Alabama Votes to Abolish Marriage Licences

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It's almost like there should be a wall of separation between church and state. A judge is supposed to ensure courtroom procedures are carried out, not preach.

The wall of separation of church and state exists to prevent state compulsion of a religion or state subsidies to a religion. It is a protection of religion from the state, not the other way around. The concept exists to prevent a Church of England scenario, where the government uses it as an arm of the state's monopoly of fource.

SOCS is designed to stop instances like teachers compelling unbelieving students to sit through prayer to God or a deity they do not subscribe to, or from people taking the tax money of Atheists and using it to finance Islamic proselytization, and so on. If you want a correct example of SOCS, look to the Blaine Amendments, which are probably one of the best provisions in any state's Constitution.

Instead, however, people like you use it as a weapon to bludgeon the free exercise of Christians (and for some reason, it is almost always Christians) and censor all voluntary expressions of any organized religion from the public square. The goal has always been to prevent religious people from expressing their religion and its viewpoints in the public square. Freedom of worship is not in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is, and no one should be forced

You Christians don't like the religious freedom of others either. In my home state, I cannot run for public office because I don't believe in god. Secondly, if you knew me any better, you'd realize that I'm equally hostile to all religions. I've even been labeled Islamophobic as a result of my harsh criticism of Islam.

[Ifreann]

If they don't want to be party to same sex marriages then they should quit the bench and find something else to do with their lives.

That's a religious test, which is unconstitutional; it's the same mindset that Democrats use to bash practicing Catholic Christians who get judicial appointments. It would exclude all practicing Christians from judicial procedures. Validating and authorizing a same-sex union is a direct participation

I'm not suggesting that judges should be fired because of their religious beliefs. I'm suggesting they be fired if they refuse to perform the duties they were appointed to perform. I have no problem with Christian judges, or Muslim judges, or Hindu judges. I have a problem with judges that won't do their jobs.

If Atheist judges don't want to add "SO HELP ME GOD" to their witness oaths, then they should quit the bench and find something else to do with their lives.

Judges don't write the oaths that witnesses take. The option to drop the "So help me God" isn't there for atheist judges, it's there for witnesses that don't want to swear by God. And that's probably Christians more often than atheists. Some Christians consider it a sin to swear by God.

If Muslim butchers don't want to be a party to serving pork, then they should quit their job and find something else to do with their lives.

Yes, if handling pork is a necessary part of their job and they refuse to do so then they should quit that job. Or work something out with their employer to take up some other role. I'd also be fine with judges who refuse to deal with same-sex marriages moving to judicial positions that don't deal with marriages, where that's practical.

If doctors don't want to be a party in the dismemberment of a third-trimester fetus, then they should quit medicine and find something else to do with their lives.

Yes.

If prison guards don't want to be a party to the execution of a prisoner, then they should quit and find something else to do with their lives.

Yes. Hell, I'd recommend that they do that anyway. Fucking killing people as your job has got to take a toll on your mental health.

If the state ever puts a gun to your head and compels you to break your conscience or moral beliefs, I hope you remember that you were okay with that if you agreed with it. Conscience protections and exemptions don't stop just because people conscientiously object to something that you like!

I currently work in an off-license, a liquor store. Every day I spend several hours as the only member of staff on the premises. If I don't serve customers, they don't get served, there is usually no one else present. If I converted to Islam, and refused to sell alcohol on the grounds of it being haraam, I would not expect to keep my job. Do you think that I should be able to, in that situation? We do also sell tobacco, which I believe Islam has no problem with. Would you demand that my employer keep me on to exclusively sell tobacco products?

A person who is forced to participate in something that he deems to be an abomination is a slave. Pure and simple. If we are a free country, then we will not force people to participate in something their conscience, morals, or yes, their religion compels them not to do.

I wouldn't use the term "slave", but otherwise I agree. Which is why I support social safety net policies that would let people quit their jobs with minimal consequences to their quality of life.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The wall of separation of church and state exists to prevent state compulsion of a religion or state subsidies to a religion. It is a protection of religion from the state, not the other way around. The concept exists to prevent a Church of England scenario, where the government uses it as an arm of the state's monopoly of fource.

SOCS is designed to stop instances like teachers compelling unbelieving students to sit through prayer to God or a deity they do not subscribe to, or from people taking the tax money of Atheists and using it to finance Islamic proselytization, and so on. If you want a correct example of SOCS, look to the Blaine Amendments, which are probably one of the best provisions in any state's Constitution.

