It does? Colorado anyone?:idunno:

 

Marijuana is still illegal according to federal law in Colorado. The state law didn't change that. Federal authorities have chosen not to pursue the matter--but they could change their minds at any time.

 

I somewhat disagree. In principle you are correct. HOWEVER, voters went to the polls and legalizing pot was on the ballet, knowing it was illegal under federal law. It was passed by the voters regardless of federal standing, and the state authorized the sale of marijuana.

 

Sure seems like CO THINKS state law trumps federal law, and their actions sure seem to show that.

I somewhat disagree. In principle you are correct. HOWEVER, voters went to the polls and legalizing pot was on the ballet, knowing it was illegal under federal law. It was passed by the voters regardless of federal standing, and the state authorized the sale of marijuana.

 

Sure seems like CO THINKS state law trumps federal law, and their actions sure seem to show that.

 

This is still not accurate. States and the federal government are capable of making their own, separate laws, so long as they don't violate the constitution. But, when state laws conflict with federal law, federal law always trumps. The feds can still make a marijuana case against in you Colorado (this is why many new pot businesses can't get banks to take their money) and that it's not a crime under Colorado law won't help you.

 

At any rate, the ruling in this case isn't a matter of federal law versus state laws. The SCOTUS said a bunch of laws in different states violated the constitution and are invalid. The only recourse for states at this point is a constitutional amendment or a doomed protest of feet dragging.

I've got no problem with Lincoln, or any elected official, using their religious beliefs to support or rally against a proposed law as long as the proper procedures are followed to bring that law in to place. Lincoln did not use his religious convictions to force the law in to place--simply to garner support for it. These clerks are denying service to taxpaying citizens that are legally entitled to that service. If they continue they should be fired.

 

Since they are elected officials, I don't see how they can be fired.

 

As we all know, it takes nearly an act of Congress to have an elected official removed from office.

No but the federal law trumps the state laws. Doesn't matter if KY laws haven't been changed to reflect the SCOTUS ruling. Once the SCOTUS made their ruling, KY laws on the matter became obsolete.

 

The Supreme Court passed a law last week?

 

That's not in civics class.

 

There is no conflict with Federal law. In fact Federal Law still says marriage is between ... yada, yada....

 

 

 

The supreme court 'said' states must.....

 

Usually they rule a a law unconstitutional and just strike it down.

 

There is no US Code law that is conflict with with the Kentucky laws or policies issues by Conway in 2008.

 

There is a ruling by SCOTUS that 'says' states must do this or that...but that is not at all a law in the US Codified set of laws.

 

Thus it sounds easy - the court 'says'....

 

But its really more legally complex than that.

 

There is a 25 day period to request a refill of a case - this ruling may get there. It has legality issues abound.

 

At any rate, the ruling in this case isn't a matter of federal law versus state laws. The SCOTUS said a bunch of laws in different states violated the constitution and are invalid. The only recourse for states at this point is a constitutional amendment or a doomed protest of feet dragging.

 

This.

 

SCOTUS created law from the bench in this case. And of that there is no debate. The problem is they created State law in 50 different states.

Is this now a law? Think about what I am saying. Does the Supreme Court make laws or are they empowered to make laws?

I am no constitutional law expert, but my take on it is that if as a state you provide marriage licenses, then you cannot discriminate by not allowing same sex couples a license. That's not creating a law. That's making existing laws and policies apply to all.

[edit] ... If we want the freedom to worship as we see fit we have to be tolerant enough to allow others to do so even if their beliefs are in direct conflict with our own. Gay marriage may not jibe with Christian values but it has no effect on Christians ability to worship as they see fit. A courthouse is not a place of worship.

 

My only comment here is that the 1st amendment isn't about freedom to worship but the free exercise of religion. The difference between the two is that worship occurs in a sanctuary or in the privacy of one's home. The free exercise of religion occurs in all of life. It isn't limited to behavior conducted in the privacy of one's home or a worship service on Saturday or Sunday. One's religion should effect how one does business as much as it does how one worships. Thus a photographer or baker is execising his/her free exercise of religion when he/she refuses to participate in a certain type of marriage he/she considers to be religiously prohibited.

