• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I have decided that I will no longer sign marriage licenses [W:174]

Perotista said:
No, not the same but the idea is. The state, i.e. government can force you to provide your services to someone who you may have decided you didn't want to service.
Click to expand...

We'll see about that.
 
Cable said:
Fascism is alive and well, no surprise to anyone this. This is atheist sharia-ism. Let the wise ones take note and prepare. Our God is greater than these lies.
Click to expand...

We shall quash such foolish ideas and exterminate them like big eared bugs!
 
it's just me said:
My fear – and I don’t think it unreasonable in light of some court decisions in recent litigation – is that I could potentially be opening myself up to action if I refused to perform that duty for same-sex couples. Because of that, I’ll require couples in Charleston County and any other jurisdictions that have granted same-sex marriage licenses to provide me a copy of a license signed by a judge, notary public, or some other civil official before I’ll officiate at the religious service.

This was written by an Anglican Priest and posted on Oct. 10 here:

Why I Will No Longer Sign Charleston County Marriage Licenses

The Priest, having anticipated whatever problems he is likely to have in light of the recent SCOTUS decisions, has declined to sign same sex marriage licenses, and is refusing to perform the ceremony. Personally, I think refusing to perform weddings at all is the way to fly here.

Taking this position to it's logical conclusion, bakers, caterers, and photographers have this same problem and the same option: there will be no more wedding cakes for anybody, no more wedding pictures, no more Anglican weddings and no more wedding receptions. Photographers will just have to stick to school pictures and portraits, bakers will have to just offer dessert cakes, and Priests will just have to decline to do weddings unless they are finalized by a public official.

I don't think it will end here. I suspect that, although there are plenty of churches that will solemnize a gay "marriage", it is my opinion that troublemakers like the ones who caused a farm in New York to have to pay heavy fines for refusing to host their gay wedding ceremony will seek us out and try to force our hand. This Priest has come up with a creative way to head that off at the pass. We are not public officials and not representatives of the state.
Click to expand...

?? How does this solve his moral dilemma? A same-sex couple gets the certificate signed, brings it to him, he performs the service. Sounds like much ado about no change.
 
MaggieD said:
?? How does this solve his moral dilemma? A same-sex couple gets the certificate signed, brings it to him, he performs the service. Sounds like much ado about no change.
Click to expand...

Number one, why would a public official finalize a marriage that hasn't happened, and number two, the guy says flat out that he is not inclined to perform such a service anyway.
 
it's just me said:
My fear – and I don’t think it unreasonable in light of some court decisions in recent litigation – is that I could potentially be opening myself up to action if I refused to perform that duty for same-sex couples. Because of that, I’ll require couples in Charleston County and any other jurisdictions that have granted same-sex marriage licenses to provide me a copy of a license signed by a judge, notary public, or some other civil official before I’ll officiate at the religious service.
Click to expand...

I also find these developments troubling, but I think that it would be a much larger step to act against a priest refusing to perform a religious ceremony, as opposed to a merchant refusing to serve a member of the public.

I'm not a huge fan of what was done in the wedding cake incident, but the act of making a cake isn't itself religious, whereas conducting a marriage ceremony is entirely religious.

I don't think this priest is being unreasonable, but if someone felt he were (by refusing to hold a marriage ceremony due to a religious objection,) I think the 1st would protect him, if it got up to the USSC.

That said, I think this priest and I would agree that it someone else should test that theory.
 
joG said:
We shall quash such foolish ideas and exterminate them like big eared bugs!
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out sir.

"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'"
 
Cable said:
Knock yourself out sir.

"And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'"
Click to expand...

How many Big Eared Bugs have you quashed this morning Sir?
 
it's just me said:
Number one, why would a public official finalize a marriage that hasn't happened, and number two, the guy says flat out that he is not inclined to perform such a service anyway.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's something I'm missing. But I don't know...if he doesn't intend to perform marriage ceremonies at all, for anyone, then that's the news. I'm confused. (And I think I was wrong. But I still don't get it.)
 
It becomes more abundantly clear every day that, for homosexuals, freedom is a one way street.
 
joG said:
How many Big Eared Bugs have you quashed this morning Sir?
Click to expand...

"A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."
 
MaggieD said:
Maybe there's something I'm missing. But I don't know...if he doesn't intend to perform marriage ceremonies at all, for anyone, then that's the news. I'm confused. (And I think I was wrong. But I still don't get it.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure myself, but I think he's distinguishing between a civil action (signing a marriage license) and a religious action (performing a christian wedding ceremony)
 
Lovebug said:
It becomes more abundantly clear every day that, for homosexuals, freedom is a one way street.
Click to expand...

That makes it easier to find your direction.
 
tosca1 said:
It can be sarcasm.....but it also is stating a fact.

Sentiments expressed by the poster above is just another example of many evidence(s) of the kind of mentality that's saturated our system.

The liberal-minded have lost their bearings....they don't make any sense anymore.
The more that's shown clearly to everyone, the better. :lol: We don't even have to explain.
Just cut and paste these senseless statements. Like that one above that speaks for itself. Loud and clear.
Can't get any better than that. :mrgreen:

It inspires.


The scary thought of being ruled by idiotic ideology is galvanizing our religious youth into action.

After all, it'll be them who'll bear the full brunt of this looney political correctness and liberalism.
Click to expand...


Did Jesus express this in one of your "direct communication" sessions?
 
