KY clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses

[mommaduck]

You are right about this.  The desire is for conservative Christians to just shut up and disappear instead of adhere to the legal and moral standards that have always prevailed, until now. 

 

It's unbelievable that people can't see this. 

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them?  Or remove that duty to another state office?  What difference could that possibly make?

 

Because it isn't about that.  It is about silencing this viewpoint. 

 

1) She had forbidden everyone in her office from signing them. 

 

2) She is still forbidding it. So when she gets out, she can fire them all for disobeying her, even though they were obeying the court.

 

3) So, they should keep paying her $80k for a job she refuses to do? And pay another office to do it for her?

 

4) Her faith is against alcohol and tobacco products. I'm pretty certain she signs the business licenses for those.

[Leav97]

Laws all over the nation have always defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  It was innately understood throughout history.  It didn't need to be even stated, it was so obvious.  The legislatures fell right into the trap being set. 

 

It doesn't matter.

What does matter is the government encroachment into what one can or cannot say. 

 

Our Constitution entitles anyone to have and say the most innocuous -or  vile - opinion they wish to hold, without government interference, except in a few narrow circumstances related to safety (Yelling "Fire" in a crowded place, for example).

 

This is what is slowly being eroded and should be worrisome.    We have governmental heft behind silencing people now for their opinions or offhand statements, such as the young lady who merely mentioned offhand that their pizza parlor didn't do gay weddings (which did not exist in the state at the time).  That should concern anyone.

 

Think what you want and say what you want; it is completely immaterial to me.  But let others do the same without legal threat. 

 

 

I wish I could see America 200 years from now. 

 

could you explain the part I bolded and underlined?  I wasn't aware the government was involved in the pizza parlor.

[TranquilMind]

Like when they "moved the goalposts " and miscegenation laws were taken off the books?

 

Oh, the horror of equality! Hide your wife, hide your children!

No, this is a completely inappropriate, co-opted, and frankly, insulting comparison.  Dismissed. 

[Word Nerd]

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them?  

 

She could have done that all along but refused to allow her deputy clerks to do so—a point which has been made by many posters and in many articles linked to here.

[TranquilMind]

She could have done that all along but refused to allow her deputy clerks to do so—a point which has been made by many posters and in many articles linked to here.

I've read differing accounts of that.

 

If true, this was an easy fix that she decided not to take. 

[Mimm]

On a related note, I think it's kind of funny that some posters are insistent that the judge should ignore the law and remove her from office for ignoring the law.

 

I hope I didn't give the impression earlier in the thread that I thought the judge should ignore the law and remove her from office. I was trying to argue that he should have the power to legally remove her from office. I hate the attention this woman is getting, and I've had several petitions to free her come across my Facebook feed today. People are giving her the media time she wants, and only paying attention to the over blown rhetoric (lies) she and her lawyer are telling rather than looking at the facts of the case.

[zoobie]

No, completely inappropriate, co-opted, and frankly, insulting comparison. Dismissed.

It's really not. There were clerks and judges who refused to issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples under "religious beliefs" as well. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now.

 

This Clerk is using her personal beliefs to withhold government services from citizens. Not based on law, based on her beliefs. She simply cannot do that. Do you want elected officials to start going off the rails and doing whatever the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells them to do no matter what our laws say? Or is it okay because you agree with her?

[thessa516]

You are right about this.  The desire is for conservative Christians to just shut up and disappear instead of adhere to the legal and moral standards that have always prevailed, until now. 

 

It's unbelievable that people can't see this. 

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them?  Or remove that duty to another state office?  What difference could that possibly make?

 

Because it isn't about that.  It is about silencing this viewpoint. 

 

What?! She is specifically NOT allowing other clerks in the office to issue the licenses. She could simply let another clerk handle them, but SHE WON'T LET THEM!

 

it's not about silencing anyone! It's unbelievable to me that people can't see this.

