except, apparently, for males with males and females with females...
-
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!
North Carolina Magistrate refuses to marry interracial couple.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
oops! you beat me to it.Then they really should be endorsing same sex marriage.
Sorry, was reading from the top....
Lol and then people claim that objection to interracial marriage and same sex marriage is somehow different.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Since a court apparently ruled that they broke the law, does anyone know what legal repercussions, if any, that the magistrates faced?
Such people need to be promptly removed from their positions.
Such people need to be promptly removed from their positions.
Perhaps in a perfect world, they would have resigned, etc. But its not a perfect world. A 'perfect' example is the current debacle Maine has with our idiotic governor. The man (Paul LePage) has broken so many laws and acted the total horse's arse that many are now calling for him to be impeached. Yet, he remains. This, a man who makes racists comments about our President. This, a man who, when told people did not want the bills passed that he favors, put up a Christmas tree outside his office with pigs on it and placed stockings filled with coal outside the offices of those who oppose him. This, a man who told those who disagree with him to 'get a life' and worse. And who refused to give aid to a school because they were going to hire a particular man he didn't like. In a perfect world, he would have been ousted from office ages ago but he is still there and most Mainers are disgusted and filled with chagrin that we have this a**h*le still in office.
I suspect he wants to be fired, so he can claim protection under a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NC's or the US version, or both), and force a court case that can then be appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
There was no RFRA when this story happened.
my bad--not up on the details, was just speculating. So never mind.
Edit: Okay, read the original article now...it's entirely possible that this case, and others similar to it, are what led to the introduction and passage of the RFRAs--again, just speculating
Last edited:
*slow clap*Then they really should be endorsing same sex marriage.
Thread over, it simply is never gonna get any better than this. Someone lock it, we've plateaued.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Performing a marriage doesn't violate "sincerely held religious beliefs." If the magistrates have a religious tenet against such marriages, then they can't be forced into such marriages. Same should go for these "religious" companies that won't cover abortions on their insurance.
Except that magistrates are government employees, sworn and paid to fairly and impartially administer the law. If their religious beliefs conflict with the law, they should resign from being magistrates, or expect to be fired if they refuse to do their job under the law. A religious company is not a government organization, and therefore not subject to the same sort of requirement.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You misunderstood me. Providing insurance and solemnizing marriages does not violate "sincerely held religious beliefs." If your religion prohibits interracial marriage, then don't marry someone of another race. Let other people decided what's best for them. Religion needs to be kept out of government.
Yes, the magistrates' religion needs to be kept out of government. what the story was about was that the magistrates in question were telling the interracial couple that they (the magistrates) would not exercise their responsibility to perform their duty of conducting the marriage because the couple was interracial--thus injecting their religion into their governmental function.
But you are missing the point. It is not up to you or me or the government to determine what is and what is not a "sincerely held religious belief". If they say this is a sincerely held religious belief, then it is. It is that simple. The point is however that "sincerely held religious beliefs" are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil servants doing their job.
Why should a couple seeking service from their government be subjected to the religious judgement of whatever civil servant happens to be on duty at the time?
Right, and because there was no such defense on the books back then a court ruled that these Magistrates broke the law. But that might not have happened today if they could use some kind of religious freedom act as a defense. Today they might have gotten away with it. How is that for progress?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The original RFRA, signed around '93, was to grant private individuals exemptions from overbearing government regulations; the specific case that lead to it involved members of a Native tribe and their freedom to use peyote, a substance that is traditionally used in religious ceremonies in various native tribes. It wasn't so government officials or public businesses could pout and whine about not being able to discriminate against people they don't like over religious reasons.my bad--not up on the details, was just speculating. So never mind.
Edit: Okay, read the original article now...it's entirely possible that this case, and others similar to it, are what led to the introduction and passage of the RFRAs--again, just speculating
Thanks for the info. I don't believe I had ever heard where the original case for RFRA came from.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I thought that's what I said. If doing their government job is against their religion, perhaps they shouldn't take that job.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
As we live in a democracy -and even those religious people likely do not want a theocracy (many came to America seeking freedom of religion, but in reality it was freedom to not have someone else's religion forced upon them) -their religious beliefs might understandably cause them to seek other employment, but should not cause them to disrupt or interfere with what has been decided by the government or people.
If there is something in the laws of the land (such as when states can decide things for themselves regardless of what is decided by the federal government) that presently allows them to lawfully take such action, then that would need to be addressed at a state level.
If a state holds a vote and a majority is against gay marriage? Then what?
Some believe it is an inherent right for gays to marry -some do not believe that.
However, even God knew it was quite useless to force people to adhere to his laws.
People will choose their own paths.
If there is a lesson to be learned by doing so, they will learn it by experience and God will reason with them later.
This is not to say one should not state the case when they see that an issue will cause harm or is not the best option -or that people do not have the right to a say in matters that will in some way affect them and their families -but it is pointless to try to make others' decisions for them.
Some do not see any benefit to obeying God (though some understanding is necessary in applying the law where true intersexuality is concerned), and do not understand that God's help is something that will be sorely missed when dealing with worldly matters without him.
When Israel wanted a king like other nations -and rejected God's system of judges -God explained to them how it would be a bad idea, but still allowed it to happen.
7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 11And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariot.....
18And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Phillipians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out YOUR OWN salvation with fear and trembling.
(Emphasis mine)
Last edited:
I gotta say, it looks more and more similar every time I compare them.Lol and then people claim that objection to interracial marriage and same sex marriage is somehow different.