's a shortcut. 

[zoobie]

Of note is that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, roughly 80% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At the time of Obergefell, roughly 45% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. Which one is it that an activist court forced on the majority of Americans?

 

A majority of Americans support gay marriage.

 

A majority of Christians support gay marriage.

 

Change may be hard, but it's here.

29% of voters polled in Mississippi disagreed with interracial marriage in 2012. Thank goodness we aren't sitting around waiting for them!

[albeto.]

It is unbiblical to grant divorces except in one instance. Christ himself said that remarriage after divorce except in one instance is a sin. Should we ban divorces and remarriages? It seems to me the civil definition of marriage has diverged from the biblical one since the bible was written in one way or the other.

 

It also seems people like Kim Davis are ok redefining biblical marriage when it suits their purposes but want one particular definition applied regardless of if the couple in question has those religious beliefs or not.

 

One Tennessee judge hopes to do just that.

 

 

A Tennessee judge has denied a divorce petition because of the US supreme court decision allowing gay marriage, leaving a couple married against their wishes.

 

Hamilton County chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the couple’s divorce petition last week, claiming the national marriage equality ruling had marred Tennessee’s ability to determine what constitutes divorce.

 

Atherton’s reasoning to deny the petition was that the supreme court had not clarified “when a marriage is no longer a marriageâ€, the Times Free Press reported.

 

“With the US Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’s judiciary must now await the decision of the US Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage,†Atherton wrote in the order.

 

“The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the US Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces,†Atherton wrote.

[goldberry]

The State Constitution had already defined marriage as between a man and a woman only.  So she operated on that legal criteria throughout the period in office.   Then this decision contradicted the State law and her conscience, apparently. She took a stand.  She did not win.  It was a losing stance to begin with, the way the winds are blowing these days. 

It's over. 

 

Yes, her mother could have declined on conscience, but not on state law. 

 

Whoa, you said specifically... She is perfectly willing to do the job she has always done.  Suddenly, she is being asked to do something that cannot be done (in her faith tradition).  The goal posts have been moved.

 

Nobody (including Davis) ever brought up anything about state law.  The question is, if she has always been opposed to issuing licences for activities she believes should not be done in her faith tradition, why did it just now come up?  

[Halftime Hope]

As a deputy clerk in 2011 she pulled down >$60k. Now she makes $80k. In a county with median family income (not per worker, per family) of $33k.

 

I don't get the impression either that she lacks intellectual resources. I do think she lacks some human kindness (just the tone, facial expressions and word choices). But intellect and kindness don't always go together.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you about her tone/facial expressions, etc.  But as for me--I'm the lady with the kind voice, the merciful heart, and the TERRIBLE case of BRF--well, *I* am not going to judge, especially since these videos have been taken when she is under duress. 

[Halftime Hope]

I live in a county (over 500,000 people) that is actually fairly progressive, yet I can't drive down the road on any given day without passing by picketers on street corners (heaven help me if I drive past the WOMEN'S CLINIC!! I get to see and hear all sorts of vitriol by the picketers there, and they somehow manage to include those awful 'gays' in they picketing and yelling), having hate-filled literature tucked under my windshield wiper at the store, plucking it out of my mailbox (either flyers printed at home and delivered by car or from politicians), having people come to my door at home, or getting robo calls approved by local and state politicians filled with such hate. SSM is mentioned in all of it. If I go out to lunch on Sundays, I get to hear conversations around me about pastor so-and-so's sermon on what is essentially homophobia. Election time around here is particularly full of "family values" stuff which is, essentially, homophobia. Heck, it even comes up amongst strangers standing in line to pay for goods! My state also banned the sale of sex toys and has been actively going after any business who dares try to sell them. My state is an absolute embarrassment.  My state is STEEPED in controlling what others do in their bedrooms. That is my reality.

 

I don't have to look far beyond the borders of my state to see similar view points.

 

I find fault with your assertion that 9.99 out of 10 people who view homosexuality is wrong don't care what others do in the bedroom.