[LucyStoner]

So people getting their licenses this morning in Rowan County were greeted by Ms. Davis' husband, waving a sign. From the NYT:

 

"On Friday morning, emotions ran high shortly after the county courthouse opened as the first couple passed through throngs of demonstrators on both sides of the issue. Supporters of Ms. Davis yelled Bible passages and held up signs, including one briefly held up by Ms. Davis’s husband, Joe Davis, that read, “Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah,â€

 

Charming people.

 

Who, I am sure, are NOT drawing people to Christ.

[TranquilMind]

Do not make assumptions. 20 years ago I didn't even see why equal marriage mattered much and argued that it didn't need to happen. On this very thread I liked a post that said that had Newsom not stopped per court order, he should have been jailed. Which is consistent with what I said at the time.

 

And if you want to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, just look at the thrice divorced adulterer you are defending. Unlike Ms. Davis, I've never gone back on my marriage vows, much less been impregnanted by one man while married to another. She's not any sort of example of good character. Perhaps she's sorry, perhaps she's changed. It doesn't change the fact that after being married in a church, she conducted herself in a manner entirely inconsistent with the religious values she wants to force on others.

I am not defending her in any matter, as this is not personal, rather, it is about policy and the balance of religious beliefs vs. newly discovered gay rights.

 

It matters if she continues to conduct herself inconsistent with Christian values from now on, for sure.

 

Even the Apostle Paul was a murderer, and turned it around. 

What she does now matters. 

 

But I'm only interested in the balance of power between religious rights and those which contradict them. 

[BrookValley.]

No, this is a completely inappropriate, co-opted, and frankly, insulting comparison. Dismissed.

Really? How is it innapropriate?

[albeto.]

Since this thread is continuing to go on and the moderator has deemed it to be non-political, I'll now write what I wanted to write several days ago...

 

Just because you would and many others would quit a job over something that requires you to do something that violates your faith shouldn't mean that this clerk must quit. She apparently doesn't want to resign.

 

People just want her to quietly go away. They want florists and bakers and pizza pie makers to just quietly go away and shut down their doors if they won't accept this new definition of marriage and participate in them.  People holding to the traditional definition of marriages are facing fines and job loss--and now jail for refusing to participate in something that violates their religious beliefs.

 

I don't have the courage to do what she's doing.  I probably wouldn't do it either, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be doing it. That used to be the beauty of religious liberty and freedom.

 

There's some problems with this explanation. The clerk isn't being called on to quit. No one wants her to quit. She's being called on to do a job she made a public contract with the people of her county to do. When she took on that job, she accepted certain responsibilities. She is now neglecting those responsibilities, and further, she is not allowing anyone to fulfill them. By racking up fees, she's stealing money from the people of her county. That's not courage, that's theft. That's arrogance.

 

The Constitution of the US does not guarantee a religious person do act according to his or her conscience without consideration for the effects it may have on others. Religion does not give a person a free pass to break the law. It guarantees Congress will make no law that prohibits the free expression of religion, and it will make no law that supports a religion. Free expression of religion refers to choosing a place of worship, and participating in the style adopted by the community. No one has locked the doors of Davis' church or prevented her or her congregation from worshiping in the way they choose. 

 

 

^^^This is a really important point, and if nothing else happens, I hope you can at least learn to recognize this. It is basic civil literacy to know your rights. You should know your own rights for your own protection, as well as the protection of those you love, and your community in general. The US has a remarkably open door policy when it comes to knowing and discussing and working to ensure these rights. If you think Davis' rights are being infringed upon, you're being tricked just as she is. You're being deceived by someone for some reason that isn't in your best interest, but in theirs. The thing is, you don't have to take my word for it. You can look at the law yourself. 

 

 

Personally, I do hope people who oppose equal marriage pipe down and get out of the way. They're doing enormously hurtful and destructive things. I imagine they don't want to be hurtful and destructive people, and yet they keep supporting policies and practices that are destructive and hurtful. I suspect within the next decade they'll be embarrassed by what they've done, or else the cognitive dissonance will be so strong they'll whitewash it and pretend they supported it all along. Those who lied to them will have moved on to some other windmill to charge, and there will be no more constant affirmation that they're doing the "right thing." It will only contribute to the image of the hypocrisy of the xian, and personally, that doesn't bother me one iota. The more people recognize how volatile and unpredictable acting on religious beliefs can be, the more people will be careful to check their beliefs against reality.  Or at least, a gal can dream. 

