Quote:
Originally Posted by redwitch
1. She's not a girl. She is an adult.
2. If she'd kept her mouth shut, she would have received no attention or sympathy.
3. There is a difference between issuing a license and performing a marriage ceremony, even if just a civil ceremony before a magistrate. Not sure how the Court will ultimately rule about forcing someone to perform a civil ceremony, but I'm hoping magistrates will be able to follow their beliefs on this one (and, yes, I'm very pro same sex marriages).
|
It's a bit of a shame that one would take offense to me using the term "girl". I wonder if the same indignation would be used, if I was to use a simple "guy" for a gentleman subject. A girl is a young woman, and considering my age, I guess young is relative.
I really don't think that being "pro same sex marriages" would matter, if she is technically right. In that I mean, if she was following written instructions defining prerequisites of issuing a marriage license. That's why I suggested that she probably would not have caused herself so much trouble if she would have simply stated that she did not have written instruction yet on issuing same sex marriages. Whether I am "pro" same sex or "con" makes little difference when related to statutory law. The Supreme court is not able to make law. It can only interpret the existing laws.
I empathize with her religious beliefs but also have to look at this realistically. In a matter of law, religion will almost always lose, regardless of the idea of majority rules.