Here's the thing: If your job is to issue marriage licenses, or any other damn form of license, it's not your place to insert your moral beliefs or feelings into the process. The same objection that the Jeebus Asswipes in Tejas are asserting are identical to those asserted back in the civil rights era. Only the people have changed.
If you can't comply with the law and issue the licenses and/or permits, then quit your damn job and find a job that is more in line with your moral teaching.
Oh, and as to not respecting what the Supreme Court has ruled, well, wouldn't you know that the Christian Bible has something to say about that:
All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.Damnation and the Fires of Hell await you, O Texicans who are contesting the rule of law!* Follow the law or your eternal soul will suffer the consequences!**
_______________________________________________
* Not that it didn't before.
** Ah, who am I kidding? The Cafeteria Christians won't be swayed. But feel free to snark on them.
While I DO think this is a States Rights issue, I also agree that until that issue is adjudicated it should be treated as the law, and officials should act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteDO support Gay marriage....
Well, actually, I support civil unions ....For everybody. All the State should do is record the contract between 2 (or possibly more) people.....Having your union blessed is not the job of the State. Go to a church, a temple or whatever....
Amusing note, AG Paxton is taking his direction from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who directed him to issue the statement/direction.
ReplyDeleteFor more fun, I give it at least a 25% chance some dumb Clerk will refuse to issue a marriage license to a mixed race couple, citing this direction...oh, the fun.
What is a 'cafeteria Christian'?
ReplyDeleteMethinks you are the kind who doesn't look to the Bible other than a club as you claim moral superiority. Here is an apropos quote from A. Hamilton;
"To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience."
In this case, the emphasis is on the term 'more extensive power', ie, expansive, beyond that originally intended.
The game of 'what if' goes both ways; you propose what if...mixed race, etc. I propose what if...(name a natural right dear to you) should be placed in jeopardy by the very loud screeching of a minority. Then add a judicial which legislates from the bench. Given the circumstance it should not be expected that you would capitulate, er, 'comply' with a ruling which is obviously in error and not in accordance to the Constitution. The statist should argue that condition is irrelevant, that it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the individual should comply.
In the meanwhile, I suggest you read up on the word of God. Cherry picking of scripture does not become one.
Read up on the word of "God", eh? OK, which "God"? Your posited entity or that of a competing clan? Which words of this entity, given that in, for example, the "Bible" the current words are a portion of the original, chosen by some people and committees over time and translated multiple times? Which version of the "Bible"? Or are we reading the "Quran"...or,any of hundreds of other "Holy" books? Let's view it from the Shinto side, eh! Does that offend you, why? Because you don't believe in that...maybe now we're getting somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAnon, surely you jest. A "cafeteria christian" is someone who quotes the Bible to condemn another person, but ignores it when it come to his or her own life. The sort of people who say that they accept Jesus into their lives, but then don't live by anything approaching his tenets.
ReplyDeleteI just can't see where the idea of only doing "part" of your job came from. I especially don't see where religion even comes into play about it.
ReplyDeleteIf your job is to fill my prescription that my Doctor ordered, then do that or find me an employee that will and quit wasting my time at your store.
If your job is to issue marriage certificates according to the law, then you need to do that or find a new kind of job.
It's not at all like you are the one opening the valve at the gas chamber. Moral decisions are for when you get up and show up to work, or not. You don't get to decide what your Job Is, you only have a choice in what job you take.
This is a country of laws, weather you like those laws or not. If you feel so slighted by other people marrying that you want to stop all marriages then you need to try and change the laws not defy them.
You can legislate all you want in your church and for that one group, but after you leave, you enter another world that has different laws that you are not exempt from.
I would say most if not all religions expect you to do your day of labor.
This attitude of "I won't do my job because I think this is yucky" is so just like a spoiled child having a fit over a bath.
How can anyone use the beliefs to justify this? It makes that religion look poorly in this light.
Just a sayin
w3ski
Which God? Suffice to say that whom is of the Christian Bible because that is what was mentioned by EBM. No, it does not offend me if another believes I something else. It saddens me but it does not offend me.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I had not before heard the term, 'cafeteria Christian'. That is why I asked. Thank you for answering. Now here is something to be offended about, hypocrites who call themselves Christian. Way too many of those. That is a problem of religion and it is decidedly a 'people problem' because people lie and cheat. Yes, these hypocrites are liars.
Given the definition as provided by Misfit, I presume EBM to be such a person for it seems they cheery picked verse from Romans for the purpose of bludgeoning others. Please correct me where I am wrong.
I think it quite interesting that none of the comments wee directed towards the Hamilton quote. So let me ask every person, are there bad laws? Or let me rephrase, are all laws to be obeyed without question?
We laugh at laws of yesteryear which seem so antiquated. Yet they ere passed into law at that time...so they must have been 'good' laws, ie, a good idea, yes? But why are we to not suppose laws of today would also be subject to ridicule in the future? Confirmation bias is one answer. Another answer is the ego-centric belief that society of today can only pass 'good' laws. Yet to argue that is to defy history.
Now if one were to believe not all laws are good, that some laws should never have passed into law, then is it not just to not be obedient to such a law? One other thing about laws; there are so many laws on the books that one cannot know them all. If one were to say that they have nothing to hide, they deceive themselves in ignorance of the law.
I am not a rabble rouser, I am not an anarchist or such thing. I do not seek to cause dissension. But I now look at society and see it has come off the rails. And them unbridled politicians who continually pass new law, often without reading the bill or not considering the unintended consequence, have acted to put restrictions on personal liberty. We're all for liberty, right?
To address w3ski, you posit the obligations of the employee and/or employer. Yet what of the private person? Anyway, while the subject seems to be about the rights of homosexuals, the larger picture is about society. No, no, I do not mean society is lost because of this recent ruling. I mean that the footing which is the basis of this ruling can be applied to a myriad of subjects and of which many will detest. It requires little mental activity to conjure how this could be applied to a great many things which some would cause harm to society. Aside from that, there is the very real issue of the SC legislating from the bench. We now have a legislative branch which leaves many nonplussed and who seem to be unfit to their duty, we have an activist judicial acting extrajudicial. A nation of laws? How provincial, so antiquated. We have dictate. And we have slaves. Slaves connote master. The Republic has died.
History has proven repeatedly that the natural course of human behavior is some few seek ultimate power over the many. And it starts with blind obedience to all law and one saying they are not part of that other group so why should they worry.
FYI: I will not have a G+ or FB account so I use the anon option. My name is Richard and I am in California.