Who can provide us with the history of interracial marriage in the US? Oddly, I know very little. Yes, I can research it if no one wants to respond.

So, does he believe same-sex marriage violates the Biblical definition of marriage or does he think the new law is in line with Christ's teaching? Seems like a cop-out on one of the most volatile issues of the day. I don't mean that he had to go to the side of his friend, but that as a minister he cannot side-step the issue and truly provide pastoral guidance to his flock. They are looking to him as a leader to help them understand what the Bible teaches.

 

And he's doing a phenomenal job of being that leader from the sounds of it.

Waste of taxpayer money and legislative time.

 

I am so glad the Supreme Court made they decision they did. I thought the clear decision would do away with this kind of childish behavior on the part of politicians that can't stand not getting their way but apparently not.

^I don't find it to be a reasonable proposal at all.

 

I would consider a reasonable course of action to allow the clerks the opportunity to resign from their positions voluntarily or face removal and prosecution.

 

Agreed. My stepmother is a nurse and has to treat whomever comes through the door, be they children or pedophiles, grandfathers or rapists, preachers or neo-Nazis. She doesn't have to agree with their lifestyles or choices, but she DOES have to treat them. That is her job and she can choose to not be a nurse, if she wants.

I can't say I agree.

 

Cops pick and chose what traffic laws they enforce all the time. Do you also feel that they should start pulling everyone over for going 1 mph over the speed limit?

 

Remember, the police are nothing more than political pawns.

 

I agree with woodsider, this is a horrible analogy.

 

Trust me, no one wants police departments enforcing all the laws all the time, no one.

How would they know the status of an individual who comes to ask for a marriage license? I was not asked if I was a virgin, though I was, and I was not asked if I had been divorced or the circumstances of the divorce if one had occurred, which it had not, when I got my marriage license.

 

Here in VA you are asked what number of marriage this is. So in essence they do ask about the divorce or widowed thing. Not so in KY?

So, does he believe same-sex marriage violates the Biblical definition of marriage or does he think the new law is in line with Christ's teaching? Seems like a cop-out on one of the most volatile issues of the day. I don't mean that he had to go to the side of his friend, but that as a minister he cannot side-step the issue and truly provide pastoral guidance to his flock. They are looking to him as a leader to help them understand what the Bible teaches.

 

I am not speaking for him, but in my opinion sin is sin.

 

The Bible teaches a lot of things but the most important thing that is taught is Love, not Love by omission but Love by inclusion.

Hatz: Don't know if they ask that question in KY. Wasn't married in KY. And to be honest, now that i think further, I don't remember if they asked if I were divorced. I think the state's interest is in whether you are still legally married because if they issue a marriage license to a person already married they are violating polygamy laws.

Here in VA you are asked what number of marriage this is. So in essence they do ask about the divorce or widowed thing. Not so in KY?

 

When we got our marriage license back in December they asked us if we were or had ever been married before.

Who can provide us with the history of interracial marriage in the US? Oddly, I know very little. Yes, I can research it if no one wants to respond.

 

 

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. Local judges in Alabama continued to enforce that state's anti-miscegenation statute until the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in United States v. Brittain in 1970.[15][16] In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a ballot initiative that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

There is also a history of state's attempting to undo Civil Rights rulings. For example here is some from Brown v. Board of Education:

 

"If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that in time the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South." With these words, Senator Harry Flood Byrd launched Massive Resistance, a deliberate campaign of delay and obfuscation. As head of the commonwealth's most powerful political organization, known as the "Byrd Machine," Byrd, a former governor (1926-1930), orchestrated Virginia's response to the Brown decision. Massive Resistance was intended to slow to a crawl attempts to integrate Virginia's schools generally and to minimize the effects of integration where it did occur.

 

After months of debates in the General Assembly, Governor Stanley ruled out control of anti-integration efforts at the local level and proposed to deny state appropriations to schools that integrated. Gray and the other commission members repudiated their report (which recommended what the Governor was proposing) and supported his plan. Massive Resistance became enshrined in the new state constitution. Virginians reacted to these decisions by petitioning and corresponding with Governor Stanley and local and state leaders.

