Allegiance to God or The State? Heavenly vs. Earthly Authority

[Philip]

In one way, I greatly admire that this lady is following what she thinks is the right course, as she undoubtedly sees it as God-honoring, and she's willing to suffer for it. She clearly sees her personal signature on an official document seeing a state-recognized union that God sees as an abomination and a mockery of what HE says marriage really is. The problem is that she has inconsistently applied her reasoning as to what to stand up to. MANY coming to her courthouse for marriage certificates have been married before, divorced for things other than adultery or abuse, OR they aren't even Christians. These, as well, are not God-ordained marriages - but she signed off on THOSE. So she's picking and choosing what to put her signature on that God doesn't approve of. But sometimes, God puts a stone in our path that gets our attention as to the rest of the things we look the other way on. Gay marriage is hers. She needs to resign.

The other question is, is she PERSONALLY endorsing gay marriage by merely signing a court document of ANY unGodly union (gay OR heterosexual)? Of is she merely doing her duty as an official of the court? That's a personal question.

Lastly, if ANYONE truly thinks this issue, from the perspective of those militantly supporting and pursuing a homosexual/often anti-God agenda, is merely about a clerk of some state court, they are incredibly naive! There is an element (whatever the size of that element) that is looking for all possible ways to exploit the courts through strategic lawsuits to attack Christians' rights to live out their Christian beliefs as they see fit, in the course of their daily jobs or whatever present freedoms they so enjoy. The way U.S. law works is that key judges can view legal proceedings and legalese language very differently. Lawyers are always looking to see how they can attack using the law and lawsuits to do so. The interpretation of the legalese of law is a constantly slippery slope - and that is why those with the militant homosexual agenda are now looking for the lowest hanging fruit to pluck through lawsuits. I can guarantee the personal rights of pastors and ministers, and those of churches, are front and center of those core militants' agenda.

[melanie]

Philip, perhaps the question is does the 'church' view homosexuals as anti-God and placed them into this militant perverse, God hating group that seeks to destroy at any cost the integrity and belief system of Christians verses the actual reality of the situation.
Homosexuals at not militant, God hating people. Sure there are some with agendas but that scenario as far as I see it, roles across the board. Extremism and extreme views are evident across the spectrum.
The dangers that present themselves in dealing with this issue are far reaching, which also includes the exact kind of thinking you have presented. There are also issues regarding how some people on the other side of the fence are expressing and pursuing their agenda.
I don't think it's a case of naivety, but thought out, well rounded, informed thinking free of extremism, and fear based arguments that does not lend itself to resolution but an ongoing them versus us mindset which only leads to misunderstanding and antagonism.

[Philip]

Melanie: Philip, perhaps the question is does the 'church' view homosexuals as anti-God and placed them into this militant perverse, God hating group that seeks to destroy at any cost the integrity and belief system of Christians verses the actual reality of the situation.

Homosexuals at not militant, God hating people. Sure there are some with agendas but that scenario as far as I see it, roles across the board. Extremism and extreme views are evident across the spectrum.

Mel, MOST homosexuals and those who don't see anything wrong with it are NOT part of my described aggressive and militant core. But, that militant core and their supporters are definitely strategizing how to legally take away the rights of Christians (in the U.S.) to live out their faith as they so see God honoring. One huge problem is the state tying benefits to marriage - the state has no business having ANYTHING to do with marriage, WHATEVER ones beliefs or orientation.

Mel, I do hope you can see my concern has nothing to do with not loving and caring about homosexuals - that would be a peversion of my views, as well as NOT honoring God's instructions to love ALL. People are free to live their lives as they want to, AS LONG AS their beliefs aren't allowed to trample my ability to live out my faith as I so desire to. And, I would feel the same about ANY groups of any beliefs doing so!

[neo-x]

I don't think her brave at all, just a hypocrite. One who thinks her wrongs can be forgiven by God (which are plenty) and gives her the ability to judge others because she is righteous. A prideful believer if I may say so. A new convert (4 year Pentecostal), quite fresh who thinks she has the answers. Imagine you living in a muslim country and a muslim clerk refuses to give you a christian marriage license, that is insane.

I agree with Rick on this, if you don't agree just resign but I guess $80k an year could be tempting.

