I forget, how should we mourn? We didn't redefine marriage. When African Americans got their freedom, they didn't redefine freedom. They should've had it in the first place. When women and native Americans (for Christ sake!) were allowed to vote, they were not redefining voting. They should've had that from the beginning. When Latinos and Native Americans from conquered Mexican territory were given citizenship they did not redefine citizenship. They deserved that from the beginning. Now gays have not redefined marriage, they have been invited to share the right to love who they are with, with the same GOVERNMENT GIVEN benefits that straight couples loved to have for centuries. We could make it fair and ask the government to take away all benefits given to marriage. Maybe that'll please ya?
Ahhh poppa, if only the world was tolerant enough for that to be ok. The facts are that it isn't, unfortunately the us government obviously felt they had to become involved (that's a new one huh?) I'm with you, no one should have any right or need to have to either approve or disprove a marriage. As long as they are consenting adults it's their choice
My fathers side was in Australia, and mother's in Germany. But no. And you're picking and choosing equality, when you're picking gay rights over religious ones. Nitpicking is universal.
Any time something is licensed. It removes the right, and turns it into a privilege. So, why. Instead of millions upon millions of dollars in legal action against the government to allow LGBT to become a couple, why wasn't that money just simply used to force the government to stay away from inalienable rights, and stay out of natural bond between two people? The government has zero right interfering and requiring a license, for a bond between ANY two people. This is why I'm afraid for the next generation. Common sense, heavily progressive school systems and brain washing towards the liberal propaganda machine is in FULL force. I wish I could simply share parts of my brain with people, to see what rights we use to have, vs the absolute train wreck of government forces restrictions and controls they are programming into society. Just a mere 20 years ago, everything you see, know and is the current reality, was absolutely and completely different. Unfortunately, today's younger generation has no baseline, nothing at all to compare it against. This is nothing but a very slow political version of the boiling frog experiment... Sadly I've been watching it happen all my life, and some MASSIVE progress has been made and it's slowly choking off all the freedoms this country was founded on. Fight for the big picture. Government needs to stay the hell out of everything that doesn't directly affect them. Small government . Strong citizens.. This is what needs to happen
@zethor. Should we hold the religious rights still where I would not be able to be issued a marriage license if it was to a white person? Do you remember interracial marriages? Protected by religion. Something like," neither Greek nor Jew should intermarry." It was BS , but supported by religious freedoms. If I worked for the government. In many states I could deny blacks from marrying whites. White from Natives. And so on. Should we hold that for the same protection you ask for today since it is a religious freedom intruded by that darn Supreme Court. Gosh darn why do they have to ruin the sanctity of marriage by allowing straight couples who love themselves but of are different races to marry. /end sarcasm.
And no, before you ask, I wasn't born in a republican family, with conservative upbringing. Both my parents were very loyal democrats, back prior to the progressive movement even began. I'm actually not a republican, but I tend to be more conservative in thinking. I'm a constitutionalist with conservative values, which tells me that any artificial laws created by an over-controlling, power hungry government, constantly over stepping their bounds into our natural rights as human beings needs to be eliminated. We don't need a government giving tax breaks to married couples, giving incentives to marriage... We are all created equal and should enjoy the same freedoms whether we are single or married. Placing a legal and financial bond between two people, legally puts control into the government and it should NEVER have been that way. Tell me one place on the constitution where it forms any legal opinion of marriage.
Her Religious freedoms is selfish. She gets 3 squares a day as a reward. State n church always shall be separate. I'd rather neither push their agendas
State and marriage should also remain separate. What makes her religious values any less important than where someone wants to stick their plug in a certain light socket? Stating so, basically tells me that you're either an atheist or an agnostic, and your personal beliefs sway you in one direction or another. Think about this neutral for one moment, and tell me why this clerk's religious rights are any less important than a gay couple's belief they should be married. That judge needs to be punished severely for issuing an arrest warrant based on forced signature of an individual on something they were morally unable to sign for their beliefs. I'm thinking neutral in this as I have no interest one side or another. The judge simply should have requested a surrounding county clerk to sign this license, which shouldn't be required in the first place
Thing is, if a Muslim clerk were to deny a Christian couple a marriage license because of her religious beliefs, she would be attacked. It would be called unamerican and she would be fired, and a parade as she was sent to jail. Should her religion not allow you to marry as a straight couple? Next thing is, how would you feel if all you were told was to ,"stop whining, take your paper elsewhere." When you knew for a fact that other clerks may have signed it, but the Muslim woman refused to let them, would you just take it in pride and move on? I doubt, you'll probably say of course or give a ******** excuse as to why it's different, but I know for a fact you'd throw a tissy-fit. Now to shed light, I would, if I wanted to marry another guy, also expect Muslim clerks to issue the license and would expect repercussions of they didn't. But it shouldn't take a Muslim comparison to make you think twice.
I disagree poppa, SHE should of said "in sorry, I can't sign your marriage, however I will arrange for a different clerk to come and do it" Fair enough she shouldn't be forced to do it, but it's her job to get it done so it's her responsibility.
Why didn't the judge sign it himself? A judge has the ability to sign for a state approved legal bond... He sure as hell could sign an arrest warrant. Could have simply signed it and moved on. This is government control, forcing this lady to sign something against her will, or suffer the wrath of the legal system. This is why government needs to stay completely out of your personal pursuit of happiness. Nobody ever answered me, but I'll ask again. Tell me one place in the U.S. Constitution which requires state approval for a bond between two people. It's a natural right. That's what they should have fought for instead of seeking any government approval for your personal affairs. Don't get me started on the Muslim scenario.. I don't want to be forum banned
She should find a new job then where religious prejudice is acceptable. A farce of an excuse. Religion should butt out.
So Gay Rights Trumps Religious Rights? And A Government Law can foster Religious Oppression. Get out.
You're missing the entire point. Government should never have gotten involved in Marriage in the first place. But now they have their toxic mitts so firmly into the system that you can't kick them out.
Federal Government and State Should be separate too. And they shouldn't pass an illegal law forcing an agenda on everybody else. Or are we nitpicking what should be separated?
No, she shouldn't, but she does have an obligation as part of her job (and from what I've heard here, sworn oath to the us constitution) to ensure they're legally married, to me she should of arranged for another clerk to come and do it, or sent the papers to said clerk to sign.
AND an oath sworn to the Kentucky Constitution, which LEGALLY prevents gay marriage. Nevermind that any oath to the constitution is an oath against the illegal law.
It's not an illegal law, te supremacy clause dictates that federal law overrules state law in this case.