 

 

goodness, where do you live?  My state is quite conservative, but to my knowledge, we have nothing like what you are describing.  ETA:  I'm sorry.

[LucyStoner]

I'm not disagreeing with you about her tone/facial expressions, etc. But as for me--I'm the lady with the kind voice, the merciful heart, and the TERRIBLE case of BRF--well, *I* am not going to judge, especially since these videos have been taken when she is under duress.

I get that she was under duress. But part of being a professional is grace under fire.

 

I have treated intruders in my office who scared me half out of my skin and on whom I needed to call the police for a psych hold pick up with more kindness, courtesy and compassion than she treated people, in front of witnesses, who posed her no physical threat.

 

Handling difficult situations with grace is, well, difficult, but it's also part of being an adult and a public servant.

[Joules]

Of note is that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, roughly 80% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At the time of Obergefell, roughly 45% of Americans were opposed to gay marriage. Which one is it that an activist court forced on the majority of Americans?

 

 

 

xkcd did a nice graph of this:

http://xkcd.com/1431/

(It's not updated to 2015 where the solid blue line would now be at the 100% mark.)

 

In researching this I found it rather depressing that only 87% of Americans approve of interracial marriage as of 2013.  And from what I can find only 8-9% of American marriages are interracial (though that may be comforting for those who are concerned that the country will shortly be overrun with gay-married people. I have trouble following the logic involved.)

[justasque]

The State Constitution had already defined marriage as between a man and a woman only.  So she operated on that legal criteria throughout the period in office.   Then this decision contradicted the State law and her conscience, apparently. She took a stand.  She did not win.  It was a losing stance to begin with, the way the winds are blowing these days. 

It's over. 

 

Yes, her mother could have declined on conscience, but not on state law. 

I believe Mrs. Davis was a clerk in the office before the state changed the law to define marriage as one-man, one-woman.  

 

It's not over yet.  Mrs. Davis is still imprisoned.  Her lawyers have filed an appeal, claiming that the contempt order that jailed her was unlawful.  Regardless, she could be in jail at least until January, if not longer.  

 

I think part of the "culture clash" is that for many folks in certain areas of the country, this issue is over.  Some states have had, if not marriage, then civil partnerships for decades.  Most major companies have non-discrimination policies and give benefits to civil partners; their employees have been working with out gay folks for years.  Many Catholics and other Christian families in these areas have embraced their gay kids and their partners, and are loving on their grandkids from those unions.  Young college kids have grown up with their out queer friends, and see no reason for discrimination.  It is strange for those of us for whom same-sex couples are just a normal part of our families and communities to hear the fire and brimstone fears coming out of "flyover country".  We've worked through the issues and come out on the other side; while we know this is "sudden" for some of y'all, we just want y'all to catch up with the rest of the country.  Yes, things are changing, and sometimes it's uncomfortable, but it's gonna be OK.  Really.

[Joanne]

I don't know what an "xian" is, nor anyone who practices "xianity".  So, I have no response for this.   

 

Shall I call you a heathen in order to demean your beliefs?    But wait, I'm more rational and respectful than that. 

 

 

You can call me a heathen, though I'd prefer if you'd capitalize it.

 

[TranquilMind]

goodness, where do you live? My state is quite conservative, but to my knowledge, we have nothing like what you are describing. ETA: I'm sorry.

 

Where is this aberrational place?

 

And who is picketing at the women's clinic about gay people and why? This whole thing makes no sense.

[Mommy22alyns]

nm 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Don't react.

[mommaduck]

I don't know what an "xian" is, nor anyone who practices "xianity".  So, I have no response for this.   

 

Shall I call you a heathen in order to demean your beliefs?    But wait, I'm more rational and respectful than that. 

 

X is the Chi part of Christ in Greek. It has long been used as a symbol of Christians and a shorthand for Christians and Christianity. It is also a shorthand for those, certain Jews especially, that do not write out Christian or Christianity because of religious/conscientious objection (they do not believe Jesus was Christ/Messiah, therefore they do cannot acknowledge as such). However, it is not an offense, because it is the same and holds the same meaning. It was even used during times of persecution, especially as part of the Chi-Ro symbol (a combination of two Greek symbols). It was originally used BY Christians.

 

And those that are Heathen are usually pretty darn proud of it and it's no longer considered a term of offense, but rather one of acknowledgement. Unless you are calling another Christian a Heathen. You might also need to recognise the differences between Heathen and Pagan. 

[LucyStoner]

29% of voters polled in Mississippi disagreed with interracial marriage in 2012. Thank goodness we aren't sitting around waiting for them!

We apparently didn't reach the 1/2 way mark on support for interracial marriage until 1995. Yowza.

[poppy]

I believe Mrs. Davis was a clerk in the office before the state changed the law to define marriage as one-man, one-woman.  

 

It's not over yet.  Mrs. Davis is still imprisoned.  Her lawyers have filed an appeal, claiming that the contempt order that jailed her was unlawful.  Regardless, she could be in jail at least until January, if not longer.  

 

I think part of the "culture clash" is that for many folks in certain areas of the country, this issue is over.  Some states have had, if not marriage, then civil partnerships for decades.  Most major companies have non-discrimination policies and give benefits to civil partners; their employees have been working with out gay folks for years.  Many Catholics and other Christian families in these areas have embraced their gay kids and their partners, and are loving on their grandkids from those unions.  Young college kids have grown up with their out queer friends, and see no reason for discrimination.  It is strange for those of us for whom same-sex couples are just a normal part of our families and communities to hear the fire and brimstone fears coming out of "flyover country".  We've worked through the issues and come out on the other side; while we know this is "sudden" for some of y'all, we just want y'all to catch up with the rest of the country.  Yes, things are changing, and sometimes it's uncomfortable, but it's gonna be OK.  Really.

 

I don't like the term "flyover country" but I do agree with this.  I live in Massachusetts. We've had gay marriage here for over 10 years. One girl in my daughter's 2nd grade class has 2 moms.  A different girl in my Brownie troop has 2 moms. My church's Sunday school director is gay, married and he has a son. I can think of a handful of other gay married couples in my neighborhood. It's not controversial. It's not a big deal.  It's just day to day life. And it's weird and sad to see people insult it.

[*Lulu*]

We apparently didn't reach the 1/2 way mark on support for interracial marriage until 1995. Yowza.

Compared to BJU that is practically progressive!

[Joanne]

 

Race is an immutable characteristic, completely unlike sexual behavior.  Don't even begin to equate the two. The discussion is over when inapposite comparisons are made.   It's the "Nazi" card of this discussion and always trotted out, then, laughably,  liberal screaming occurs when the traditional marriage supporters attempt to use it, which apparently recently happened. 

 

 

Orientation is related to, but not defined by or restricted to, or exclusively about "sexual behavior."

 

Being homosexual is no more about sexual behavior than being heterosexual.

And who a person has sex with =/= orientation. A person can choose to have sex with the other gender, the same gender, or any gender and not *be* hetero, homo, or pan.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Where is this aberrational place?

 

And who is picketing at the women's clinic about gay people and why? This whole thing makes no sense.

Likely Alabama. They have (maybe had) a ban on sex toys. I have also personally witnessed some slack-jawed yokels there and other places using clinic protests as a place to promote other "family value" positions.

[Renthead Mommy]

So I was expecting Westboro Baptist Church to get involved.  I admit to being surprised the side they ended up on.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/413342-westboro-astonishes-everyone-by-slamming-anti-gay-clerk-kim-davis-the-reason-why-is-vile-but-hilarious/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM17&utm_content=17_2&ts_pid=2

 

 

Believe it or not, they are anti Kim.    She doesn't even have that bunch of crazies as a fan club! 

 

[Halftime Hope]

I believe Mrs. Davis was a clerk in the office before the state changed the law to define marriage as one-man, one-woman.  

