Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Nah, too roman.

A week's confinement in San Francisco?

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

[Val Halla]

A week's confinement in San Francisco?

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

People like this are irrelevant though. He has no power. It's the equivalent of me calling for all heterosexuals to be put to death, only I won't, because I am not a dick.

What are the odds he is gay himself?

[Deuxtete]

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

People like this are irrelevant though. He has no power. It's the equivalent of me calling for all heterosexuals to be put to death, only I won't, because I am not a dick.

What are the odds he is gay himself?

Lol. Yeah, he absolutely wants the D.

[Oneracon]

I have to say, the most truthful thing to come out of that woman's mouth was "I am not a hero."

She's damn right, she's not.

[Gauthier]

People like this are irrelevant though. He has no power. It's the equivalent of me calling for all heterosexuals to be put to death, only I won't, because I am not a dick.

What are the odds he is gay himself?

Lol. Yeah, he absolutely wants the D.

The more sanctimonious someone is about homosexuality, the more likely they're masturbating to gay porn or having downlows.

[USS Monitor]

I'm not sure I understand. If she resigns, she becomes a private citizen. She never actually broke any laws, what she did was refuse to obey a federal injunction. That's why she was in jail. Kentucky still has a law on the books saying that marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman, though it's not enforceable anymore. There is no federal law saying same-sex couples can be married because the US government doesn't do marriages. The Supreme Court decision didn't legalize SSM, per se, it said the states may not ban it. A fine point, perhaps. So again, what would she get in trouble for?

Huh. The legal aspect of it all is just confusing to me, especially as a none American.

Would it be like if all the UK brought in SSM but somebody in Northern Ireland refused still?

That's the right general idea. Except since Kentucky is not NI, it hasn't turned into a giant Catholic vs. Protestant or ethnic Irish vs. English dick-waving contest.

[Salus Maior]

A week's confinement in San Francisco?

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

Not surprisingly, another Southern Baptist church.

[The Black Forrest]

A week's confinement in San Francisco?

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

Fascinating. It's people like him that make me wonder if the Romans didn't have the right idea.......

[Governing States]

If a government employee does not comply with the law, he/she should be removed from office. Simple as that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If a government employee does not comply with the law, he/she should be removed from office. Simple as that.

^This

[Salus Maior]

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

Fascinating. It's people like him that make me wonder if the Romans didn't have the right idea.......

You mean legalize, convert, then establish it strictly as the state religion?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Fascinating. It's people like him that make me wonder if the Romans didn't have the right idea.......

You mean legalize, convert, then establish it strictly as the state religion?

To be fair, he was probably talking about Rome while it was still Pagan.

To your credit, he still kind of got it wrong, because they were not too happy about Romans converting to foreign religions, but they tolerated the religions of the people they conquered for the unity of the Empire.

[Salus Maior]

You mean legalize, convert, then establish it strictly as the state religion?

To be fair, he was probably talking about Rome while it was still Pagan.

To your credit, he still kind of got it wrong, because they were not too happy about Romans converting to foreign religions, but they tolerated the religions of the people they conquered for the unity of the Empire.

I can only name two Emperors who actively persecuted Christianity. Nero and Diocletian, and neither's efforts were effective. But even if I missed a couple, the majority of Roman Emperors did not treat Christianity harshly.

[The Black Forrest]

You mean legalize, convert, then establish it strictly as the state religion?

To be fair, he was probably talking about Rome while it was still Pagan.

To your credit, he still kind of got it wrong, because they were not too happy about Romans converting to foreign religions, but they tolerated the religions of the people they conquered for the unity of the Empire.

You are both over thinking it. I am referring tossing them to the lions and gladiators......

[Salus Maior]

To be fair, he was probably talking about Rome while it was still Pagan.

To your credit, he still kind of got it wrong, because they were not too happy about Romans converting to foreign religions, but they tolerated the religions of the people they conquered for the unity of the Empire.

You are both over thinking it. I am referring tossing them to the lions and gladiators......

Which was not nearly as common as people think it was. And shame on you for grossly generalizing. *tsk tsk*

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be fair, he was probably talking about Rome while it was still Pagan.

To your credit, he still kind of got it wrong, because they were not too happy about Romans converting to foreign religions, but they tolerated the religions of the people they conquered for the unity of the Empire.

I can only name two Emperors who actively persecuted Christianity. Nero and Diocletian, and neither's efforts were effective. But even if I missed a couple, the majority of Roman Emperors did not treat Christianity harshly.

The Roman emperors did have a strict policy against Christians. Hadrian, for instance, insisted that those who were fairly accused of and convicted of being Christians to be executed unless they renounced their faith and made sacrifices to the Roman gods. Marcus Aurelius disliked them, and he didn't really persecute them, but he was too preoccupied with other affairs to take care of governors who yielded to pressure from locals and executed Christians via torture and death. This was during the first and second centuries where Christians were mostly persecuted in this manner. Nero kinda persecuted Christians, but of the few accounts we have, Suetonius' account can be seen as the least reliable that he persecuted Christians with a fervor because he used them as scapegoats.