[albeto.]

I am not defending her in any matter, as this is not personal, rather, it is about policy and the balance of religious beliefs vs. newly discovered gay rights.

 

Because gays shouldn't have rights.

 

oh my god

[AnIslandGirl]

But I'm only interested in the balance of power between religious rights and those which contradict them. 

 

Excuse me?! Did she refuse a marriage license to those who were overweight for their gluttony or have a gynecologist on staff to ensure she only gave out marriage licenses to virgins... you would surely be insensed if that happened to one of your family members (general you, not any board member in particular)! Who is she to say what parts of her fictional storybook hold more weight than others? It is absurd that some people believe one individual has more governmental control that the letter of the law.

You say "dismissed"... why yes she should be!

[TranquilMind]

So people getting their licenses this morning in Rowan County were greeted by Ms. Davis' husband, waving a sign. From the NYT:

 

"On Friday morning, emotions ran high shortly after the county courthouse opened as the first couple passed through throngs of demonstrators on both sides of the issue. Supporters of Ms. Davis yelled Bible passages and held up signs, including one briefly held up by Ms. Davis’s husband, Joe Davis, that read, “Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah,â€

 

Charming people.

 

Who, I am sure, are NOT drawing people to Christ.

Well, I agree with that.  Not a good tactic and certainly not necessary.

[LucyStoner]

The judge who is holding her in contempt is a religious man, personally opposed to gay marriage. Some people, of all faiths and beliefs, value the separation of church and state and don't want a state religion.

 

Why does it matter that she is an adulterer (who is married to an adulterer who was today holding up a sign calling it Sodom and Gommorah)? Because I wouldn't want the Davises to have been denied their divorces and their marriage licenses because they ran across a judge or clerk like them but with a more consistent view of biblical principles. That she refuses others what she herself has done- obtaining state sanction of a marriage that defies biblically based principles is an ongoing hypocrisy, not washed away by the fact that she's repented of her sin.

 

The state is not in the business of deciding which marriages are biblical and which are not- they are issuing a civil license only for a tradition that predates Christianity. The church only started sanctioning marriages at all because couples demanded it. Church weddings are a relatively recent invention.

[Word Nerd]

I've read differing accounts of that.

 

If true, this was an easy fix that she decided not to take. 

 

I have to wonder what accounts you've been reading.

 

"She could remain a free woman, the judge said, if she gave permission to her deputies to sign the certificates in her stead. The judge gave her time to consult with her attorneys.

But when the court reconvened after a short recess Thursday, ­Davis was not in her seat. An attorney explained that Davis, an Apostolic Christian, “does not grant her authority nor would allow any employee to issue those licenses.â€"

[TranquilMind]

Excuse me?! Did she refuse a marriage license to those who were overweight for their gluttony or have a gynecologist on staff to ensure she only gave out marriage licenses to virgins... you would surely be insensed if that happened to one of your family members (general you, not any board member in particular)! Who is she to say what parts of her fictional storybook hold more weight than others? It is absurd that some people believe one individual has more governmental control that the letter of the law.

You say "dismissed"... why yes she should be!

When someone uses terms for scripture like "fictional storybook",all credibility and legitimacy is already lost.  

[TranquilMind]

Because gays shouldn't have rights.

 

oh my god

They DO have rights.  A gay person- and everyone who is a citizen- has always had every right the Constitution and the laws of this land allow to any citizen.

 

They merely had the same right to marry as everyone else:  partner must be of age, mentally competent, and of the opposite gender.

 

Now the Court dropped the last requirement for marriage creating a newly discovered right to marry someone who is of the same gender as yourself.  

 

Your mockery does not eliminate that discovery.   