 

It's not over yet.  Mrs. Davis is still imprisoned.  Her lawyers have filed an appeal, claiming that the contempt order that jailed her was unlawful.  Regardless, she could be in jail at least until January, if not longer.  

 

I think part of the "culture clash" is that for many folks in certain areas of the country, this issue is over.  Some states have had, if not marriage, then civil partnerships for decades.  Most major companies have non-discrimination policies and give benefits to civil partners; their employees have been working with out gay folks for years.  Many Catholics and other Christian families in these areas have embraced their gay kids and their partners, and are loving on their grandkids from those unions.  Young college kids have grown up with their out queer friends, and see no reason for discrimination.  It is strange for those of us for whom same-sex couples are just a normal part of our families and communities to hear the fire and brimstone fears coming out of "flyover country".  We've worked through the issues and come out on the other side; while we know this is "sudden" for some of y'all, we just want y'all to catch up with the rest of the country.  Yes, things are changing, and sometimes it's uncomfortable, but it's gonna be OK.  Really.

 

That's patronizing and uncalled for.   

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK.  We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is.  You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line. 

[*Lulu*]

So I was expecting Westboro Baptist Church to get involved. I admit to being surprised the side they ended up on.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/413342-westboro-astonishes-everyone-by-slamming-anti-gay-clerk-kim-davis-the-reason-why-is-vile-but-hilarious/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM17&utm_content=17_2&ts_pid=2

I was shocked as well...

 

Until I realized that they would never have gotten much press by saying they agreed with Ms. Davis.

[Mimm]

Bigotry is bigotry.

 

 

nm 

 

:( Some of the most vocal critics of Kim Davis in this thread are Christians.

[*Lulu*]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK. We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is. You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line.

And for some of us, we believe that God has not labeled it sin. Some of us serve and worship and pray along side men and women who are as family to us. They are Christians who are as passionate about serving God as any, and they happen to be gay.

 

I am excited to live in a day when my brothers and sisters in Christ can express their faith as freely and fully as my husband and I express ours.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK. We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is. You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line.

This country also has at various times normalized slavery, mass murder of Native Americans, and other atrocities. It also currently allows many activities that would be labeled a sin by various Christian denominations.

 

Pointing out this "sin" as being the one that you just have to fight against/grieve over/whatever does come across as a bit disingenuous. I figure if we didn't receive God's judgement when it was legal to kill/rape/abuse slaves or when the genocide of Native Americans was public policy, then I find it unlikely that the civil recognition of couples in love will get his shorts in a twist.

[Joanne]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.   

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK.  We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is.  You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line. 

 

It is YOUR religion. It should not be the religion of the state. You don't have to get (or perform) gay marriages.

 

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - inherently wrong with gay relationships.

 

 

[Frances]

So I was expecting Westboro Baptist Church to get involved. I admit to being surprised the side they ended up on.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/413342-westboro-astonishes-everyone-by-slamming-anti-gay-clerk-kim-davis-the-reason-why-is-vile-but-hilarious/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM17&utm_content=17_2&ts_pid=2

 

 

Believe it or not, they are anti Kim. She doesn't even have that bunch of crazies as a fan club!

But at least they are being consistent in requiring strict adherence to the Bible. Regardless of her claims of recent religious conversion, her former marriages were officiated by Baptist ministers. She only seems to be following the teachings of her new found faith when it comes to SSM and not her own or any other heterosexual marriages. Has she separated from her fourth husband and vowed to live a celibate life? Has she carefully questioned any divorced individuals before issuing them marriage licenses to make sure their reasons for divorce follow the Bible? She is the very definition of a hypocrite and a terrible advocate for her cause.

[Renthead Mommy]

I was shocked as well...

 

Until I realized that they would never have gotten much press by saying they agreed with Ms. Davis.