During the third century people were disillusioned with the pagan gods due to the disasters of the third century, and began to question paganism and found refuge in monotheistic religions which were more universalist and promised to empower the powerless, which Christianity fit right into those two groups of people. Decius and Maximinus Thrax, however, started persecutions against Christian laity in general to restore the peace of the Gods and the favor of the traditionalists in Rome. Valerian also persecuted them.

In the fourth century only Diocletian and Galerus did persecute Christians, and it was the widest one, unlike the ones of Valerian, Maximinus Thrax and Decius, which were against laity only. They would be redeemed by Constantine though and the Christian religion be put in place as the state religion.

Christians, mind, were only seen as a spinoff of Judaism and respected as an ancestral religion at first, but they lost status fairly quick. Romans were not really fond of new religions because they saw it as subversion to the state. The persecution was still pretty minor considering the martyr stories. They were disliked as an emerging religion, and discriminated against, but not necessarily put to death en masse. Also, during the third century, the empire fell into such a quick succession of emperors that they really couldn't do anything about Christians at all because the place of emperor was really unstable, and as such Christians began to gain foothold in the Empire.

[Governing States]

If a government employee does not comply with the law, he/she should be removed from office. Simple as that.

^This

The point is, I believe (as a Catholic Christian) that marriage is between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution of the United States, I cannot impose that belief on a private couple that holds different values.

[Page]

^This

The point is, I believe (as a Catholic Christian) that marriage is between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution of the United States, I cannot impose that belief on a private couple that holds different values.

That is... totally reasonable. So good on you.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

Not surprisingly, another Southern Baptist church.

Gotta love Christianity, taken at face value and as it was written.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

^This

The point is, I believe (as a Catholic Christian) that marriage is between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution of the United States, I cannot impose that belief on a private couple that holds different values.

I'm a Christian myself. So I believe the same as you, that marriage is between a man and a woman. I, however, also believe that those duties apply to me as a Christian and to me alone as a Christian. The government of the United States' protection or expansion of their definition of marriage doesn't interfere with the beliefs of the Church and the sacrament of marriage, in my mind.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

^This

The point is, I believe (as a Catholic Christian) that marriage is between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution of the United States, I cannot impose that belief on a private couple that holds different values.

"The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Paul's letter to the Romans actually seems to indicate this woman is not only wrong in regards to Christianity - she should literally fear retribution from the government that her God has instituted. Judgment, for her disobedience (in accompaniment with the adultery and whatnot) seems like it should apparently soon be swift, brutal, and justified.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The point is, I believe (as a Catholic Christian) that marriage is between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution of the United States, I cannot impose that belief on a private couple that holds different values.

"The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Paul's letter to the Romans actually seems to indicate this woman is not only wrong in regards to Christianity - she should literally fear retribution from the government that her God has instituted. Judgment, for her disobedience (in accompaniment with the adultery and whatnot) seems like it should apparently soon be swift, brutal, and justified.

Well, from what I read in a not-so-credible source (rawstory.com) the Kentucky legislature is looking into whether, or not, they really need the office of county clerk if other offices can absorb the duties of the clerk.

[USS Monitor]

The point is, I believe (as a Catholic Christian) that marriage is between a man and a woman. But under the Constitution of the United States, I cannot impose that belief on a private couple that holds different values.

"The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Paul's letter to the Romans actually seems to indicate this woman is not only wrong in regards to Christianity - she should literally fear retribution from the government that her God has instituted. Judgment, for her disobedience (in accompaniment with the adultery and whatnot) seems like it should apparently soon be swift, brutal, and justified.

Apparently, I am an agent of God. I did not know that. You learn something new every day.

[Gauthier]

Send her to one of those gay concentration camps this guy wants to build.

Fascinating. It's people like him that make me wonder if the Romans didn't have the right idea.......

Or Pontius Pilate had a good idea of what was coming when he said "Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home".

[Hurdegaryp]

"The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience."

Paul's letter to the Romans actually seems to indicate this woman is not only wrong in regards to Christianity - she should literally fear retribution from the government that her God has instituted. Judgment, for her disobedience (in accompaniment with the adultery and whatnot) seems like it should apparently soon be swift, brutal, and justified.

Well, from what I read in a not-so-credible source (rawstory.com) the Kentucky legislature is looking into whether, or not, they really need the office of county clerk if other offices can absorb the duties of the clerk.

So the solution here is actually a smaller government? If so, that county clerk accidentally did the taxpayers a favour by making her superfluousness so very visible to the public.