Instead, however, people like you use it as a weapon to bludgeon the free exercise of Christians (and for some reason, it is almost always Christians) and censor all voluntary expressions of any organized religion from the public square. The goal has always been to prevent religious people from expressing their religion and its viewpoints in the public square. Freedom of worship is not in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is, and no one should be forced

You Christians don't like the religious freedom of others either. In my home state, I cannot run for public office because I don't believe in god. Secondly, if you knew me any better, you'd realize that I'm equally hostile to all religions. I've even been labeled Islamophobic as a result of my harsh criticism of Islam.

That's just plain not true, none of those laws are enforced, and they've been declared unconstitutional. They're still on the books because they haven't been repealed, but there's never been a case in recent memory where an atheist hasn't been allowed to run for office.

[Nordengrund]

Or, maybe it's because the judges (GASP) believe in a religion that condemns that and they don't want to breach their conscience by endorsing something explicitly declared an abomination by their faith? It's almost like people shouldn't be forced to violate their religion!

Conscience protections! Wow! How dare they peacefully express dissent!

Them maybe they shouldnt be judges in a secular nation where their religion has no bearing on laws?

Murder and theft are illegal and are things most religions condemn. Perhaps we should legalize them since religion has no place in modern society.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Them maybe they shouldnt be judges in a secular nation where their religion has no bearing on laws?

Murder and theft are illegal and are things most religions condemn. Perhaps we should legalize them since religion has no place in modern society.

They can remain illegal in a non-religious society. Hell, none of the punishments we have today are based on biblical punishments. If we followed the bible to a letter or some other holly books, that and more offences would carry a mandatory death penalty.

[Kannap]

Them maybe they shouldnt be judges in a secular nation where their religion has no bearing on laws?

Murder and theft are illegal and are things most religions condemn. Perhaps we should legalize them since religion has no place in modern society.

Murder and theft have been considered illegal in societies for longer than any of the religions we have today.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The point he's making is that even in a secular society, religion is a major source of social values and so has a major influence on law. Murder is probably a poor example, but there are lots of laws that only were a thing because they became popular with a particular religious denomination and came to dominate social attitudes.

[Pennsylvania Commonwealth]

Sweet Home Alabama

[Gormwood]

The point he's making is that even in a secular society, religion is a major source of social values and so has a major influence on law. Murder is probably a poor example, but there are lots of laws that only were a thing because they became popular with a particular religious denomination and came to dominate social attitudes.

> Leviticus is law
> Get caught eating at a crab boil
> Off to jail

[United Muscovite Nations]

The point he's making is that even in a secular society, religion is a major source of social values and so has a major influence on law. Murder is probably a poor example, but there are lots of laws that only were a thing because they became popular with a particular religious denomination and came to dominate social attitudes.

> Leviticus is law
> Get caught eating at a crab boil
> Off to jail

What does this have to do with laws being socially constructed and religion having influence on laws in secular society? Just because we're not ancient Israelites doesn't mean we don't have laws that have no secular reason behind them, but are still widely secular values because of their popularity with some religious denominations.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. I support the wall now.....as long as we start with this "state".

[Ifreann]

Ok. I support the wall now.....as long as we start with this "state".

And make Georgia pay for it.

[Arlenton]

They're not really abolishing marriage licenses, the title is misleading, they're just decentralizing the process so that couples just have to fill out a piece of paper and they'll be married, it's much simpler and gets rid of the conscientious objectors. It's a win-win, really.

But how are we gunna stick it to the religious people and bash Christianity?!

[Kannap]

They're not really abolishing marriage licenses, the title is misleading, they're just decentralizing the process so that couples just have to fill out a piece of paper and they'll be married, it's much simpler and gets rid of the conscientious objectors. It's a win-win, really.

But how are we gunna stick it to the religious people and bash Christianity?!

Because everybody loves to bash Christianity, sure.

[Myrensis]

They're not really abolishing marriage licenses, the title is misleading, they're just decentralizing the process so that couples just have to fill out a piece of paper and they'll be married, it's much simpler and gets rid of the conscientious objectors. It's a win-win, really.

But how are we gunna stick it to the religious people and bash Christianity?!

Because they still deserve it? Because this law is being passed purely because those "good Christians(tm)" threw a tantrum about how being a government official shouldn't mean they can't shit on and deny services to those they deem to be 'sinful'?

It really is one of the more vile traits of conservative Christians, their insistence that not allowing them to legally harass, degrade and discriminate against people they consider sinners makes them the real victims, because Jesus says they're allowed to!