 

 

This is a very true point that I had not thought of, but I believe you are correct.  Everyone would expect them to show.  Everyone would expect them to be all Pro Kim rah-rah, but that is getting old.  But to show up and be against Kim, now that is new news! 

[Halftime Hope]

This country also has at various times normalized slavery, mass murder of Native Americans, and other atrocities. It also currently allows many activities that would be labeled a sin by various Christian denominations.

 

Pointing out this "sin" as being the one that you just have to fight against/grieve over/whatever does come across as a bit disingenuous. I figure if we didn't receive God's judgement when it was legal to kill/rape/abuse slaves or when the genocide of Native Americans was public policy, then I find it unlikely that the civil recognition of couples in love will get his shorts in a twist.

 

 

When did I do that?  I keep seeing that sentiment and others like it in this thread and in other related ones.  "Why aren't Christians in a lather about this sin or that one?"  I have never once singled out this issue as the only one that is of concern me. Not once.  But we are discussing it today because it's what is happening in our culture.

 

I don't know what the answer is to that question for all or some or many Christians, because I obviously don't speak for all of them, but yes, we Christians can be concerned and/or grieved over many forms of distancing ourselves, individually and nationally, from the patterns that God ordained for humanity. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

When did I do that? I keep seeing that sentiment and others like it in this thread and in other related ones. "Why aren't Christians in a lather about this sin or that one?" I have never once singled out this issue as the only one that is of concern me. Not once. But we are discussing it today because it's what is happening in our culture.

 

I don't know what the answer is to that question for all or some or many Christians, because I obviously don't speak for all of them, but yes, we Christians can be concerned and/or grieved over many forms of distancing ourselves, individually and nationally, from the patterns that God ordained for humanity.

That is the thing - other than abortion, there is no other issue that has the Christian Right lathered up to this degree in the past two decades. And the sad reality is that many of the denominations so vocally opposed to this sin have (historically) either been charged complicit or, at best silent, regarding other sins that actually harm others.

 

I again stand by my point that the majority of Christians vocally opposed to SSM are being disingenuous about why they oppose *this* sin.

[zoobie]

So I was expecting Westboro Baptist Church to get involved. I admit to being surprised the side they ended up on.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/413342-westboro-astonishes-everyone-by-slamming-anti-gay-clerk-kim-davis-the-reason-why-is-vile-but-hilarious/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM17&utm_content=17_2&ts_pid=2

 

 

Believe it or not, they are anti Kim. She doesn't even have that bunch of crazies as a fan club!

Wow. I mean, if Westboro thinks you're nuts...

[LucyStoner]

So I was expecting Westboro Baptist Church to get involved.  I admit to being surprised the side they ended up on.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/413342-westboro-astonishes-everyone-by-slamming-anti-gay-clerk-kim-davis-the-reason-why-is-vile-but-hilarious/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM17&utm_content=17_2&ts_pid=2

 

 

Believe it or not, they are anti Kim.    She doesn't even have that bunch of crazies as a fan club!

 

  

 

Not surprized. They are rigidly consistent and they like no one and support no one outside of their clan. They would protest at the funeral of Jesus Christ if they had a chance.

 

That's patronizing and uncalled for.   

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK.  We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is.  You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line.

 

I can sympathize with that but I think what she was saying was that, on the whole it will be ok. The sun will still rise and set, our kids will still grow. You don't have to accept gay marriage.

 

What you may not understand though is how relieved my family is that families like my brother's are now entitled to equal legal protections. That's, practically speaking, a positive thing for so many, including thousands of innocent children who love their gay parents. My BILs parents don't support gay marriage. There are times and places that had my BIL died, his parents could have taken my brother's home or even maybe his (biological) children. Marriage ensures them this, and so much else, can not happen. I don't think you or most anyone want to see a family to experience the pain and loss of that magnitude.

[zoobie]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK. We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is. You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line.

Move to a theocracy if you want the country's laws to be in line with your gospel.

[BrookValley.]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.   

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK.  We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is.  You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line. 

 

This is where my brain refuses to cooperate. 