I'm not sure I understand the OP completely. But if ministers/preachers/priests/rabbis etc. are concerned about being forced to perform same sex marriages, then they should stop selling their places of worship for profit to those outside their membership where the members recognize marriage defined between a man and a woman. And a true man of the cloth will not just show up to perform just any marriage ceremony for the cash but only provides such services to those he/she has counseled previously. And during that counseling period, if the priest, minister, preacher, rabbi etc. has the right to decline his services if he feels the couple is not serious about their commitment. The best way for a man of the cloth to protect himself is stop selling the house of worship for a cheap staging place and his services for profit only.
 
Last edited:
Lovebug said:
It becomes more abundantly clear every day that, for homosexuals, freedom is a one way street.
Click to expand...

That's the way it is when their alleged "rights" pick another man's pocket and break his leg.
 
vesper said:
But if ministers/preachers/priests/rabbis etc. are concerned about being forced to perform same sex marriages, then they should stop selling their places of worship for profit to those outside their membership where the members recognize marriage defined between a man and a woman. And a true man of the cloth will not just show up to perform just any marriage ceremony for the cash but only provides such services to those he/she has counseled previously. And during that counseling period, if the priest, minister, preacher, rabbi etc. has the right to decline his services if he feels the couple is not serious about their commitment. The best way for a man of the cloth to protect himself is stop selling the house of worship for a cheap staging place and his services for profit only.
Click to expand...

Huh....?
 
it's just me said:
Huh....?
Click to expand...
Why did you edit my post where I stated I didn't know if I quite understood the OP. Then reply with "Huh?" Really? If I misunderstood, then point it out. If not, the fact remains that too many churches allow their buildings to be rented out for profit to those who are not members of their congregation and the "man of the cloth" shows up to perform the ceremony barely knowing the couple's first names let alone taken the time to counsel them. Seems that should be a practice stopped in order to protect themselves. They are suppose to be shepherds of their flock and if they practiced marriage ceremonies within their flock only, they would be better protected.
 
serato said:
Did Jesus express this in one of your "direct communication" sessions?
Click to expand...

No.

There is such a thing here on earth, right now in the real world, and in real time, that's called, "CURRENT EVENTS."
Ever heard of that?




There's also an earthly thing called, "OBSERVATION."
Are you familiar with that? Just to make sure you understand what I mean,


Observation
1. the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.
2. a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.



If you'll float down from wandering (wherever you may be), and be grounded HERE with me right now, on the same plane, or dimension, or space, or whatever....kindly catch up somewhat as to where I'm coming from, by reading this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/206078-now-here-movement-can-get-behind.html


It's a long read I know....but that's the price for being "out-of-town," and "out-of-touch." :lol:



And then of course, there's simple logic. Which, based on your posts at "Jesus is God," I suspect, your entity restrains you from using.
 
it's just me said:
Bakers cannot be compelled to make cakes, Priests cannot be compelled to preside over weddings.
Click to expand...

Really? I suppose restaurants and bars cannot be compelled to serve black folks (or "Mexicans") either. Your OP proposed "solution" applies only to issuing/validating the state license but not to refusing to perform services only for some folks. The only option is to either serve the entire public or to limit the goods/services that the business (or church) provides to all.
 
vesper said:
Why did you edit my post where I stated I didn't know if I quite understood the OP. Then reply with "Huh?" Really? If I misunderstood, then point it out. If not, the fact remains that too many churches allow their buildings to be rented out for profit to those who are not members of their congregation and the "man of the cloth" shows up to perform the ceremony barely knowing the couple's first names let alone taken the time to counsel them. Seems that should be a practice stopped in order to protect themselves. They are suppose to be shepherds of their flock and if they practiced marriage ceremonies within their flock only, they would be better protected.
Click to expand...

..."stop selling their places of worship for profit" was the thing that stumped me.

I don't know what universe you live in, but no "man of the cloth" marries anyone without premarital counseling, and they always know their names. Maybe the phonebook "reverends" do that, but no pastor in any congregation I know about, especially Anglicans.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Really? I suppose restaurants and bars cannot be compelled to serve black folks (or "Mexicans") either. Your OP proposed "solution" applies only to issuing/validating the state license but not to refusing to perform services only for some folks. The only option is to either serve the entire public or to limit the goods/services that the business (or church) provides to all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Charlie, with this stand this priest is refusing to be an agent of the state. He is kicking the state out of his church. "Separation of Church and state", remember?
 
it's just me said:
Sorry, Charlie, with this stand this priest is refusing to be an agent of the state. He is kicking the state out of his church. "Separation of Church and state", remember?
Click to expand...

Nonsense - your OP, and the post to which I replied, mentioned bakers and there is no "separation of cakes (marriage, beers or meals) and state". The free exercise of religion does not permit one to serve only some folks. You cannot conscientiously (religiously?) object to baking cakes (performing marriages, serving beer or serving meals) only sometimes.
 
it's just me said:
..."stop selling their places of worship for profit" was the thing that stumped me.

I don't know what universe you live in, but no "man of the cloth" marries anyone without premarital counseling, and they always know their names. Maybe the phonebook "reverends" do that, but no pastor in any congregation I know about, especially Anglicans.
Click to expand...

I live in the same universe as you do. And unfortunately, there are those churches that do sell their places of worship for profit. From the quaint little church in the dale with perfect scenery that is appealing to the gothic cathedrals that provides the perfect stage for the "wedding". To many couples they are nothing more than props that are for rent. And there seems to be a growing number of those congregations willing to rent their houses of worship out along with their ministers.
 
Arcana XV said:
He didn't say he didn't want to preside over weddings. He said he would not sign any more marriage licenses. He will still officiate the weddings as long as people show up with a marriage license.
Click to expand...


Not sure when the practice of having ministers be ex-officio marriage registrars began anyway. It was probably just for the sake of convenient, but why should a religious leader become a representative of the state or county? Makes more sense to have people get licenses first and then do the religious ceremony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom