Religious Persecution Begins in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoltan_Cobalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ctb95 said:
Agreed.

This is not religious persecution, but somebody not doing their job. I don’t agree with the gay marriage ruling, but its the law. Besides, when was the last time an elected Catholic official refused to give a marriage license to a divorced person?
Click to expand...
If we all had guns their heads and were told to perform abortions you would have no problem with that because it would be the law?
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Under the only written law that applies to this case (Kentucky) Kim and her deputies could be charged by the State of Kentucky for issuing marriage licenses to anything other than a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
That’s obviously not true. The governor of Kentucky has already directed county clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Also, just because a law is on the books in a certain way does not make it enforceable any more once it has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Just to give an example, some states still have old sodomy laws on their books that make same-sex sexual activity a crime, but that does not mean that those laws can be enforced any more. Texas and many other states, for example, still have such laws on their books even though they were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence vs Texas.
 
Thorolfr said:
That’s obviously not true. The governor of Kentucky has already directed county clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Also, just because a law is on the books in a certain way does not make it enforceable any more once it has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Just to give an example, some states still have old sodomy laws on their books that make same-sex sexual activity a crime, but that does not mean that those laws can be enforced any more. Texas and many other states, for example, still have such laws on their books even though they were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence vs Texas.
Click to expand...
Kentucky, like California, had simple DEFINITIONS of marriage…not laws.

By stepping into the business of the States, the Supreme Court will now have to have Congress define marriage on the Federal level.

It is getting better. Now a Tennessee Judge is refusing to grant straight couples a divorce because “the federal government now has the authority to control marriage”. Some Constitutional scholars think he has a good point.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Kentucky, like California, had simple DEFINITIONS of marriage…not laws.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that these definitions had no legal standing? What exactly is the distinction between these definitions and something that is a law? :rolleyes:
 
Thorolfr said:
So are you saying that these definitions had no legal standing? What exactly is the distinction between these definitions and something that is a law? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oh yes these definitions had legal standing. They did not BAN gay people from marrying.
Gay people could marry a person of the opposite sex or they could live happily ever after with a person of the same sex…but just could not call their relationship a marriage.

A law would say…Only people of opposite sexes can join in a civil recognized and solemnized union. But no law purported to do that.
 
Years ago I signed off on an abortion, being ignorant and misled, as the client’s psychiatrist told me that if she didn’t get an abortion, she would likely become distraught and in danger of suicide. I’m pretty sure he was playing me. He was not an evil man, just . . . liberal.
Eventually I realized how grave a sin this was, and went to confession and was forgiven. But I did sign my name to that document which allowed a sin to occur.
If the same situation were to face me now, I would not sign my name. It seems that is what Kim Davis is doing; she doesn’t want to be implicated in a sin.
I admire her.

.

.
 
Viki63 said:
Years ago I signed off on an abortion, being ignorant and misled, as the client’s psychiatrist told me that if she didn’t get an abortion, she would likely become distraught and in danger of suicide. I’m pretty sure he was playing me. He was not an evil man, just . . . liberal.
Eventually I realized how grave a sin this was, and went to confession and was forgiven. But I did sign my name to that document which allowed a sin to occur.
If the same situation were to face me now, I would not sign my name. It seems that is what Kim Davis is doing; she doesn’t want to be implicated in a sin.
I admire her.

.

.
Click to expand...
I admire you for this post
 
Thorolfr said:
And isn’t Kim Davis herself fornicating since she’s been divorced and remarried numerous times? Even if she’s a Christian now, shouldn’t she and her present husband be living as brother and sister instead of living a life of sin? 😉
Click to expand...
This is such a worthless, childish argument. It disqualifies anyone who has ever fallen into sin from taking a stand for anything. That includes St. Joseph and the Pope.

Conservatives often get labled hypocrites because they espouse worthy values, while individual members fall short. Liberals never get called hypocrities because they don’t espouse any sense of decent moral code, thus, it isn’t hard to hit that mark.

You might as well call a progressive who seeks justice for the poor a hypocrite because they were selfish once, somewhere. Please.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
This is such a worthless, childish argument. It disqualifies anyone who has ever fallen into sin from taking a stand for anything. That includes St. Joseph and the Pope.

Conservatives often get labled hypocrites because they espouse worthy values, while individual members fall short. Liberals never get called hypocrities because they don’t espouse any sense of decent moral code, thus, it isn’t hard to hit that mark.

You might as well call a progressive who seeks justice for the poor a hypocrite because they were selfish once, somewhere. Please.
Click to expand...
Much of what you say is accurate, except that you mentioned St. Joseph. According to Catholic tradition, St. Joseph was never guilty of serious sin, because he was sanctified by the Holy Spirit early in his life in order to prepare him for the enormity of his calling. St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb of his mother at the moment he heard the voice of the Blessed Virgin. Tradition holds that St. Joseph was sanctified in the womb as well.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
This is such a worthless, childish argument. It disqualifies anyone who has ever fallen into sin from taking a stand for anything. That includes St. Joseph and the Pope.