 

I can set aside the idea that you think gay marriage is a sin for the purposes of discussion. What I don't get is how the decision to legalize gay marriage across the country is somehow a threat to you, or why it is your bottom line, or why you wouldn't be dancing in the streets with the rest of us heathens. This is not a theocracy; the very idea is as un-American as it gets. So your religion doesn't get to make the laws, and neither does mine, and so on so forth. Correct? This is what protects our right to worship (or not) as we choose. This ensures that no particular religion, or any particular flavor of any particular religion, gets to call the shots. So by legalizing gay marriage, we're moving into a place where religion has less influence over laws (because really, the only justification for keeping gay marriage illegal, aside from being a nasty bigot, is religious. Obviously, you're in the "it's not ok because it's a sin," i.e., religious camp). Right? So does it not follow that this is both a victory for both those who disagree with gay marriage on the basis of their religion, AND the people who support it? Win-flippin'-win. Equal rights, religious freedoms are strengthened, etc., etc. 

 

I just don't understand how any one, on either side of the issue itself, sees it as anything but strengthening separation of church and state and, therefore, strengthening religious freedom. Unless someone actually wants a theocracy, but that's just idiotic. 

[Truscifi]

That's patronizing and uncalled for.   

 

And no, for some of us it is not going to be OK.  We are grieving that our country is normalizing something that God has labeled sin, and in essence, saying that humanity is wiser than He is.  You may not understand it, and I'm OK with that, but for some of us, that's our bottom line. 

 

Yes, I can see how that would be hard for you. 

[Halftime Hope]

This is where my brain refuses to cooperate. 

 

I can set aside the idea that you think gay marriage is a sin for the purposes of discussion. What I don't get is how the decision to legalize gay marriage across the country is somehow a threat to you, or why it is your bottom line, or why you wouldn't be dancing in the streets with the rest of us heathens. This is not a theocracy; the very idea is as un-American as it gets. So your religion doesn't get to make the laws, and neither does mine, and so on so forth. Correct? This is what protects our right to worship (or not) as we choose. This ensures that no particular religion, or any particular flavor of any particular religion, gets to call the shots. So by legalizing gay marriage, we're moving into a place where religion has less influence over laws (because really, the only justification for keeping gay marriage illegal, aside from being a nasty bigot, is religious. Obviously, you're in the "it's not ok because it's a sin," i.e., religious camp). Right? So does it not follow that this is both a victory for both those who disagree with gay marriage on the basis of their religion, AND the people who support it? Win-flippin'-win. Equal rights, religious freedoms are strengthened, etc., etc. 

 

I just don't understand how any one, on either side of the issue itself, sees it as anything but strengthening separation of church and state and, therefore, strengthening religious freedom. Unless someone actually wants a theocracy, but that's just idiotic. 

 

But can you understand that if I believe that God is supreme, that His ways are the ways that will result in the greatest good for me, my children, my nation, for humanity, how could I not grieve at yet. one. more. way. in which this nation, at this place and time, is thumbing its nose at God?!?  Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived.  (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)

 

And lest you think it is just me, one person with this crazy viewpoint, there are more than a few people who are gay who chose to live celibate lives because they don't want to knowingly and willingly sin against God. 

[poppy]

Grieving I get. I have had a very hard time with some things done in the name of our country.  Anyone who has never been outraged by a Supreme Court decision or Executive order isn't paying attention. 

[mommaduck]

Halftime, can you see how some of us are of a minority religion and value our freedom of it enough to value the freedom of religion for others? (ftr, the Orthodox Church does NOT marry LGBT people. However, under a theocracy though, other of our faith practices would be attacked also)

[Halftime Hope]

What you may not understand though is how relieved my family is that families like my brother's are now entitled to equal legal protections. That's, practically speaking, a positive thing for so many, including thousands of innocent children who love their gay parents. My BILs parents don't support gay marriage. There are times and places that had my BIL died, his parents could have taken my brother's home or even maybe his (biological) children. Marriage ensures them this, and so much else, can not happen. I don't think you or most anyone want to see a family to experience the pain and loss of that magnitude.