[Ipsey]

They DO have rights.  A gay person- and everyone who is a citizen- has always had every right the Constitution and the laws of this land allow to any citizen.

 

They merely had the same right to marry as everyone else:  partner must be of age, mentally competent, and of the opposite gender.

 

Now the Court dropped the last requirement for marriage creating a newly discovered right to marry someone who is of the same gender as yourself.  

 

Your mockery does not eliminate that discovery.   

Praise be! 60 years ago, we identified a "newly-discovered right" to marry people who were outside of our racial background.  Isn't it lovely how we can move past bigotry and into a more positive, loving experience of life for more people?

[mommaduck]

I'm in Like Button Purgatory :/

[albeto.]

They DO have rights.  A gay person- and everyone who is a citizen- has always had every right the Constitution and the laws of this land allow to any citizen.

 

They merely had the same right to marry as everyone else:  partner must be of age, mentally competent, and of the opposite gender.

 

Now the Court dropped the last requirement for marriage creating a newly discovered right to marry someone who is of the same gender as yourself.  

 

Your mockery does not eliminate that discovery.   

 

A right isn't equally given if some of the population can't obtain it.

 

And why is it so important to specify gender? 

[SproutMamaK]

I'm in Like Button Purgatory :/

 

Divorce your previous likes. Get a new one. Rinse, repeat. By the time you've done it three times, you should be able to go back to some of your previous likes.

 

Unless you liked things by people of the same gender, of course. That would just be wrong.

[thessa516]

When someone uses terms for scripture like "fictional storybook",all credibility and legitimacy is already lost.  

 

Really???

 

Because I'm a Christian, and I don't think her credibility and legitimacy is lost. She could have just said "the Bible". It would have been less inflammatory, but her logic still stands. 

[mommaduck]

Divorce your previous likes. Get a new one. Rinse, repeat. By the time you've done it three times, you should be able to go back to some of your previous likes.

 

Unless you liked things by people of the same gender, of course. That would just be wrong.

 

:lol:

[TranquilMind]

There's some problems with this explanation. The clerk isn't being called on to quit. No one wants her to quit. She's being called on to do a job she made a public contract with the people of her county to do. When she took on that job, she accepted certain responsibilities. She is now neglecting those responsibilities, and further, she is not allowing anyone to fulfill them. By racking up fees, she's stealing money from the people of her county. That's not courage, that's theft. That's arrogance.

 

The Constitution of the US does not guarantee a religious person do act according to his or her conscience without consideration for the effects it may have on others. Religion does not give a person a free pass to break the law. It guarantees Congress will make no law that prohibits the free expression of religion, and it will make no law that supports a religion. Free expression of religion refers to choosing a place of worship, and participating in the style adopted by the community. No one has locked the doors of Davis' church or prevented her or her congregation from worshiping in the way they choose. 

 

 

^^^This is a really important point, and if nothing else happens, I hope you can at least learn to recognize this. It is basic civil literacy to know your rights. You should know your own rights for your own protection, as well as the protection of those you love, and your community in general. The US has a remarkably open door policy when it comes to knowing and discussing and working to ensure these rights. If you think Davis' rights are being infringed upon, you're being tricked just as she is. You're being deceived by someone for some reason that isn't in your best interest, but in theirs. The thing is, you don't have to take my word for it. You can look at the law yourself. 

 

 

Personally, I do hope people who oppose equal marriage pipe down and get out of the way. They're doing enormously hurtful and destructive things. I imagine they don't want to be hurtful and destructive people, and yet they keep supporting policies and practices that are destructive and hurtful. I suspect within the next decade they'll be embarrassed by what they've done, or else the cognitive dissonance will be so strong they'll whitewash it and pretend they supported it all along. Those who lied to them will have moved on to some other windmill to battle, and there will be no more constant affirmation that they're doing the "right thing." It will only contribute to the image of the hypocrisy of the xian, and personally, that doesn't bother me one iota. The more people recognize how volatile and unpredictable acting on religious beliefs can be, the more people will be careful to check their beliefs against reality.  Or at least, a gal can dream. 