[neo-x]

Melanie: Philip, perhaps the question is does the 'church' view homosexuals as anti-God and placed them into this militant perverse, God hating group that seeks to destroy at any cost the integrity and belief system of Christians verses the actual reality of the situation.

Homosexuals at not militant, God hating people. Sure there are some with agendas but that scenario as far as I see it, roles across the board. Extremism and extreme views are evident across the spectrum.

Mel, MOST homosexuals and those who don't see anything wrong with it are NOT part of my described aggressive and militant core. But, that militant core and their supporters are definitely strategizing how to legally take away the rights of Christians (in the U.S.) to live out their faith as they so see God honoring. One huge problem is the state tying benefits to marriage - the state has no business having ANYTHING to do with marriage, WHATEVER ones beliefs or orientation.

Mel, I do hope you can see my concern has nothing to do with not loving and caring about homosexuals - that would be a peversion of my views, as well as NOT honoring God's instructions to love ALL. People are free to live their lives as they want to, AS LONG AS their beliefs aren't allowed to trample my ability to live out my faith as I so desire to. And, I would feel the same about ANY groups of any beliefs doing so!

I think Govt needs to be in a place where you are given your rights but they have to make sure that your rights don't impeach someone else's. Kim Davis has the right to reject homo marriages, but she doesn't have the right to stop others from doing so. No one asked her to endorse gay marriage.

[theophilus]

Kim Davis has legal grounds for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples without saying anything about her beliefs. The state of Kentucky doesn't legally recognize same sex marriage and she could simply say she is obeying the law rather than the Supreme Court. It is likely that the court ruling will eventually lead to a change in the state's laws but until that happens there is no conflict between the law and her beliefs.

Opponents of same sex marriage are often accused of hating gays but in fact it those who favor such marriage that are actually hurting gay people. They are encouraging gays to engage in practices that are against God's laws and in doing so they are exposing them to God,s judgment. Christians who love gays show that love by warning them against same sex practice and showing them how they can be forgiven. Satan has succeeded in confusing the thinking of our society so that those who try to show gays the truth are called their enemies and those who help to mislead them are called their friends.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -of-light/

[Philip]

NEO: I think Govt needs to be in a place where you are given your rights but they have to make sure that your rights don't impeach someone else's. Kim Davis has the right to reject homo marriages, but she doesn't have the right to stop others from doing so. No one asked her to endorse gay marriage.

I agree. But it's not a matter of her being a hypocrite - at least on the matter of homosexual marriage - her hypocrisy comes in where she has been highly selective by applying Godly standards ONLY to that specific segment of those seeking marriage and not to countless others not meeting His standards for marriages that she has gladly signed off on. And IF she sees her signature on ANY unBibically sanctioned marriage licenses as a PERSONAL validation of their spiritual appropriateness, then she needs to resign. But she wants to keep her paycheck, YET not BE WILLING do what the state says that job requires. She wants to have BOTH, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. I think a few weeks of jail cuisine will produce her resignation.

The other issue is, who is actually sinning in these unions - her or the ones getting married? Can she not state her personal spiritual opposition while carrying out a bureacratic, mandated function of the state? What would YOU do?

The baker of wedding cakes can avoid this situation by no longer offering wedding cakes to ANYONE - which as a businessman running his own business he SHOULD be able to decide what services he will or won't offer. Perhaps, he could be compelled to sell UNDECORATED cakes to ALL, but could not be forced to sell ones with decorated for "Adam and Steve."

[melanie]

Melanie: Philip, perhaps the question is does the 'church' view homosexuals as anti-God and placed them into this militant perverse, God hating group that seeks to destroy at any cost the integrity and belief system of Christians verses the actual reality of the situation.

Homosexuals at not militant, God hating people. Sure there are some with agendas but that scenario as far as I see it, roles across the board. Extremism and extreme views are evident across the spectrum.

Mel, MOST homosexuals and those who don't see anything wrong with it are NOT part of my described aggressive and militant core. But, that militant core and their supporters are definitely strategizing how to legally take away the rights of Christians (in the U.S.) to live out their faith as they so see God honoring. One huge problem is the state tying benefits to marriage - the state has no business having ANYTHING to do with marriage, WHATEVER ones beliefs or orientation.