 

You seem to believe that the US followed the Bible over Constitutional Law somewhere? When was that? When the Puritans made war on the Pequot Indians? When the US uprooted the Cherokee? When slavery was defended from the bar and the pulpits? When segregation or 3/5 rule, or Dred Scott were the law of the land? When women were not allowed to vote?

 

This is a straw man. The way to argue against someone's ideas is to present their strongest case and then critique it and show that your reasoning is better than theirs. This is just trying to find the worst case of behavior by someone who claims to be Christian. It doesn't mean that said behavior was consistent with their beliefs. Also, many of the things mentioned here existed before Christianity and actually it was the Christian faith that began to change culture so that these things were eventually stamped out.

 

While I am at it. The founding documents of the U.S. reflected the worldview developed from the Bible. MAny of the founders quoted extensively from its pages. The view of God reflected in our founding documents is definitely the Judeo-Christian God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

These are the words of men who viewed religion as necessary to have a free, democratic republic. They opposed the establishment of any religion as the official religion of the U.S. of A. but they did not oppose religion having a huge influence on the founding documents or the men who were charged with governing through elected office. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were secular but all acknowledged that the Bible was behind the worldview that brought them their freedoms.

So here is exactly the ruling of the court.

 

"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered. "

 

So as I indicated - the court usually nullifies a law or previous appellate ruling - in this cast the 6th Circuit Court who upheld state bans and the refusal of states to recognize marriages from other states.

 

So with the 6th Circuit vacated the ruling from the lower court - that probably does reference specific KRS statutes that would be nullified - is the 'law' in effect. I believe for Kentucky that would be the Bourke vs. Beshear case

 

So it is this case the now directs the impacts on Kentucky law.

 

GREGORY BOURKE, et al. V. STEVE BESHEAR, et al.

So the supreme court did not write new law. They merely vacated the 6th decision that had grouped a number of Midwest states cases.

 

All the rest of 27 pages is mostly what is called dicta - their reasoning to get the to the very simple ruling above.

 

 

My only comment here is that the 1st amendment isn't about freedom to worship but the free exercise of religion. The difference between the two is that worship occurs in a sanctuary or in the privacy of one's home. The free exercise of religion occurs in all of life. It isn't limited to behavior conducted in the privacy of one's home or a worship service on Saturday or Sunday. One's religion should effect how one does business as much as it does how one worships. Thus a photographer or baker is execising his/her free exercise of religion when he/she refuses to participate in a certain type of marriage he/she considers to be religiously prohibited.

 

 

 

This is a straw man. The way to argue against someone's ideas is to present their strongest case and then critique it and show that your reasoning is better than theirs. This is just trying to find the worst case of behavior by someone who claims to be Christian. It doesn't mean that said behavior was consistent with their beliefs. Also, many of the things mentioned here existed before Christianity and actually it was the Christian faith that began to change culture so that these things were eventually stamped out.

 

While I am at it. The founding documents of the U.S. reflected the worldview developed from the Bible. MAny of the founders quoted extensively from its pages. The view of God reflected in our founding documents is definitely the Judeo-Christian God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

These are the words of men who viewed religion as necessary to have a free, democratic republic. They opposed the establishment of any religion as the official religion of the U.S. of A. but they did not oppose religion having a huge influence on the founding documents or the men who were charged with governing through elected office. Some were Christians, some were Deists, some were secular but all acknowledged that the Bible was behind the worldview that brought them their freedoms.

 

So the Bible speaks of the pursuit of happiness? The Enlightenment had as much to do with the influence on the Founding Fathers. Deism was just a as critical to some as orthodoxy.

^ not denying there were other influences than the Bible but that so many so easily dismiss the Christian worldview as a primary influence in the founding of our country begs for a reminder of history. The establishment clause did not mean the founders wanted religion to have little to do with public policy. To the contrary, many of them were praying men and invoked the help of the Almighty during government meetings and times of great peril.