You are conveniently very narrowly defining freedom of expression to suit your case. 

This is just wrong. 

 

Religious expression is the principle that grants an individual the ability to express one's beliefs publicly or privately through practice, speaking, teaching,  and worship.  It does not stop at the church (or synagogue or mosque, etc) doors. 

[TranquilMind]

A right isn't equally given if some of the population can't obtain it.

 

And why is it so important to specify gender? 

Because it is the intrinsic meaning of marriage. the joining of a man and a woman together in matrimony.   It is protected and privileged virtually entirely for children, their birth, their rearing, and their protection.  (Though it is true some are infertile, some are too old, etc, but it does not change the purpose). 

 

We all used to know this. 

 

Granted, people haven't done a stellar job, but that doesn't change the purpose.

 

Over half of all Americans are obese too, but that doesn't change the purpose of fitness and proper consumption of food.

[TranquilMind]

Praise be! 60 years ago, we identified a "newly-discovered right" to marry people who were outside of our racial background.  Isn't it lovely how we can move past bigotry and into a more positive, loving experience of life for more people?

 Inapposite and illegitimate argument, as stated.

[Sneezyone]

You are conveniently very narrowly defining freedom of expression to suit your case. 

This is just wrong. 

 

Religious expression is the principle that grants an individual the ability to express one's beliefs publicly or privately through practice, speaking, teaching,  and worship.  It does not stop at the church (or synagogue or mosque, etc) doors. 

 

Yep, and that freedom stops the moment it begins interfering with other people's free expression of their beliefs (or non-belief). In this case, she's interfering in a major way with the levers of a public, non-religious government agency. She is free to express herself all day, everyday, behind bars for failing to respect and uphold the law.

[kitten18]

I'm in Like Button Purgatory :/

I can't believe I made it through this thread with Likes to spare.

It must be a miracle.

[LucyStoner]

Unless you liked things by people of the same gender, of course. That would just be wrong.

I think this board is full of illicit same sex like affiliations. Either that or we are a Solomon sized harem of board concubines.

 

Excuse me, I need to go ask my husband if it's ok for me to post and like here so freely. I mean, I'm a married lady and all. ;)

[Sneezyone]

 Inapposite and illegitimate argument, as stated.

 

So says TranquilMind, so say we all?

[albeto.]

Because it is the intrinsic meaning of marriage. the joining of a man and a woman together in matrimony.   It is protected and privileged virtually entirely for children, their birth, their rearing, and their protection.  (Though it is true some are infertile, some are too old, etc, but it does not change the purpose). 

 

We all used to know this. 

 

Granted, people haven't done a stellar job, but that doesn't change the purpose.

 

Over half of all Americans are obese too, but that doesn't change the purpose of fitness and proper consumption of food.

 

Interesting. Thanks for explaining. 

[AnIslandGirl]

Because it is the intrinsic meaning of marriage. the joining of a man and a woman together in matrimony.   It is protected and privileged virtually entirely for children, their birth, their rearing, and their protection.  (Though it is true some are infertile, some are too old, etc, but it does not change the purpose). 

 

 

Do you not have an updated version of the dictionary? It now includes...

": the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other"

 

Marriage now includes everyone, irregardless of race or gender. Our children are so lucky to grow up in these changing times, free from bigotry.

[TranquilMind]

Yep, and that freedom stops the moment it begins interfering with other people's free expression of their beliefs (or non-belief). In this case, she's interfering in a major way with the levers of a public, non-religious government agency. She is free to express herself all day, everyday, behind bars for failing to respect and uphold the law.

 

 

 She swore to uphold the Kentucky Constitution, which recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

Now the Supreme Court has eliminated that state law by just stating out of thin air that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. 

[Sneezyone]

 She swore to uphold the Kentucky Constitution, which recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

Now the Supreme Court has eliminated that state law by just stating out of thin air that there is a Constitutional right to gay marriage. 