 

Opponents of the Brown ruling and integration used the doctrine of interposition, which argued that the state could "interpose" between an unconstitutional federal mandate and local authorities based on State Sovereignty. The General Assembly adopted a resolution of interposition in 1956 that clearly defied the authority of the federal courts. James Jackson Kilpatrick, editor of the Richmond News Leader, vigorously criticized the court decisions to end segregation and was one of the leading public advocates of interposition.

 

The State Responds: Massive Resistance

Hatz: Don't know if they ask that question in KY. Wasn't married in KY. And to be honest, now that i think further, I don't remember if they asked if I were divorced. I think the state's interest is in whether you are still legally married because if they issue a marriage license to a person already married they are violating polygamy laws.

 

Actually I think the reason for its appearance on the form has to do with data collecting. Just like marking whether the ceremony is civil or religious.

Agreed. My stepmother is a nurse and has to treat whomever comes through the door, be they children or pedophiles, grandfathers or rapists, preachers or neo-Nazis. She doesn't have to agree with their lifestyles or choices, but she DOES have to treat them. That is her job and she can choose to not be a nurse, if she wants.

 

false analogy. She treats their injury, illness, etc. She does not aid them in acting out their objectionable behavior. Would she dial the phone and ask a prostitute to come and service one of her patients who was there to be treated for venereal disease?

 

I do not necessarily agree with the county clerks who refuse to issue a license. I am not sure yet what I think is their moral duty. I think the better thing to do is resign. But I don't think the state has any interest in prosecuting them or allowing a personal law suit. There are better remedies available. Why the call for immediate heavy handedness?

Why are we mentioning ads about hominy? I can't stand the stuff.

false analogy. She treats their injury, illness, etc. She does not aid them in acting out their objectionable behavior. Would she dial the phone and ask a prostitute to come and service one of her patients who was there to be treated for venereal disease?

 

I do not necessarily agree with the county clerks who refuse to issue a license. I am not sure yet what I think is their moral duty. I think the better thing to do is resign. But I don't think the state has any interest in prosecuting them or allowing a personal law suit. There are better remedies available. Why the call for immediate heavy handedness?

County clerks aren't performing the ceremony, so they are no responsible for the couple getting married.

Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. Local judges in Alabama continued to enforce that state's anti-miscegenation statute until the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in United States v. Brittain in 1970.[15][16] In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a ballot initiative that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

There is also a history of state's attempting to undo Civil Rights rulings. For example here is some from Brown v. Board of Education:

 

"If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that in time the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South." With these words, Senator Harry Flood Byrd launched Massive Resistance, a deliberate campaign of delay and obfuscation. As head of the commonwealth's most powerful political organization, known as the "Byrd Machine," Byrd, a former governor (1926-1930), orchestrated Virginia's response to the Brown decision. Massive Resistance was intended to slow to a crawl attempts to integrate Virginia's schools generally and to minimize the effects of integration where it did occur.

 

After months of debates in the General Assembly, Governor Stanley ruled out control of anti-integration efforts at the local level and proposed to deny state appropriations to schools that integrated. Gray and the other commission members repudiated their report (which recommended what the Governor was proposing) and supported his plan. Massive Resistance became enshrined in the new state constitution. Virginians reacted to these decisions by petitioning and corresponding with Governor Stanley and local and state leaders.

 

Opponents of the Brown ruling and integration used the doctrine of interposition, which argued that the state could "interpose" between an unconstitutional federal mandate and local authorities based on State Sovereignty. The General Assembly adopted a resolution of interposition in 1956 that clearly defied the authority of the federal courts. James Jackson Kilpatrick, editor of the Richmond News Leader, vigorously criticized the court decisions to end segregation and was one of the leading public advocates of interposition.

 

The State Responds: Massive Resistance

 

Thanks Hatz. I was sure that you or @Habib would respond. :thumb: