Gay Marriage

Quote: terapined

I read about the Judge that put her in jail
He is deeply Christian and personally against gay marraige.
He respects the Supreme Court and he took an oath
He totally gets it :-)

Quote: Nareed

The wacko right often believes belief in their god is a shield for bigotry.

Quote: terapined

Her lawyer ... has given terrible advice to Ms Davis

Quote: Slate

When a federal judge ordered Davis to issue licenses or be held in contempt of court, the Liberty Counsel advised her to disobey the ruling. Good lawyers don’t usually tell their clients to defy lawful court orders, especially when jail time is a real possibility. Yet the Liberty Counsel didn’t mind putting their client at risk—perhaps because the idea of a middle-aged woman being hauled off to jail for purportedly following her conscience would send thousands of anti-gay Americans reaching for their pitchforks (and checkbooks).

Quote: Wizard

They could at least quote plenty of bible passages to support their position. What I have a hard time getting is how someone could profess to be both gay and Christian, except an extremely liberal one that would say the bible is flat out wrong on that topic.

Quote: reno

Yeah, a competent lawyer could help her fight for her cause without having her sent to jail. It's fairly obvious at this point that the goal is martyrdom: "They're criminalizing Christianity!"

Quote: FrGamble

I know plenty of very committed and faithful Christians who are gay. Following Christ and holding to Biblical truth is not mutually exclusive to being homosexual.

Quote: Lev 18:22

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Quote: Lev 20:13

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Quote: I Timothy 9-11

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Quote: Wizard

Sorry to wake up an old thread, but does anyone on the forum support Kim Davis? If you don't recognize the name, she is the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and chose jail over doing so.

Quote: AZDuffman

My position is why is she being treated different than other officials who selectively obey orders? As I said elsewhere, the kid-mayor in NY who issued licenses for gay couples before marriage was redefined? What about mayors and officials who harbor illegal aliens in so-called sanctuary cities? Have any of these folks been jailed?

Quote: AZDuffman

My position is why is she being treated different than other officials who selectively obey orders? As I said elsewhere, the kid-mayor in NY who issued licenses for gay couples before marriage was redefined? What about mayors and officials who harbor illegal aliens in so-called sanctuary cities? Have any of these folks been jailed?

Quote:

The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.

One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:

The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

And who wrote the Supreme Court’s Printz decision? None other than Justice Scalia.

Quote: Wizard

How do these Christians interpret these passages...