[Pasong Tirad]

Sweet Home Alabama

Alabama's so bad their best exports are a song that wasn't even made by people from Alabama (Floridians), and a movie of the same name that wasn't even filmed in Alabama (Georgia and New York) nor starred in by Alabamians (Louisiana [Witherspoon], Maine [Dempsey], and Arkansas [that other guy]).

[Cetacea]

This is brilliant - I've refused to marry precisely because I refuse to be licenced by the State to form a domestic partnership with my wife.
The state should have nothing to do with marriage and this change ogf law achieves that

- It seems the Lawed really does move in mysterious ways!!!

[Highever]

Them maybe they shouldnt be judges in a secular nation where their religion has no bearing on laws?

Murder and theft are illegal and are things most religions condemn. Perhaps we should legalize them since religion has no place in modern society.

Pretty sure unlawful killing and taking what doesnt belong to you is condemnable outside of religion as well. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Thermodolia]

Ok. I support the wall now.....as long as we start with this "state".

And make Georgia pay for it.

We’ll gladly pay for a wall around Alabama as long as we get to dump our politicians into it

[American Pere Housh]

Here are the ranking for Alabama: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama

[Thermodolia]

It's almost like there should be a wall of separation between church and state. A judge is supposed to ensure courtroom procedures are carried out, not preach.

The wall of separation of church and state exists to prevent state compulsion of a religion or state subsidies to a religion. It is a protection of religion from the state, not the other way around. The concept exists to prevent a Church of England scenario, where the government uses it as an arm of the state's monopoly of fource.

SOCS is designed to stop instances like teachers compelling unbelieving students to sit through prayer to God or a deity they do not subscribe to, or from people taking the tax money of Atheists and using it to finance Islamic proselytization, and so on. If you want a correct example of SOCS, look to the Blaine Amendments, which are probably one of the best provisions in any state's Constitution.

Instead, however, people like you use it as a weapon to bludgeon the free exercise of Christians (and for some reason, it is almost always Christians) and censor all voluntary expressions of any organized religion from the public square. The goal has always been to prevent religious people from expressing their religion and its viewpoints in the public square. Freedom of worship is not in the Constitution. Freedom of religion is, and no one should be forced

No. Fuck no. Separation of Church and state doesn’t mean that the church can do whatever they want. Under separation of Church and state the state, meaning judges and other state employees in this case, cannot have any religious favoritism and the Church can not influence or interfere with state affairs.

Honestly the US secular laws are the worst and they should be strengthened tremendously.

If they don't want to be party to same sex marriages then they should quit the bench and find something else to do with their lives.

That's a religious test, which is unconstitutional; it's the same mindset that Democrats use to bash practicing Catholic Christians who get judicial appointments. It would exclude all practicing Christians from judicial procedures. Validating and authorizing a same-sex union is a direct participation

Separation of Church and State. You can’t bring your religion into the government.

If Atheist judges don't want to add "SO HELP ME GOD" to their witness oaths, then they should quit the bench and find something else to do with their lives.

We shouldn’t even be swearing to god in the first place. The constitution will do quite fine

If Muslim butchers don't want to be a party to serving pork, then they should quit their job and find something else to do with their lives.

Yes, same with a Jewish fishmonger who refuses to sell shrimp. Though I don’t know what Jew wouldn’t want to make money off of gentiles

If doctors don't want to be a party in the dismemberment of a third-trimester fetus, then they should quit medicine and find something else to do with their lives.

First of third-trimester abortions are illegal in the US under federal law. You should know that. Second if a doctor has a Issue with abortion they can go into a different field of medicine

If prison guards don't want to be a party to the execution of a prisoner, then they should quit and find something else to do with their lives.

Actually I’d argue that we should get rid of the death penalty entirely. You can always release an innocent person, you can’t undead someone

If the state ever puts a gun to your head and compels you to break your conscience or moral beliefs, I hope you remember that you were okay with that if you agreed with it. Conscience protections and exemptions don't stop just because people conscientiously object to something that you like!

If you don’t want to do your job you can find a different one. When I was in the military I had to handle a gun, if I refused to do so even under “religious conviction” I would have been kicked out of the military.

A person who is forced to participate in something that he deems to be an abomination is a slave. Pure and simple. If we are a free country, then we will not force people to participate in something their conscience, morals, or yes, their religion compels them not to do.

Slave? Seriously?

[Thermodolia]

Here are the ranking for Alabama: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama

Huh my state outranks California

[NERVUN]

Silly reason to do it, but works for me.

It's pretty much a copy of how the system works here in Japan. You get a marriage document from your town office, you sign (stamp) it, your wife/husband signs (stamps) it, you turn it in, you're married. That's it.

No muss, fuss, or worries about anything else.