 

Re: the pursuit of happiness, it depends on what one thinks entails true happiness.

 

The pertinent point had to do with the statement of first principles, the "self-evident" truths. Government does not grant us our rights, the Creator does. The Bible begins, "In the beginning God created..." The Bible also takes for granted that this is a self-evident truth. Later it says that every person, male and female, are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). This is why humans are given such dignity in a Biblical worldview. It has far-reaching implications for human rights and personal liberty. For instance, one must not murder an image bearer of the divine (Genesis 9:6) nor should one speak evil against a fellow human since he/she bears God's image (James 3:9-10). These truths under girded the philosophy of the founders as they thought about liberty and governance.

 

Whatever one feels should be the role of the Bible in public life today, it was taken for granted that it had a great deal to do with public life in late 18th century America.

My only comment here is that the 1st amendment isn't about freedom to worship but the free exercise of religion. The difference between the two is that worship occurs in a sanctuary or in the privacy of one's home. The free exercise of religion occurs in all of life. It isn't limited to behavior conducted in the privacy of one's home or a worship service on Saturday or Sunday. One's religion should effect how one does business as much as it does how one worships. Thus a photographer or baker is execising his/her free exercise of religion when he/she refuses to participate in a certain type of marriage he/she considers to be religiously prohibited.

 

But we aren't talking about a photographer or a baker here are we? We're talking about an elected official working as an agent of the government. Their workplace is a government office. Their Christian beliefs should have nothing to do with whether they provide services or not.

But we aren't talking about a photographer or a baker here are we? We're talking about an elected official working as an agent of the government. Their workplace is a government office. Their Christian beliefs should have nothing to do with whether they provide services or not.

 

You are right about the limited scope of the OP. I mentioned the baker and photographer to illustrate how religious convictions are more than just a private thing between a person and her God. If one is a committed Christian, then one would expect it to effect every area of life, including how one conducts oneself when earning a living. This is true whether one works in the private sector or the public sector.

 

The case of a government employee refusing to issue a marriage license presents a problem because he or she represents the government in his/her actions. I have not made up my mind on this one. On the one hand they are being paid by the government to do its bidding. On the other hand, they are being asked to do something that goes against their strong religious convictions, something that a week ago they would have been in violation of the law had they done so.

 

What has changed since that time is that the SCOTUS changed the definition of a word--marriage. Marriage has held the definition of the union of one man with one woman in the U.S. since its inception. This has been the understanding of the term marriage for hundreds of years, even for millenia. At times polygamy was allowed (not by Christians), but marriage has always been about the publicly recognized union of the opposite sexes. Now, in postmodern America, the definition of a word is changed. I don't think that is right. The state of KY, by vote of the electorate, affirmed the traditional definition of marriage. Now, that is for naught because 5 US SC Justices say so. I feel for those county clerks that now are charged with reversing the historic definition of marriage. A definition that, IMO, was artificially changed by 5 Supreme Court Justices.

 

What should be done? I think every allowance should be made for those who feel they cannot, in good conscience issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Maybe enable someone else at the courthouse to issue it if they can find a person who is willing. Do this for a couple of years until they can move these people into a different job, rather than just fire them. They were good enough for the job last week. They don't deserve to be fired. After the two years is up, if a Christian doesn't feel they can discharge the duties of that office, then don't apply for it.

 

Early Christians were told not to serve in the military. One of the reasons was because soldiers had to wear a symbol of the civic deities of the Roman Empire. They may even have had to take an oath invoking pagan deities and swear allegiance to Caesar as Lord. The early church father, Tertullian--circa 155-225 AD, said a Christian cannot do this.

 

As stated, I do not yet know what to think of the situation at hand. I am trying to come to terms with it. These are just a few thoughts on the subject.

If one is a committed Christian, then one would expect it to effect every area of life, including how one conducts oneself when earning a living.

 

 

So I'm not a committed Christian because I think they should do their job? Good to know.