Conservatives often get labled hypocrites because they espouse worthy values, while individual members fall short. Liberals never get called hypocrities because they don’t espouse any sense of decent moral code, thus, it isn’t hard to hit that mark.

You might as well call a progressive who seeks justice for the poor a hypocrite because they were selfish once, somewhere. Please.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
jmjZelie said:
Much of what you say is accurate, except that you mentioned St. Joseph. According to Catholic tradition, St. Joseph was never guilty of serious sin, because he was sanctified by the Holy Spirit early in his life in order to prepare him for the enormity of his calling. St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb of his mother at the moment he heard the voice of the Blessed Virgin. Tradition holds that St. Joseph was sanctified in the womb as well.
Click to expand...
While I agree, no one mentioned serious sin in this case. You screw up, you lose the right to hold any ethical or moral attitude, apparently.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
This is such a worthless, childish argument. It disqualifies anyone who has ever fallen into sin from taking a stand for anything. That includes St. Joseph and the Pope.
Click to expand...
It’s still kind of odd that so many conservative religious people are praising someone for “defending the sanctity of marriage” who has been married four times. In addition, she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband Dwain Wallace which were fathered by her lover Thomas McIntyre (so she was committing adultery) and were then adopted by her second husband Joe Davis. She then divorced Joe Davis, married Thomas McIntyre, later divorced him and married Joe Davis again for a second time. From a Catholic standpoint, she’s living right now in an adulterous relationship with her 2nd and then 4th husband Joe Davis. She hardly seems like a poster person for the “sanctity of marriage” and is now trying to deny marriage licences to people who until recently weren’t even able to get married once.
 
ctb95 said:
Agreed.

This is not religious persecution, but somebody not doing their job. I don’t agree with the gay marriage ruling, but its the law. Besides, when was the last time an elected Catholic official refused to give a marriage license to a divorced person?
Click to expand...
So you disagree with our Church??

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

**When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly **and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter* Evangelium vitae,* “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment
 
Neofight said:
If she was so outrages, the correct approach would have been to get into a different line of work.

It’s hard to make someone with 4 marriages to be the champion of the sacrament, although perhaps she was just unlucky.
Click to expand...
So our religious freedom is dependent on the number of times we have been divorced? Peter denied Christ the same number of times she got divorced. Should he have been thrown out of the Church?
 
Thorolfr said:
It’s still kind of odd that so many conservative religious people are praising someone for “defending the sanctity of marriage” who has been married four times. In addition, she gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband Dwain Wallace which were fathered by her lover Thomas McIntyre (so she was committing adultery) and were then adopted by her second husband Joe Davis. She then divorced Joe Davis, married Thomas McIntyre, later divorced him and married Joe Davis again for a second time. From a Catholic standpoint, she’s living right now in an adulterous relationship with her 2nd and then 4th husband Joe Davis. She hardly seems like a poster person for the “sanctity of marriage” and is now trying to deny marriage licences to people who until recently weren’t even able to get married once.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting how most liberals and homosexuals preach “Live and let live and anything goes”… until someone is living a life that contradicts theirs.

Liberals and homosexuals are the real hypocrites.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
It’s interesting how most liberals and homosexuals preach “Live and let live and anything goes”… until someone is living a life that contradicts theirs.

Liberals and homosexuals are the real hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Kim Davis is hardly practicing “live and let live” when she denies marriage licenses to people in Rowan County who want to get married. 🤷
 
I saw Donald Trump on CNN this morning telling us how much he loves Evangelicals…loves them…they all love him…that he’s a Protestant…a Presbyterian…then he went on to say that he feels for Kim Davis…but…maybe she should resign…or be given a position that removes her from being in conflict with her beliefs…not a wise statement considering he was just yesterday at a Tea Party rally who are mainly white Evangelicals ( who love him as he loves them) and who support her stance 100%… I was starting to lean towards Ben Carson because he does appear a more sincere and level headed candidate…I wonder if Trump loves Catholics?
 
“The word marriage has, and will always have, an objectively true meaning—no matter how many times it has been degraded by sinful societies (usually by its legal institutions but more lately by its mass media) and by many recalcitrant individuals (including some religious leaders).
Justice Kennedy’s atrocious prose in Obergefell can no more deprive marriage of its meaning than, say, Barney’s insipid theme song (“I love you, you love me, we’re a happy family”) can deprive family of its meaning. Instead, Kennedy the Judge and Barney the Dinosaur teach something seriously false about marriage and family. But while Barney’s lyrics simply make one queasy, Kennedy’s words are now the pretext to throw people who do not accept his lie into jail.”

–Dr. Ed Peters

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/save-in-one-respect-renos-essay-on-kim-davis-is-excellent/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top