 

She swore to uphold a constitution WHICH NO LONGER HAS A VALID PROVISION on that point as it was INVALIDATED by a superior, federal court. The Supreme Court did not decide there was a 'right to gay marriage' they found that the state had no right to deny equal protection to same-sex couples.

[TranquilMind]

Interesting. Thanks for explaining. 

Thank you as well.

[TranquilMind]

She swore to uphold a constitution WHICH NO LONGER HAS A VALID PROVISION on that point as it was INVALIDATED by a superior, federal court.

But that was the oath and the job she took.  Her faith does not permit the redefinition of marriage to mean any two people.  A quandary indeed. 

[Sneezyone]

But that was the oath and the job she took.  Her faith does not permit the redefinition of marriage to mean any two people.  A quandary indeed. 

 

The oath my husband took is to uphold the constitution. If the constitution changes, so does the job. If my husband suddenly decides he no longer wants to follow the constitution as interpreted by the courts, he has the same choice she has...go to jail or do the job.

[chiguirre]

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them? 

Precisely! Yesterday 5 of the 6 deputies in her office said they'd issue the licenses. Judge Bunning invited her to a meeting in order for her to accept this solution and she declined to meet with the judge so the contempt of court continued and she went to jail.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

[idnib]

Not being able to refuse to uphold the law based on religious belief = more freedom and protection of your religious belief.

 

It puzzles me that this is so difficult to grasp.

 

In this woman's case, why can't she just not issue licenses and someone else in the office,  who does not adhere to traditional views of marriage, issue them? 

 

I guess you missed that part. She had that option and refused.

 

Because I wouldn't want the Davises to have been denied their divorces and their marriage licenses because they ran across a judge or clerk like them but with a more consistent view of biblical principles.

 

Yep. I absolutely would have been against anyone in the government denying her personal decision to pursue her divorces and remarriages.

[idnib]

But that was the oath and the job she took.  Her faith does not permit the redefinition of marriage to mean any two people.  A quandary indeed. 

 

So if one swears an oath to do a job, that job can never be redefined without their personal approval?

[TranquilMind]

The oath my husband took is to uphold the constitution. If the constitution changes, so does the job. If my husband suddenly decides he no longer wants to follow the constitution as interpreted by the courts, he has the same choice she has...go to jail or do the job.

There is no Constitutional right to gay recognition. 

 

The Constitution has not changed.  It has simply been erroneously interpreted by 5 of 9 judges.   

[zoobie]

But that was the oath and the job she took. Her faith does not permit the redefinition of marriage to mean any two people. A quandary indeed.

It's a self-created quandary. She took an oath to uphold a constitution that is a living document. It's not the 10 Commandments and carved in stone. Well, theoretical stone. If her religious beliefs prevent her from continuing to uphold her oath, she may resign. She's not conscripted into the job for life. That would be a violation of her religious freedom. If she had suddenly become a whatever type of Christian she claims to be *after* Obergefell came down instead before the decision (but after husband number 4, was it?), she wouldn't have a leg to stand on either. She's an elected official. She either executes the laws or resigns. The public should not be at the mercy of her religious whims.

[TranquilMind]

So if one swears an oath to do a job, that job can never be redefined without their personal approval?

Can that job be redefined Constitutionally  in a way that conflicts with another Constitutional protection?   No.

[TranquilMind]

It's a self-created quandary. She took an oath to uphold a constitution that is a living document. It's not the 10 Commandments and carved in stone. Well, theoretical stone. If her religious beliefs prevent her from continuing to uphold her oath, she may resign. She's not conscripted into the job for life. That would be a violation of her religious freedom. If she had suddenly become a whatever type of Christian she claims to be *after* Obergefell came down instead before the decision (but after husband number 4, was it?), she wouldn't have a leg to stand on either. She's an elected official. She either executes the laws or resigns. The public should not be at the mercy of her religious whims.

Well, she is being removed, so you can relax.

 

The Constitution protects her religious view and practice.  It now protects an act that contravenes her religious view.  She is going down, but took a stand.