Mel, I do hope you can see my concern has nothing to do with not loving and caring about homosexuals - that would be a peversion of my views, as well as NOT honoring God's instructions to love ALL. People are free to live their lives as they want to, AS LONG AS their beliefs aren't allowed to trample my ability to live out my faith as I so desire to. And, I would feel the same about ANY groups of any beliefs doing so!

Knowing you as best a person can in this internet world, I have no doubt Philip that you care and love all including homosexuals.
I also acknowledge that I don't live in the States so perhaps my grasp on the situation is more from an outsider looking in, but I can draw on parallels because we are having the same issues here in Australia. With perhaps one major difference, I don't believe our religious freedom has been impacted to the same degree.
My eldest two children have attended Catholic schools, but my youngest two next year will be going to a state school. I had a conversation with a principle a few weeks back and asked about religious education within State Primary Schools. All children have access to Christian Education, for an hour a week, in school time across every school in my state. Of course it is optional but when I asked him how many students were attending he said that in the 20 years that he has been Princible it has always been the majority.
So whilst state schools in the U.S. if my understanding is correct has no religious education that is conducted in school time, here in Australia state schools continue to do so.
I was shocked to realise that there are atheist groups within the U.S. that have websites asking people to report if any school is providing Biblical literature so that they can distribute counter atheist material to the students.
I came across one of these websites when I was responding to a post of EdwardMurphy.
There is clearly an agenda.
That boy who was asked to not pray in study time, I don't remember much more details of the case but I believe he took it to the courts and lost. That makes me mad. It's wrong. Not because he is Christian solely, even if he were Muslim and quietly praying with a few friends, during open study time, my response would be the same. I feel it is impeding on a person's rights.
So I'm not discrediting that there are militant groups with political influence who are pushing an agenda. It is clearly targeted towards Christians and religious freedom. And I'm not okay with it.

But I think it's important to not conflate homosexuals seeking marriage equality with individuals and groups with a political agenda to undermine religious freedom.
There is a degree of separation and I believe it's pretty large.
No doubt there are homosexuals within this group, along with heterosexuals. I would dare say that majority are heterosexual atheists.
Could they use marriage equality to further their agenda, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a political tactic, being employed to push what is no doubt an anti-God agenda.
But, and it's a pretty big but, this is NOT the agenda of the homosexual community as a whole. Most polls show that around half of homosexuals indentify as Christian. A much smaller percentage are atheists, with most polls showing around the 8-10 percent.
That is the point I was trying to get across in my previous post.
Motivation is important. The gay community's motivation was not to undermine the church, it was to have the right to marry. It is a consequence that this right violates many Christians beliefs but it is not their motivation.
If militant atheists want to twist the issue and use it as their motivation, I just don't think it's fair to lump that on the shoulders of the gay community.
It was the language you used that I took offence at. The militant, God hating, homosexuals.
This is not a cross section of the agenda of the gay community.
They are not God hating. Christians make up the biggest demographic percentage of homosexuals. Are they mixed up in their interpretations of scripture to justify a behaviour that they find impossible to control, quite possibly. It's a hard road to be a homosexual Christian. I am filled with compassion for them.
Hate the sin love the sinner.
Easier said than done. Love is kind, it is patient, it is rooted in compassion and understanding.
I think too few within the church truly mean or understand what love requires when we have drawn a line in the sand and placed them on the outside. If we 'fix' them then they can enter into the circle. Until then the line must be drawn, right?
Them and us.
The struggles that homosexual teens and young adults face is heart breaking. They are pushed out from their family homes, they are ostracised, when they 'come out', they church turns their back on them. I have read countless stories where this has been the case. The advice that so many churches gives to parents of homosexual teens, is tragic and it has tragic consequences.
Suicide rates of homosexual teens is alarming.
I read a while back the diary of a homosexual teenager who was a Christian, being raised by Christian parents.
This young man, prayed to God, begged Him to make him normal, prayed to have the desires taken away. The parents prayed, the church prayed, they took him to Christian counselling. He was told over and over again, these desires were evil, that God loved him, but hated homosexuality, that he must not ever give into the devil who was driving these tendencies. He was told they loved him, but hated the sin, his sin.
All this boy learnt was hate.
He hated himself, he thought God hated him and that he would dissapoint his parents and ultimately they would hate him.
He hung himself in his bedroom.

