Several Kentucky county clerks defy same-sex marriage ruling.

[Bluegrasscard]

This definitely makes some sense but it appears, and I stress appears, that they are refusing to license people because of their personal beliefs. I can't imagine that there needs to be that many new laws, rules and regulations to take place.

 

That may be so.

 

But its basically irresponsible for a bureaucrat to not follow the rules and regulations they are charged with enforcing.

 

Please can scream 'its the law of the land'. The problem is - its not. Laws are still on the books and changing them will take at least some time.

 

Mississippi did a reasonable thing - stopped issuing marriage licenses all together. They may have (and probably did) done this as a protest response. But given the action of the court - its a logical action to take until things can be sorted out. All states should probably look to do this to keep the local officials from acting arbitrarily.

 

There is no direct impact on those administering the laws as were on the books as of last Wednesday and the ruling from SCOTUS. Clerks have no business arbitrarily going against the laws, policies and procedures they are charged to enforce regardless of their feelings on the opinion of the court.

 

For the court to say - states must do something - is directly irresponsible. A much more reasonable approach would have been to rule that states must make new laws in a certain period to accommodate non-gender based marriage.

[mexitucky]

I read it everyday.

 

What's your issue?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Respecting the establishing of a religion. At that time, there were Protestants, Jews and Polytheists. If this country was intended to govern lock in step with Christianity or any part of the Bible then that clause would have never been written. Get over yourselves. If Hell comes for sinners, then why do you care? Beating your Bibles sounds more like the Pherosee in the Temple praising God as a show than the quiet man who found God's favor.

[Cardinals2745]

Respecting the establishing of a religion. At that time, there were Protestants, Jews and Polytheists. If this country was intended to govern lock in step with Christianity or any part of the Bible then that clause would have never been written. Get over yourselves. If Hell comes for sinners, then why do you care? Beating your Bibles sounds more like the Pherosee in the Temple praising God as a show than the quiet man who found God's favor.

 

The founders did not want a Church of England as the only religion in the country; however, they most definitely wanted religion to be the spiritual driving force.

 

Otherwise, why pray in a foxhole?

[mexitucky]

That may be so.

 

But its basically irresponsible for a bureaucrat to not follow the rules and regulations they are charged with enforcing.

 

Please can scream 'its the law of the land'. The problem is - its not. Laws are still on the books and changing them will take at least some time.

 

Mississippi did a reasonable thing - stopped issuing marriage licenses all together. They may have (and probably did) done this as a protest response. But given the action of the court - its a logical action to take until things can be sorted out. All states should probably look to do this to keep the local officials from acting arbitrarily.

 

There is no direct impact on those administering the laws as were on the books as of last Wednesday and the ruling from SCOTUS. Clerks have no business arbitrarily going against the laws, policies and procedures they are charged to enforce regardless of their feelings on the opinion of the court.

 

For the court to say - states must do something - is directly irresponsible. A much more reasonable approach would have been to rule that states must make new laws in a certain period to accommodate non-gender based marriage.

 

Come on. It wasn't like the SCOTUS got this case on Monday and turned an opinion out on Wed. There was ample time to get a plan B in place. This was pure protestation. Funny how Southern states drug their feet the most.

[mexitucky]

The founders did not want a Church of England as the only religion in the country; however, they most definitely wanted religion to be the spiritual driving force.

 

Otherwise, why pray in a foxhole?

 

Where are you going right now? The founding fathers wanted FREE exercise of religion. They didn't specify which kind. It is when people freak out about change that cases and controversies arise.

[AverageJoesGym]

I am not a judge so I do not give divorce decrees. Move on.

 

They're elected officials as well. Should they carry out the law or hollow what the Bible says? Or does that only pertain to laws regarding homosexual marriages?

 

Way to avoid the question.

[Cardinals2745]

Where are you going right now? The founding fathers wanted FREE exercise of religion. They didn't specify which kind. It is when people freak out about change that cases and controversies arise.

 

Yes, free exercise of religion - not, free exercise from religion.

[Cardinals2745]

They're elected officials as well. Should they carry out the law or hollow what the Bible says? Or does that only pertain to laws regarding homosexual marriages?

 

Way to avoid the question.

 

Does the POTUS execute every law on the books or does he choose which ones he wants to execute?

[PurplePride92]

That may be so.

 

But its basically irresponsible for a bureaucrat to not follow the rules and regulations they are charged with enforcing.

 

Please can scream 'its the law of the land'. The problem is - its not. Laws are still on the books and changing them will take at least some time.

 

Mississippi did a reasonable thing - stopped issuing marriage licenses all together. They may have (and probably did) done this as a protest response. But given the action of the court - its a logical action to take until things can be sorted out. All states should probably look to do this to keep the local officials from acting arbitrarily.

 

There is no direct impact on those administering the laws as were on the books as of last Wednesday and the ruling from SCOTUS. Clerks have no business arbitrarily going against the laws, policies and procedures they are charged to enforce regardless of their feelings on the opinion of the court.

 

For the court to say - states must do something - is directly irresponsible. A much more reasonable approach would have been to rule that states must make new laws in a certain period to accommodate non-gender based marriage.

 

Reasonable explanation but still inexcusable on their part IMO. Like Mexitucky said, this is just more protesting. How do they get around it? Stop issuing all licenses so now NOBODY can get married. That makes sense. :lol2:

[mexitucky]

Yes, free exercise of religion - not free exercise from religion.

 

Again, you are all over the place. I don't know what that means. Did this decision also bar doors to churches?

[Jesse James]

They're elected officials as well. Should they carry out the law or hollow what the Bible says? Or does that only pertain to laws regarding homosexual marriages?

 

Way to avoid the question.

 

If I were a judge I would have to really talk hard with the couple before I did. There would have to be some very sound arguments as to whey they could not work it out. I would do my best to have them reconcile. I also think there are other reasons for divorce other than the spouse just leaves them. Abuse etc.

 

Are you a Christian Joe?

[Cardinals2745]

Again, you are all over the place. I don't know what that means. Did this decision also bar doors to churches?

 

Look it up if you do not understand what it means.

[AverageJoesGym]

If I were a judge I would have to really talk hard with the couple before I did. There would have to be some very sound arguments as to whey they could not work it out. I would do my best to have them reconcile. I also think there are other reasons for divorce other than the spouse just leaves them. Abuse etc.

 

Are you a Christian Joe?

 

That's really none of your business.

 

So if they simply didn't like each other you'd not grant it? Sounds like it is wise that you don't serve in government--and I don't mean that in a mean way. At least you said you'd have the decency to step down.

[nkuclubbaseball19]

Yes, free exercise of religion - not, free exercise from religion.

 

And that still doesn't mean Christianity is supposed to be the rule of the land.

 

One thing is quite clear in America, there is no state religion.

 

The Bible has never led America and it never will. Some things between the Bible and US law may be the same but it's not because the law is following the Bible. It's common sense stuff.

[Cardinals2745]

And that still doesn't mean Christianity is supposed to be the rule of the land.

 

One thing is quite clear in America, there is no state religion.

 

The Bible has never led America and it never will. Some things between the Bible and US law may be the same but it's not because the law is following the Bible. It's common sense stuff.

 

Christianity is not supposed to be the rule of the land. But you are wrong about the Bible.

 

Look up Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844