Originally Posted by Guest

30 Magistrates in North Carolina are refusing to perform gay marriages, legally. North Carolina now has a law protecting them. I wonder what their law says that KY doesn't. I still think that this girl could have made things easier on herself if she had kept her mouth shut, and just refused to issue the licenses until she had to by written instruction.

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).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/op...jail.html?_r=0

There does seem to be some unwillingness to compromise with respect to some government officials right to follow their religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: Just for clarification from a personal perspective I believe in the religious philosophy of hate the sin love the sinner. There are many lifestyles in America to which I disagree and can not relate .

I do not like the fact that five unelected judges made a decision to dismiss the definition of marriage as being one man and one women a definition and belief that has been handed down generation after generation since the beginning of time and for logical and natural reasons .

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms but I do not like it displayed in public.

Finally again the goal of the gay community leadership is to erase gender completely: To wit the transgender movements in schools, the military etc
The attempts to eliminate all pronouns that identify gender . Because if you successfully eliminate the definition of a man and a woman well the what's left ? and what differences does it then make in your choice? Radically progressives intellectualize themselves into stupidity ( ie they always en up going overboard and deluding themselves)

Personal Best Regards:

Very well articulated. Thank you.
The only way for this trend to be stopped before it is too late is for the silent, not in my back yard majority of Americans to speak up and be visible in their objection.

The special interest and minority groups have it figured out. They count on the lack of motivation and lack of taking action by the majority.

There are not many years left to put a stop to this trend.

Originally Posted by Guest

Very well articulated. Thank you.
The only way for this trend to be stopped before it is too late is for the silent, not in my back yard majority of Americans to speak up and be visible in their objection.

The special interest and minority groups have it figured out. They count on the lack of motivation and lack of taking action by the majority.

There are not many years left to put a stop to this trend.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Good quote-- I have been using it for about 4 yrs as my TOTV signature phrase. It needs to be said more often and we need to make it part of our basic understanding of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...line.html?_r=0

I do not see transgender rights as being an "evil". And a slippery slop argument here does not seem to apply as very few people would want to go though these experiences IMHO.

For being among the smallest of small special interest or minority groups it gets far more attention than many issues with a much larger participation.

Now just why does such a "statistically insignificant" number get so much media and political attention?

Not just LBGT [emoji6]

uploadfromtaptalk1441727418237.jpg

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.

I would say that nature supports same-sex couples. As the world gets bigger and more crowded, isn't it a good thing that some couples can't have children without artificial intervention? Keeps the population numbers down.

Originally Posted by pbkmaine

I would say that nature supports same-sex couples. As the world gets bigger and more crowded, isn't it a good thing that some couples can't have children without artificial intervention? Keeps the population numbers down.

Isn't that the purpose of Planned Parenthood? It seems to work in the black communities.

Originally Posted by Guest

30 Magistrates in North Carolina are refusing to perform gay marriages, legally. North Carolina now has a law protecting them. I wonder what their law says that KY doesn't. I still think that this girl could have made things easier on herself if she had kept her mouth shut, and just refused to issue the licenses until she had to by written instruction.

Girl, seriously? The WOMAN has been married 4 times and divorced 3 times she should not be called a girl!

The North Carolina law will not protect anyone. You have the absolute right to freedom of religion but not the right to impose your religion on the rest of us!!!!

//////

Originally Posted by cologal

Girl, seriously? The WOMAN has been married 4 times and divorced 3 times she should not be called a girl!

The North Carolina law will not protect anyone. You have the absolute right to freedom of religion but not the right to impose your religion on the rest of us!!!!

Apparently, you seem to think that I give a hoot about being PC. I am an old man, a senior and she is a "girl" to me. And, I hardly care if she is a divorcee or not. If she is a converted Christian, that's been forgiven. That's between her and God. Did I appear to be defending her actions? I mentioned the North Carolina law as a matter of interest, slightly related to the subject. I don't live in NC or KY and also not wishing a gay marriage, so this is only a matter of slight and barely of interest. In my opinion, the gov can only provide civil contracts, civil unions. Marriage is via a blessing from the church, which according to the left is very much separate from the state. If you want to criticize me for misusing the term "girl" then don't blame me for pointing out the difference between a civil union and a church based marriage. I do not understand why the gov would issue marriage licenses anyway. Just my opinion, and not worth any more than anyone elses.

Guess I am a bit agitated today. Blame it on the rain.

Originally Posted by dewilson58

//////

I agree. But even on the few occasions that I didn't agree with you dewilson, I never disliked you or felt angry with you.