There is a blog, that is run by Christian parents who pushed their son out of their family home because he was gay. They never kicked him out, but he knew that to live under their roof he had to get all the 'gay' thoughts out of his head. The parents said how terrified they were that their son would come home with a boyfriend. They were so fearful of him being involved in the lifestyle. He ended up on the streets, addicted to drugs and died of an overdose.
When he was on the streets and they had lost contact, they realised how wrong they had been. How the fear changed for them, it was no longer that he would come home with a boyfriend but in a body bag.
Which is what happened.
They now run a hostel for Christian homosexual youths who have been kicked out of their family home, and run a ministry.
They have been inundated with hate mail, from the Christian community. All saying how they are condoning the behaviour. They are just trying to stop these children from dying, from hating themselves.
They are also trying to work through the grief, regret and shame for the way they treated their son.

Love is unconditional.
We are all sinners.
We are all broken in need of Jesus.
The Church has treated gays like they are the epitome of sinfulness. They have been called every damning name under the sun. They are sinful, evil, wicked, depraved, abominations in the sight of The Lord. We tell them that we love them then treat them with fear and suspicion and often loathing. Like the notion that the next step for the gay agenda is to force pastors to marry them against their religious beliefs. The evil, God hating gays are looking to undermine the church in what ever way they can. This is the start of their evil agenda, just wait and see what they will pull out next in their evil plan is to destroy our faith.
We treat them like their gayness is the sum of who are they are. And that equates to placing them outside of the line we have drawn in the sand.

We preach love but we project hate.
When we should be projecting compassion and understanding.
We shouldn't be drawing lines in the sand but erasing them. Closing the divide not widening it.
Embracing them.
Just as they are.
Broken.
Stumbling like the rest of us.
Jesus died for all of us, for every sin. His grace covers the sins of the world.
They are not too broken for Jesus, or too sinful.

They are no more the sum of their greatest sins and struggles than any of us.
But they live in sin, is what is said.
News flash.....
We all live in sin.
But we can't condone it. No one is asking us too.
Do we condone every sin that every person walks in struggle against. We don't condone greed, lust, selfishness, pride, vanity, anger, impatience, arrogance and the myriad of other sinful behaviour that we all fall and fail in everyday.
Yes they are sinners.
And they are children of God.

They need to know they are wanted, needed, important, worthy and loved within the family of Christ. That the church is waiting eager and with open arms to embrace them. Then I trust in God, I trust in the Holy Spirit to work in them in whatever way according to His plan and purpose.
We have a responsibility in our thoughts, our words, our actions and what we project into the world to make sure that we are not alienating anyone from the light and love of Christ.
I worry that we are over zealous in pointing out their sin at every opportunity available and under emphasising their worth and importance to God.

I am not a Christian who believes ohh there's nothing wrong with it, I am a Christian who believes there's something wrong with all of us, and God loves us anyway.
Show them love as it is the pathway to God.
The Almighty will work within their hearts and accomplish the rest. That may mean they still struggle but that is between themselves and God and it is not our place to act as judge and executioner.

I have seriously rambled on too much....
I am passionate about God, I'm passionate about people and I'm passionate about projecting the importance of embracing all of Gods children no matter how lost and broken they may seem.

Peace

[RickD]

Kim Davis has legal grounds for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples without saying anything about her beliefs. The state of Kentucky doesn't legally recognize same sex marriage and she could simply say she is obeying the law rather than the Supreme Court. It is likely that the court ruling will eventually lead to a change in the state's laws but until that happens there is no conflict between the law and her beliefs.

Opponents of same sex marriage are often accused of hating gays but in fact it those who favor such marriage that are actually hurting gay people. They are encouraging gays to engage in practices that are against God's laws and in doing so they are exposing them to God,s judgment. Christians who love gays show that love by warning them against same sex practice and showing them how they can be forgiven. Satan has succeeded in confusing the thinking of our society so that those who try to show gays the truth are called their enemies and those who help to mislead them are called their friends.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -of-light/

The problem with this, is that in the U.S., when there's a disagreement between federal law and state law, like there is in this case, federal law trumps state law.