 

I get this.

 

This is where I think that the individual states could have done a much better job of working out practical solutions for needs of their citizens instead of the one-size-fits-horribly answer that was illegitimate in its origin. 

 

My heart goes out; it truly does. 

[mommaduck]

nm. no point. 

 

[Joanne]

 Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived.  (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)

 

 

 

Can you explain to me what a "Judeo-Christian" principle looks like? One that is actually "Judeo-Christian" and not a human or even *spiritual* principle that transcends Judeo-Christian principles?

[ktgrok]

  Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy

 

But you seem to want it to be one. 

[zoobie]

But can you understand that if I believe that God is supreme, that His ways are the ways that will result in the greatest good for me, my children, my nation, for humanity, how could I not grieve at yet. one. more. way. in which this nation, at this place and time, is thumbing its nose at God?!? Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived. (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)

 

And lest you think it is just me, one person with this crazy viewpoint, there are more than a few people who are gay who chose to live celibate lives because they don't want to knowingly and willingly sin against God.

The whole reason that you are able to worship your god exactly as you see fit is because of this nation's laws. That's a big reason it was started, remember? Wanting the country to legislate based on religion doesn't make any sense if you want to continue to have the freedom to find your own truth. You agree with Kim Davis on this one (truly minuscule in the scheme of things) point. You likely don't agree with her on all points. And even likelier is that you don't agree with each individual elected official in your town. Imagine if each one threw out the laws and just went by whatever his god wanted. Would that work for anyone at all?

[Joker]

But can you understand that if I believe that God is supreme, that His ways are the ways that will result in the greatest good for me, my children, my nation, for humanity, how could I not grieve at yet. one. more. way. in which this nation, at this place and time, is thumbing its nose at God?!?  Yes, I understand that America is not a theocracy, but she has been blessed, and in turn the world has been a better place, as a fruit, a natural outworking of the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded upon and by which most of the nation lived.  (And no, I'm not talking about some kind of global Manifest Destiny, I'm just talking about the benefits that naturally come from lives lived well.)

 

And lest you think it is just me, one person with this crazy viewpoint, there are more than a few people who are gay who chose to live celibate lives because they don't want to knowingly and willingly sin against God. 

 

But there are also Christians who do not chose to live celibate lives yet don't feel they are knowingly and willingly sinning against God. Your belief shouldn't trump theirs. There are those who are Christian and gay who have also grieved for humanity and what they felt was a "thumbing their nose" at God because they refused to give others the rights, respect, love, and kindness they deserved.

 

I definitely believe His ways will result in the greatest good my family and for my children. That is why when my dd told us she was gay, she was still welcomed and loved the same as always. She is not judged or made to feel less in our home and family and that is most definitely best for her. Going through all of this has also brought her closer to her faith and God so I have zero doubt we've handled it the right way and she is who God made her to be.

[zoobie]

Can you explain to me what a "Judeo-Christian" principle looks like? One that is actually "Judeo-Christian" and not a human or even *spiritual* principle that transcends Judeo-Christian principles?

And how America differs in operation on Judeo-Christian principals than most of the Western World?

 

Is Judeo-Christian code for "not Muslim"? Or it is just a figure of speech?

[Halftime Hope]

Halftime, can you see how some of us are of a minority religion and value our freedom of it enough to value the freedom of religion for others? (ftr, the Orthodox Church does NOT marry LGBT people. However, under a theocracy though, other of our faith practices would be attacked also)

 

Yes, of course.  The two topics--valuing the freedom of belief and yet grieving the path this nation is taking--are not mutually exclusive.

[SKL]

I would just remind people once again that Christianity isn't the only religion that considers homosexual relations a sin.

 

Nor are all people who don't like homosexuality religious.

 

It's not as if gay people would be fully integrated and appreciated if only Christians would shut up.