In case anyone is interested, here is a copy of Judge Bunning's order. I understand why he came to the conclusion that he did, but the entire analysis contradicts the ultimate outcome of temporarily staying the case.

 

It is a pretty short, but interesting read if anybody wants a little bit better understanding of the actual arguments and where they stand today.

 

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/kentucky_SSM_20150817.pdf

The exact same can be said for the hardcore liberal crowd...there is no room for compromise...ask the baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake.

 

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for all these poor, defenseless, put-upon Christians out there who have had their way in writing the laws for this country for the entirety we've been a country. Last I checked, they still wield a lot of power in the form of their numbers, and don't have to worry one iota about their lives truly being made uncomfortable.

Issuing a marriage license is a mortal sin?

To issue for same sex marriage is. According to Roman Catholic teachings it is an abolishment to "lay" with someone of the same sex.

To issue for same sex marriage is. According to Roman Catholic teachings it is an abolishment to "lay" with someone of the same sex.

 

The issuing of the marriage license wouldn't the sin, right? Wouldn't the Church say the "laying" part is the sin?

Indeed, you brought up separation of church and state. I pointed out that it was a bad example, because she WORKS for the government. You can't separate the government from the government. I agree that we should drop that as an argument. I've been in that camp since it was brought up.

 

You referred to a new law. The Supreme Court did not create a new law.

You still haven't told me then if there is no law then why is all the county clerks across the state and every state being forced

to issue same sex marriage licenses? Where does it say they must do that? As

far as the church and state thing, the reason I brought it up is because the state did bring the church into this when they mandated that same sex licenses be issued. That is a religious belief and issue with many Catholics.

 

Here is an interesting article on a similar case in Texas. Also notice in the article they talk about the "same sex law"

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/29/can-a-texas-county-clerk-refuse-to-issue-a-gay-marriage-license-its-complicated/

My whole thing about the "this is against my religion crap" is the Church doesn't recognize a marriage that isn't performed inside a church anyways, so as long as the Church isn't being forced to perform the ceremony (and they never will be) it isn't an actual marriage to them regardless. So why does a marriage license mean a hill of beans to them?

My whole thing about the "this is against my religion crap" is the Church doesn't recognize a marriage that isn't performed inside a church anyways, so as long as the Church isn't being forced to perform the ceremony (and they never will be) it isn't an actual marriage to them regardless. So why does a marriage license mean a hill of beans to them?

 

Is this Roman Catholic teaching, that a wedding performed civilly or by some entity not duly recognized by the RC Church does not result in a valid marriage? This may be because of RC Church's teaching that marriage is a sacrament.

 

Our church does not have a problem recognizing people married outside of a religious ceremony. We consider marriage to be a creational ordinance (I think I just made that up), meaning it is something ordained for all humans to participate in. It isn't only valid for Christians. Thus we take seriously any vows a couple has made and count that as a valid marriage.

Is this Roman Catholic teaching, that a wedding performed civilly or by some entity not duly recognized by the RC Church does not result in a valid marriage? This may be because of RC Church's teaching that marriage is a sacrament.

 

Our church does not have a problem recognizing people married outside of a religious ceremony. We consider marriage to be a creational ordinance (I think I just made that up), meaning it is something ordained for all humans to participate in. It isn't only valid for Christians. Thus we take seriously any vows a couple has made and count that as a valid marriage.

 

Yes, I was speaking of the Catholic church. From various postings in this thread it seems that the lady is a Catholic so to say it goes against her religion is kinda pointless, as no marriage occurring outside of a church is recognized. :idunno:

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for all these poor, defenseless, put-upon Christians out there who have had their way in writing the laws for this country for the entirety we've been a country. Last I checked, they still wield a lot of power in the form of their numbers, and don't have to worry one iota about their lives truly being made uncomfortable.

 

Unless of course, these poor Christians happen to own a business and offer services that are sometimes used by people getting married, like a baker or a photographer/videographer or a florist who doesn't want to participate in a so-called gay marriage. Refusing to do so can get you into the poor house because the government says in that instance they can indeed infringe upon your right to the free exercise of your religion and enforce it by fining you and allowing you to be sued.

I'm interested how you got that she is Catholic. I have no idea, but I always assumed the opposite. Actually I've just seen her say Chistian and had no idea what denomination, if any, she adheres to.

In case anyone is interested, here is a copy of Judge Bunning's order. I understand why he came to the conclusion that he did, but the entire analysis contradicts the ultimate outcome of temporarily staying the case.

 

It is a pretty short, but interesting read if anybody wants a little bit better understanding of the actual arguments and where they stand today.

 

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/kentucky_SSM_20150817.pdf

 

I actually agree with the conclusions of this statement. It is the logical outworking of the SCOTUS decision.

 

I just think the SCOTUS was terribly wrong, even illogical in its decision.

I'm interested how you got that she is Catholic. I have no idea, but I always assumed the opposite. Actually I've just seen her say Chistian and had no idea what denomination, if any, she adheres to.

 

Maybe my inference is wrong. I just saw Catholics specifically mentioned in here, so made that assumption.

I'm interested how you got that she is Catholic. I have no idea, but I always assumed the opposite. Actually I've just seen her say Chistian and had no idea what denomination, if any, she adheres to.

 

Apostolic. It's been mentioned in pretty much every story relating to this.

To issue for same sex marriage is. According to Roman Catholic teachings it is an abolishment to "lay" with someone of the same sex.

 

Please show me the scripture that states issuing a marriage licenses is a sin?

Please show me the scripture that states issuing a marriage licenses is a sin?

 

This is actually an interesting view on it. Because so many people get caught up on the sex or the biblical view on things.

 

Ultimately, the Supreme Court basically said that marriage is now gender neutral. And marriage, at its very core, is a legal contract. If religious people want it to be about Christianity and their definition and everything like that, that fight was lost long ago. When the government made marriage a secular contract, it was simply a matter of time before the SCOTUS decision came about. There is absolutely no legal right to prevent two males or two females or a male and female, from entering into a legal contract with each other. Period.

 

Talking about love is fine and pulls on the hearts of some, but at the end of the day, you can't legally prevent a same gender contract between legally consenting adults.

 

Making the argument about the biblical definition of marriage and everything like that is why that side lost the case. America isn't a theocracy, so that point didn't amount to anything in the eyes of the government.

 

Again, this case was lost long ago when the government decided to get into the marriage business. When they started issuing marriage licenses to secular individuals, this decision was simply a matter of time.