So, if I'm not mistaken, she really has no legal grounds to stand on.
****Edit****
See The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption.

[neo-x]

Melanie: Philip, perhaps the question is does the 'church' view homosexuals as anti-God and placed them into this militant perverse, God hating group that seeks to destroy at any cost the integrity and belief system of Christians verses the actual reality of the situation.

Homosexuals at not militant, God hating people. Sure there are some with agendas but that scenario as far as I see it, roles across the board. Extremism and extreme views are evident across the spectrum.

Mel, MOST homosexuals and those who don't see anything wrong with it are NOT part of my described aggressive and militant core. But, that militant core and their supporters are definitely strategizing how to legally take away the rights of Christians (in the U.S.) to live out their faith as they so see God honoring. One huge problem is the state tying benefits to marriage - the state has no business having ANYTHING to do with marriage, WHATEVER ones beliefs or orientation.

Mel, I do hope you can see my concern has nothing to do with not loving and caring about homosexuals - that would be a peversion of my views, as well as NOT honoring God's instructions to love ALL. People are free to live their lives as they want to, AS LONG AS their beliefs aren't allowed to trample my ability to live out my faith as I so desire to. And, I would feel the same about ANY groups of any beliefs doing so!

Knowing you as best a person can in this internet world, I have no doubt Philip that you care and love all including homosexuals.
I also acknowledge that I don't live in the States so perhaps my grasp on the situation is more from an outsider looking in, but I can draw on parallels because we are having the same issues here in Australia. With perhaps one major difference, I don't believe our religious freedom has been impacted to the same degree.
My eldest two children have attended Catholic schools, but my youngest two next year will be going to a state school. I had a conversation with a principle a few weeks back and asked about religious education within State Primary Schools. All children have access to Christian Education, for an hour a week, in school time across every school in my state. Of course it is optional but when I asked him how many students were attending he said that in the 20 years that he has been Princible it has always been the majority.
So whilst state schools in the U.S. if my understanding is correct has no religious education that is conducted in school time, here in Australia state schools continue to do so.
I was shocked to realise that there are atheist groups within the U.S. that have websites asking people to report if any school is providing Biblical literature so that they can distribute counter atheist material to the students.
I came across one of these websites when I was responding to a post of EdwardMurphy.
There is clearly an agenda.
That boy who was asked to not pray in study time, I don't remember much more details of the case but I believe he took it to the courts and lost. That makes me mad. It's wrong. Not because he is Christian solely, even if he were Muslim and quietly praying with a few friends, during open study time, my response would be the same. I feel it is impeding on a person's rights.
So I'm not discrediting that there are militant groups with political influence who are pushing an agenda. It is clearly targeted towards Christians and religious freedom. And I'm not okay with it.

But I think it's important to not conflate homosexuals seeking marriage equality with individuals and groups with a political agenda to undermine religious freedom.
There is a degree of separation and I believe it's pretty large.
No doubt there are homosexuals within this group, along with heterosexuals. I would dare say that majority are heterosexual atheists.
Could they use marriage equality to further their agenda, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a political tactic, being employed to push what is no doubt an anti-God agenda.
But, and it's a pretty big but, this is NOT the agenda of the homosexual community as a whole. Most polls show that around half of homosexuals indentify as Christian. A much smaller percentage are atheists, with most polls showing around the 8-10 percent.
That is the point I was trying to get across in my previous post.
Motivation is important. The gay community's motivation was not to undermine the church, it was to have the right to marry. It is a consequence that this right violates many Christians beliefs but it is not their motivation.
If militant atheists want to twist the issue and use it as their motivation, I just don't think it's fair to lump that on the shoulders of the gay community.
It was the language you used that I took offence at. The militant, God hating, homosexuals.
This is not a cross section of the agenda of the gay community.
They are not God hating. Christians make up the biggest demographic percentage of homosexuals. Are they mixed up in their interpretations of scripture to justify a behaviour that they find impossible to control, quite possibly. It's a hard road to be a homosexual Christian. I am filled with compassion for them.
Hate the sin love the sinner.
Easier said than done. Love is kind, it is patient, it is rooted in compassion and understanding.
I think too few within the church truly mean or understand what love requires when we have drawn a line in the sand and placed them on the outside. If we 'fix' them then they can enter into the circle. Until then the line must be drawn, right?
Them and us.
The struggles that homosexual teens and young adults face is heart breaking. They are pushed out from their family homes, they are ostracised, when they 'come out', they church turns their back on them. I have read countless stories where this has been the case. The advice that so many churches gives to parents of homosexual teens, is tragic and it has tragic consequences.
Suicide rates of homosexual teens is alarming.
I read a while back the diary of a homosexual teenager who was a Christian, being raised by Christian parents.
This young man, prayed to God, begged Him to make him normal, prayed to have the desires taken away. The parents prayed, the church prayed, they took him to Christian counselling. He was told over and over again, these desires were evil, that God loved him, but hated homosexuality, that he must not ever give into the devil who was driving these tendencies. He was told they loved him, but hated the sin, his sin.
All this boy learnt was hate.
He hated himself, he thought God hated him and that he would dissapoint his parents and ultimately they would hate him.
He hung himself in his bedroom.

There is a blog, that is run by Christian parents who pushed their son out of their family home because he was gay. They never kicked him out, but he knew that to live under their roof he had to get all the 'gay' thoughts out of his head. The parents said how terrified they were that their son would come home with a boyfriend. They were so fearful of him being involved in the lifestyle. He ended up on the streets, addicted to drugs and died of an overdose.
When he was on the streets and they had lost contact, they realised how wrong they had been. How the fear changed for them, it was no longer that he would come home with a boyfriend but in a body bag.
Which is what happened.
They now run a hostel for Christian homosexual youths who have been kicked out of their family home, and run a ministry.
They have been inundated with hate mail, from the Christian community. All saying how they are condoning the behaviour. They are just trying to stop these children from dying, from hating themselves.
They are also trying to work through the grief, regret and shame for the way they treated their son.

Love is unconditional.
We are all sinners.
We are all broken in need of Jesus.
The Church has treated gays like they are the epitome of sinfulness. They have been called every damning name under the sun. They are sinful, evil, wicked, depraved, abominations in the sight of The Lord. We tell them that we love them then treat them with fear and suspicion and often loathing. Like the notion that the next step for the gay agenda is to force pastors to marry them against their religious beliefs. The evil, God hating gays are looking to undermine the church in what ever way they can. This is the start of their evil agenda, just wait and see what they will pull out next in their evil plan is to destroy our faith.
We treat them like their gayness is the sum of who are they are. And that equates to placing them outside of the line we have drawn in the sand.

We preach love but we project hate.
When we should be projecting compassion and understanding.
We shouldn't be drawing lines in the sand but erasing them. Closing the divide not widening it.
Embracing them.
Just as they are.
Broken.
Stumbling like the rest of us.
Jesus died for all of us, for every sin. His grace covers the sins of the world.
They are not too broken for Jesus, or too sinful.

They are no more the sum of their greatest sins and struggles than any of us.
But they live in sin, is what is said.
News flash.....
We all live in sin.
But we can't condone it. No one is asking us too.
Do we condone every sin that every person walks in struggle against. We don't condone greed, lust, selfishness, pride, vanity, anger, impatience, arrogance and the myriad of other sinful behaviour that we all fall and fail in everyday.
Yes they are sinners.
And they are children of God.

They need to know they are wanted, needed, important, worthy and loved within the family of Christ. That the church is waiting eager and with open arms to embrace them. Then I trust in God, I trust in the Holy Spirit to work in them in whatever way according to His plan and purpose.
We have a responsibility in our thoughts, our words, our actions and what we project into the world to make sure that we are not alienating anyone from the light and love of Christ.
I worry that we are over zealous in pointing out their sin at every opportunity available and under emphasising their worth and importance to God.

I am not a Christian who believes ohh there's nothing wrong with it, I am a Christian who believes there's something wrong with all of us, and God loves us anyway.
Show them love as it is the pathway to God.
The Almighty will work within their hearts and accomplish the rest. That may mean they still struggle but that is between themselves and God and it is not our place to act as judge and executioner.

