Clerk refuses order to marry gay couple - do your job or quit!

She's not being asked to marry people, it's just paperwork.

They are the gay community that wrote the gay manifesto in the 1980, the militant one.

By the way, if this lady is being hauled into a Federal Court will the same be done to those that don't in force immigration laws?

Apparently some but not all. Steinle, the dead woman in San Frannie, family is suing San Frannie.

Others may need hauling in, ahem ...

Riverdale Runner wrote:

She's not being asked to marry people, it's just paperwork.

^this.

People who argue that providing a marriage license (or taking photographs or baking a cake or making a pizza, etc) is an expression of their religion are essentially saying every interaction / buisness transaction in our society falls under the domain of religion. There is a term for a society in which religion dictates all civil interactions, theocracy. Basically this women is arguing the U.S. should be more like Iran and Saudi Arabia--countries in which all aspects of life need to conform to religious teaching. She is not courageous, she is misguided. They only institutions / people in this country that can reasonably make arguements along these lines are those that are "in the buisness of religion" (i.e. Churches, Temples, Mosques, Rabbis, Priests, Imams, etc.). While I personally disagree with religious teachings that preach discrimination, I do agree that based on US law those whose business is actually Religion should not have to violate their (misguided) beliefs by officiating same sex marriages. Outside of that one specific exception, it is illogical to argue a buisness / civil transaction is a religious act unless you are going to simultaneously argue that the U.S. should be a Christian theocracy.

you made your bed libs wrote:

Liberals are standing in moral quicksand here. The Obama Administration has set precedence when it comes to not enforcing laws. Obama ignores immigration law and all manner of Constitutional Authority. Under subpoena, the IRS simply ignores court orders then destroys their harddrives without impunity. Same with Obama's State Department. Hillary Clinton keeps classified materials on her own server, then refuses to comply with court orders, finally relenting only when an FBI raid is imminent. Of course, she wipes her harddrive clean before the FBI gets to her server.

If liberals were outraged at the lawless behavior of their own then they'd have a point at forcing a low level county court to obey a law that she doesn't like -- like Obama and Clinton.

THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

One man, one woman wrote:

A man cannot "marry" another man any more than a man can impregnate another man. Biological reality has to come into play. We have to stop pretending that same-sex attraction is normal, because it isn't. It is abnormal, it is unnatural. It is no different than a man being sexually attracted to a child or to a goat. It is not what nature intends.

As far as SCOTUS is concerned, they have no Constitutional authority to redefine the meaning of a word - they cannot redefine "marriage" any more than they can redefine the meaning of "adoption". Nor should the federal government have ANY say at all over what is a non-governmental institution. The SCOTUS ruling is invalid, and citizens have a right to resist it and ignore it.

"It is not what nature intends"?!? Seriously? Who is this "nature" person whose intentions you speak of? And when did you last chat with them about their intentions?

The rest of your post is even worse. Sad really.

I believe she should either issue the licenses or quit her job. I also think Gavin Newsome's (when he ordered the issuance of marriage licenses in SF to same-sex couples) should have been thrown in jail.

RacistX wrote:

I believe she should either issue the licenses or quit her job. I also think Gavin Newsome's (when he ordered the issuance of marriage licenses in SF to same-sex couples) should have been thrown in jail.

I am not going to disagree with you on either point but do you view these situations as equivalent (i.e. each individual in their capacity as a civil servant is not upholding the law of the land)? Because I do think that is a reasonable / rational. If you agree, then shouldn't the consequences be the same? In other words, shouldn't she go to jail?

Bravo for a courageous woman wrote:

Stuff it. She's got courage to stand up for her beliefs. You're just a punk hiding on a message board.

It sounds like she hasn't issued ANY marriage licenses since gay marriage was legalized. That doesn't sound like standing up for her belief in man/woman marriage. Then she apparently hides in her office all day when the media shows up and lets the staff deal with the circus she creates. What courage!

Anyone on here live near this place? I'm curious if the majority of the community and the rest of the state is behind her.

Bravo for a courageous woman wrote:

Stuff it. She's got courage to stand up for her beliefs. You're just a punk hiding on a message board.

This kid is a putz.

not really wrote:

Anyone on here live near this place? I'm curious if the majority of the community and the rest of the state is behind her.

And with that logic.Then Rowan County, Kentucky's tax collector, the sheriffs , the schools are all in collusion or cohoots too. Isn't the US Inspector Generals

office responsible for auditing "Rowan County" officials? Who knows if they are missapropriating public funds? And aren't their names and addresses public record so that they can be audited?