• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

KY County Clerk could be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses

Should KY Clerk be held in contempt of court?

  • Yes

    Votes: 45 93.8%
  • No

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • Total voters
    48

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Yes, there is a minimum time... thanks for pointing that out. Also, I don't think the federal government recognizes them. Without a valid marriage there are issues of Social Security benefits, immigration, and actually almost 1,100 protections, benefits and rights in legal marriage. It alternately amuses and saddens me to hear people say the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Well, it is and the genie is out of the bottle.

I believe that they are recognized at every level, they really have to be, the equal protection clause of the Constitution requires it.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
What is "the thing"? That's exactly what I said. No church has any legal authority to marry anybody from the perspective of the state.
The Mormons can marry a guy to five women if they want to in the eyes of God. But in the eyes of government they are not married.
Tom

No, you said: "You can have a big church wedding or do nothing else at all. You're just as legally married either way." You are not legally married if you just have a big church wedding, you are not legally married at all without the state license. At least that's how I took what you were saying, if you meant it another way, I apologize.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that they are recognized at every level, they really have to be, the equal protection clause of the Constitution requires it.

3d6f756ad7a21989f61921f63b296a89.jpg


The difference with common law marriage and same sex marriage was that nothing was stopping a man and woman in a common law marriage from getting married.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...refuses-issue-marriage-license-gays/71505008/

Now, after the SCOTUS refused to issue an injunction allowing her to keep on refusing to do her job, many want this county clerk to be held in contempt of court. I think this is EXACTLY what "contempt of court" was designed for ... those who refuse to follow direct orders from judges. Further, this is a government actor refusing to do her job, which is now legal discrimination under the guise of religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, people should be able to believe what they want. But, once their beliefs cause harm, both monetarily and emotionally, to others, their right to religious liberty ends there. I think she should be given the option to either resign or do her job. If she refuses both options, she should be held in contempt.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Hold her in contempt and fire her. She is a public servant and as such, she cannot willfully discriminate based on religious tenet, as much as she would like to. I think she should be immediately fired and no pension or any other benefit be awarded.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Is this true?
One of my beefs with anti equality people is the casual dismissal of divorce that is so common. When everyone knows that Jesus was very clear on that subject and not at all clear on the gay thing.
Tom
It has been verified and confirmed by the woman herself. Sends kind of a mixed signal on her view toward the "sanctity of marriage", doesn't it?
 

Akivah

Well-Known Member
Agreed. It's so ironic too that she has been divorced 3 times.

Divorce does not negate that a true marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Sometimes it doesn't work out. She should be commended that she kept trying despite it not working out for her in the past.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Hold her in contempt and fire her. She is a public servant and as such, she cannot willfully discriminate based on religious tenet, as much as she would like to. I think she should be immediately fired and no pension or any other benefit be awarded.

The thing is she can't be fired since she was elected to her position. Apparently. I heard it from people on the 'netz so it must be true...
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Divorce does not negate that a true marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Sometimes it doesn't work out. She should be commended that she kept trying despite it not working out for her in the past.

Being Jewish as you are, I would not expect you to put any stock in the Divine origins of the NT.
But she is a Christian who believes that the author of the 10th chapter of the Gospel of Mark was God Himself. It's very different circumstances.
Tom
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Divorce does not negate that a true marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Sometimes it doesn't work out. She should be commended that she kept trying despite it not working out for her in the past.
This is not true when she claimed to respect the "sanctity of marriage". Gender is one concern in this context, but, marriage being for life is too. So, it's ironic that she only seems to be unmoveable on one aspect of this claimed "sanctity".
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
When will all this persecution of Christians and attacks on religious liberty end? It might not be so smart to denigrate and abuse people who have Almighty God on their side. It's only a matter of time before God swoops down, breaks her out of jail, and smites all the sodomites who are destroying the sanctity of marriage.
 
Top