I have seriously rambled on too much....
I am passionate about God, I'm passionate about people and I'm passionate about projecting the importance of embracing all of Gods children no matter how lost and broken they may seem.

Peace

Well said, Mel! well said!

[Kurieuo]

Kim Davis has legal grounds for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples without saying anything about her beliefs. The state of Kentucky doesn't legally recognize same sex marriage and she could simply say she is obeying the law rather than the Supreme Court. It is likely that the court ruling will eventually lead to a change in the state's laws but until that happens there is no conflict between the law and her beliefs.

Opponents of same sex marriage are often accused of hating gays but in fact it those who favor such marriage that are actually hurting gay people. They are encouraging gays to engage in practices that are against God's laws and in doing so they are exposing them to God,s judgment. Christians who love gays show that love by warning them against same sex practice and showing them how they can be forgiven. Satan has succeeded in confusing the thinking of our society so that those who try to show gays the truth are called their enemies and those who help to mislead them are called their friends.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -of-light/

The problem with this, is that in the U.S., when there's a disagreement between federal law and state law, like there is in this case, federal law trumps state law.

So, if I'm not mistaken, she really has no legal grounds to stand on.
****Edit****
See The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption.

The fact she got jail time, shows stupidity.

It's a simple issue in my eyes.
She can't do her government appointed job = she gets fired.
Sadly, values will conflict. And she lucks out.
Because she receives her employment from government. It is a government job.
Jail time is seriously stupid. PC gone mad and that is communist-like persecution imo.

She shouldn't be forced to concede her values.
Rather, she should fight for her right to believe and act in the manner she sees is right.
If there is conflict between her values and associated behaviour, and her government appointed job,
then someone else in government intervenes to remove her from the position. Simple. That's it.

On another front, it's stupidity to me that people concede governments have a right to define what is/isn't marriage.
Natural law, is well natural law. No one can change that. Marriage is what it is by design. We can ignore that, at our detriment.
We can even call something else "marriage" like male-male, female-female, human-dog, human-car... but, at the end of the day there is only one design we see in nature which forms the basis of families.

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
It's a simple issue in my eyes.
She can't do her government appointed job = she gets fired.

The issue with that, is that she's an elected official, and by law, cannot be fired. She would have to be impeached.

So, not so simple now, is it?

Kurieuo wrote:
Jail time is seriously stupid. PC gone mad and that is communist-like persecution imo.

There's really no other option for the courts. She has a lot of people who would support her monetarily, so if the judge fined her, it really would do no good.

Kurieuo wrote:
She shouldn't be forced to concede her values.
Rather, she should fight for her right to believe and act in the manner she sees is right.

She's not being forced to concede her values. And, she is fighting. But, her "values" seem to be a "pick and choose" what's wrong, and ignore other wrong things. She's not consistent. She claims issuing same sex marriage licenses is wrong in the eyes of God, while seeing no problem with issuing marriage licenses to those who are divorced and want to remarry. And, as Philip mentioned, she has no problem issuing marriage licenses to unbelievers, who aren't seeking God's approval for their marriage.

Kurieuo wrote:
If there is conflict between her values and associated behaviour, and her government appointed job,
then someone else in government intervenes to remove her from the position. Simple. That's it.

Sorry, wrong again. Not so simple. She was elected to her position. She'd have to be impeached.

Kurieuo wrote:
On another front, it's stupidity to me that people concede governments have a right to define what is/isn't marriage. Natural law, is well natural law. No one can change that. Marriage is what it is by design. We can ignore that, at our detriment.
We can even call something else "marriage" like male-male, female-female, human-dog, human-car... but, at the end of the day there is only one design we see in nature which forms the basis of families.

The govt. defines what is marriage according to the law. Not according to God or nature. Marriage, by govt. definition, seems to be a contract between two people.(For now. Until polygamy is legal)

It all comes down to the simple fact that she is paid by the govt. to issue "marriage licenses" or contracts to people who can legally receive them. She took an oath to obey the law. Even though her state, at the moment, doesn't recognize same sex marriage, the Supreme Court has spoken. Same sex marriage IS marriage, in the eyes of the govt. We may not like the law, but it is the law. And if you are being paid to do a job by the govt., you need to follow the laws of that govt. Or simply resign your position. Don't like playing by the rules of the govt. which you took an oath to obey, then quit. That is, if obeying your conscience is more important than $80k a year.

[Kurieuo]

Ok, RickD. I eat my words re: her being government appointed.
Clearly, I didn't know. Looks like it's at a cross roads then. She still should not be jailed.
And if she can be taken to court and jailed, than surely she can be taken to court and still dismissed.
It's just silly. I don't know how it works though, being elected to her position and what that all means.

I still stick to my points that the government doesn't define marriage. Society doesn't.
This is separate talk from the woman that received a jail sentence...

Once one understands natural law, than it's obvious we don't define it anymore than we define procreation.
The intended design in nature in evident to all, belief or no belief in God. The uniting (marrying) of two together.
Importance of the humans to carry on a survive through the design of families.

If the government banned marriage tomorrow, then it'd continue.
If it said we can marry chimps, it'd still continue in its legitimate form.
People today don't know what marriage is about. It isn't just about love.
Any Christian should understand what marriage is about and it's intended design.

Churches today have bowed to the government, ignoring what marriage is really about.
And I saw this coming way back when I was didn't have a marriage certificate and people judged.
Churches have ruined couples because they don't have a certificate of marriage government endorsed.
I spit on the governments, who think they have the authority. In actuality, they just want to regulate it.

That includes churches who bow to government as the final authority and certifying authority of marriage here on Earth.
They should all really be rejecting the government, and just certifying marriages in their own right. Imagine that?
If churches didn't legally officialise marriages on behalf to government, then to properly regulate the government would have to employ a heck of a lot more public servants to endorse civil unions or their own idea of "marriage".

I'm really speaking off the cuff here, but I see government as having no place in defining marriage.
And I see that a great deal of homosexual couples would actually agree with this.
So why doesn't the government just give up it's control of regulating it?

[neo-x]

@K,

who then should regulate it?

[RickD]

K wrote:
Ok, RickD. I eat my words re: her being government appointed.
Clearly, I didn't know. Looks like it's at a cross roads then. She still should not be jailed.

I asked the same question myself, about being fired. Then I found out she can't be. The problem with being jailed, is that the judge is put in the position of having to follow the law. Apparently, the judge is a Christian too. And he told her that she has to obey the oath she took as she was sworn in to her position. He has to do his job. Even if he doesn't like the consequences. She took an oath to obey the law. Did she ever consider that the law might conflict with her conscience? She has a duty to do the best job she can, for the taxpayers that are paying her generous salary. If she can't do the job she took an oath to do, and is getting paid to do, then she needs to resign. I'm sure there's no shortage of people who would happily do an $80k a year desk job.

K wrote:
And if she can be taken to court and jailed, than surely she can be taken to court and still dismissed.

I don't think it's that simple. The judge has to do something to get her to comply with the law, or HE may be impeached.

K wrote:
It's just silly. I don't know how it works though, being elected to her position and what that all means.

It's just not as simple as it seems on the surface.

K wrote:
I still stick to my points that the government doesn't define marriage. Society doesn't.
This is separate talk from the woman that received a jail sentence...

I agree. And I think the best solution to this, would be for the govt. to call all of these contracts what they are. They're contracts.

K wrote:
Once one understands natural law, than it's obvious we don't define it anymore than we define procreation.
The intended design in nature in evident to all, belief or no belief in God. The uniting (marrying) of two together.
Importance of the humans to carry on a survive through the design of families.

Sure. That seems easy enough to understand.

K wrote:
If the government banned marriage tomorrow, then it'd continue.
If it said we can marry chimps, it'd still continue in its legitimate form.
People today don't know what marriage is about. It isn't just about love.
Any Christian should understand what marriage is about and it's intended design.

Yes. And sadly, many people today agree with the govt., and think marriage is simply a love contract that can be broken whenever either party wants to.

K wrote:
Churches today have bowed to the government, ignoring what marriage is really about.
And I saw this coming way back when I was didn't have a marriage certificate and people judged.
Churches have ruined couples because they don't have a certificate of marriage government endorsed.
I spit on the governments, who think they have the authority. In actuality, they just want to regulate it.

Not just regulate it, but tax it too. Isn't govt. all about controlling the masses?