But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

I'm a Conservative and a Christian. My daughter is gay. I think it's a sin. I also think the little "white lies" I tell my boss or friends or spouse are sins.

I didn't get upset over the gay marriage ruling, because marriage is just a word and a legal recognition.

I used to love and respect Mike Huckabee, but I 100% agree with you. He's inciting uproar over something that is black and white. She's not being jailed for being a Christian, she's being jailed for breaking the law. I think he's taking advantage of the uneducated Christians who would rather pound their chest saying "me Christian" than really understand how if the tables were turned, they'd really know what persecution is.

I agree with just about everything you wrote here, except your point about marriage. If you are a Christian, then you know that it is an institution ordained by God. It is far more than a "word" and a legal recognition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

So? It's not like they suffer some greater personal or professional loss if those marriages are denied legal status. Your argument basically amounts to "They showed they approve of same sex marriage by agreeing to sanctify a same sex marriage, so they can't be impartial. Recusal is generally about cases where either a judge has personal knowledge of the parties/case outside of what's presented in court that might influence their view of the case, or where they have some personal stake in the outcome of a case (e.g., they have an ownership interest in a corporate party to a matter). You might also be viewed as having a stake where a significant part of your career is predicated upon you advocating for a particular result, where a judge might have a hard time ruling against that result simply because they would suffer in other areas of their career. Simply having an opinion about an issue doesn't warrant recusal, nor does having participated in a private ceremony that touches on an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

I'm a Conservative and a Christian. My daughter is gay. I think it's a sin. I also think the little "white lies" I tell my boss or friends or spouse are sins.

I didn't get upset over the gay marriage ruling, because marriage is just a word and a legal recognition.

I used to love and respect Mike Huckabee, but I 100% agree with you. He's inciting uproar over something that is black and white. She's not being jailed for being a Christian, she's being jailed for breaking the law. I think he's taking advantage of the uneducated Christians who would rather pound their chest saying "me Christian" than really understand how if the tables were turned, they'd really know what persecution is.

I agree with just about everything you wrote here, except your point about marriage. If you are a Christian, then you know that it is an institution ordained by God. It is far more than a "word" and a legal recognition.

Different poster, but I disagree with you on this. I am also a Christian, but I can also appreciate that there is a distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage in God's eyes, and the two have very little to do with each other. The kind of legal relationships people can enter into doesn't affect how God views them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

So she thinks that signing will put her in hell, but filing is fine with God? Again, just more reason not to let people's individual religious beliefs determine how the law is implemented.

By signing it she sanctions it

Signed, Forrest Gump, Esq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Clerks don't officiate marriages. Kim Davis is one reason this is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

She is refusing to do part of her job. She needs to find a new job.

She wants it all and she can't have it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is the judge in TN who is refusing to grant divorces, all in the name of gay marriage. And why not? If 5 people on the bench can decide what a marriage is, despite thousands of years of human history to the contrary, why can't one decide when a divorce is valid?

When you say "love", do you mean you agree with (or are amused by) the TN judge, or disagree with him?

That poor couple trying to get a divorce. Four days of testimony including seven witnesses and 77 exhibits, for a divorce? And then to be told that some judge is grandstanding and will deny your divorce request. Are they going to sue him, to compel him to do his job?

That is what a writ of mandamus is for --- to compel an official act.

Are you for real? The couple should be forced go to an appellate court to get some asshole judge to issue a ruling after allowing them to incur the costs of going to trial? Hopefully this arrogant prick will be impeached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

I'm a Conservative and a Christian. My daughter is gay. I think it's a sin. I also think the little "white lies" I tell my boss or friends or spouse are sins.

I didn't get upset over the gay marriage ruling, because marriage is just a word and a legal recognition.

I used to love and respect Mike Huckabee, but I 100% agree with you. He's inciting uproar over something that is black and white. She's not being jailed for being a Christian, she's being jailed for breaking the law. I think he's taking advantage of the uneducated Christians who would rather pound their chest saying "me Christian" than really understand how if the tables were turned, they'd really know what persecution is.

I agree with just about everything you wrote here, except your point about marriage. If you are a Christian, then you know that it is an institution ordained by God. It is far more than a "word" and a legal recognition.

I think upper case M Marriage is an institution ordained by God. As a Christian, I also believe those Marriages are only allowed divorce for limited reasons. Lower case m marriage is what society today considers marriage. This is the marriage the SC ruling allows.

In my heart and avoidance in God's Law, there is a distinction; for purposes of our land's law, marriage is just a word and legal recognition.

[Anonymous]

It cracks me up to no end that you people are making such a big deal out of "religious marriage" given a.) "traditional Christian marriage" up until about 100 years ago basically meant selling your underaged daughter off to some old man who she doesn't even know in exchange for some livestock and b.) Kim Davis's own hypocrisy given her three divorces and the tangled web of relationships and kids out of wedlock/by different fathers that she had.

Y'all realize you have NO LEGS TO STAND ON? If you didn't realize that, I'M TELLING YOU NOW.

You get nothing but a fisheye from me. Don't dare presume to invoke some kind of religious or moral superiority or righteousness on this, EVER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huckabee is going to visit her in jail and lead a demonstration against the "criminalization of Christianity". I think he should get the Al Sharpton award for contribution to divisiveness.

I'm a Conservative and a Christian. My daughter is gay. I think it's a sin. I also think the little "white lies" I tell my boss or friends or spouse are sins.

I didn't get upset over the gay marriage ruling, because marriage is just a word and a legal recognition.

I used to love and respect Mike Huckabee, but I 100% agree with you. He's inciting uproar over something that is black and white. She's not being jailed for being a Christian, she's being jailed for breaking the law. I think he's taking advantage of the uneducated Christians who would rather pound their chest saying "me Christian" than really understand how if the tables were turned, they'd really know what persecution is.

I agree with just about everything you wrote here, except your point about marriage. If you are a Christian, then you know that it is an institution ordained by God. It is far more than a "word" and a legal recognition.

I think upper case M Marriage is an institution ordained by God. As a Christian, I also believe those Marriages are only allowed divorce for limited reasons. Lower case m marriage is what society today considers marriage. This is the marriage the SC ruling allows.

In my heart and avoidance in God's Law, there is a distinction; for purposes of our land's law, marriage is just a word and legal recognition.

On my phone and mistyped something...I have no idea where the word avoidance came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It cracks me up to no end that you people are making such a big deal out of "religious marriage" given a.) "traditional Christian marriage" up until about 100 years ago basically meant selling your underaged daughter off to some old man who she doesn't even know in exchange for some livestock and b.) Kim Davis's own hypocrisy given her three divorces and the tangled web of relationships and kids out of wedlock/by different fathers that she had.

Y'all realize you have NO LEGS TO STAND ON? If you didn't realize that, I'M TELLING YOU NOW.

You get nothing but a fisheye from me. Don't dare presume to invoke some kind of religious or moral superiority or righteousness on this, EVER.

You realize, don't you, that not all things done in the name of Christianity were actually Christian? By that doesn't make true biblical principals less true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

That is not grounds for recusal. Not remotely.

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before Obergefell was before them.

[Anonymous]

Obtuse, with a capital "O" not with one of those lowercase "o"'s which aren't even letters in the Eyes, with a capital "E", of GOD, spelled with all capitals just because.