Don't worry.  She is still going down.  We have decided as a nation that the right to gay marriage is more important than traditional religious views. 

[TranquilMind]

Precisely! Yesterday 5 of the 6 deputies in her office said they'd issue the licenses. Judge Bunning invited her to a meeting in order for her to accept this solution and she declined to meet with the judge so the contempt of court continued and she went to jail.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

No arguments there.  She should render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.  Caesar has spoken. 

[TranquilMind]

 

Do you not have an updated version of the dictionary? It now includes...

": the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other"

 

Marriage now includes everyone, irregardless of race or gender. Our children are so lucky to grow up in these changing times, free from bigotry.

 

As of a couple of years ago, yes, the definition has changed secularly.

 

It has never and will never change biblically.   It doesn't matter where we go with it....and we are off on that trail. 

[albeto.]

It puzzles me that this is so difficult to grasp.

 

You know, I think that's because we're looking at it from different angles. I hear one element throughout these arguments for conserving an oppressive public policy - fear (and I know people who support it won't think it's oppressive, but by definition anything that denies the rights of individuals is oppressive, so of course they'll deny any rights are being denied...). What I see is that people are upset, frightened really, that society has moved on from this vague "golden era." Certain, traditionally respected beliefs and behaviors are no longer valued. They're not only irrelevant to most people, they're considered unkind, if not immoral. For those who believe security is found following specific social roles, it can be very frightening to see those roles increasingly disregarded and left behind. I think that's too bad. I find fear to be an awfully unpleasant lens through which to view life. I don't mean this sarcastically, I'm intimately familiar with the feeling myself. It's detrimental to one's emotional and physical health. I know this objectively, and I've experienced it myself.

 

This generation must face the supposed threat of homosexuality which conspires to overthrow decent society. Previous generations had to contend with the threat of heavy metal music. Before that, rock and roll was going to be the downfall of society. Before that, television. Before that, short skirts. Before that...

 

I hope people who are afraid can find some kind of relief, and it seems to me the source they rely on - their religious community - is the very source that stirs up more fear. I think people deserve better than to be emotionally manipulated like that. I hope they can see through the lies and conspiracy theories and learn to embrace and enjoy life, with all its wonders and all its risks, and learn how to seize the day (not yesterday, not tomorrow, not the day after they die). 

[TranquilMind]

You know, I think that's because we're looking at it from different angles. I hear one element throughout these arguments for conserving an oppressive public policy - fear (and I know people who support it won't think it's oppressive, but by definition anything that denies the rights of individuals is oppressive, so of course they'll deny any rights are being denied...). What I see is that people are upset, frightened really, that society has moved on from this vague "golden era." Certain, traditionally respected beliefs and behaviors are no longer valued. They're not only irrelevant to most people, they're considered unkind, if not immoral. For those who believe security is found following specific social roles, it can be very frightening to see those roles increasingly disregarded and left behind. I think that's too bad. I find fear to be an awfully unpleasant lens through which to view life. I don't mean this sarcastically, I'm intimately familiar with the feeling myself. It's detrimental to one's emotional and physical health. I know this objectively, and I've experienced it myself.

 

This generation must face the supposed threat of homosexuality which conspires to overthrow decent society. Previous generations had to contend with the threat of heavy metal music. Before that, rock and roll was going to be the downfall of society. Before that, television. Before that, short skirts. Before that...

 

I hope people who are afraid can find some kind of relief, and it seems to me the source they rely on - their religious community - is the very source that stirs up more fear. I think people deserve better than to be emotionally manipulated like that. I hope they can see through the lies and conspiracy theories and learn to embrace and enjoy life, with all its wonders and all its risks, and learn how to seize the day (not yesterday, not tomorrow, not the day after they die). 

Equating a bunch of non-equivalent issues  - like rock music -  with the truth of what marriage is is just ridiculous and you know it.   There is absolutely no fear when one does what his conscience requires, and it is confusing that you find it fearful.  I guess it was for you, back when you were a Catholic, but this isn't reality.