Already: Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

[carpro]

http://www.fox4news.com/story/29437...les?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples


A North Texas county clerk said she has no intention of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Hood County Clerk Katie Lang released a statement Tuesday saying that she agrees with Attorney General Ken Paxton's opinion on the Supreme Court's ruling.

"We find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to free exercise of religion and speech," she said.

Lang told the Texas Tribune that she was standing up for her religious liberty and that she believes "marriage is for one man and one woman because it did derive from the Bible."

 

[Zaac]

http://www.fox4news.com/story/29437...les?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples


A North Texas county clerk said she has no intention of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Hood County Clerk Katie Lang released a statement Tuesday saying that she agrees with Attorney General Ken Paxton's opinion on the Supreme Court's ruling.

"We find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to free exercise of religion and speech," she said.

Lang told the Texas Tribune that she was standing up for her religious liberty and that she believes "marriage is for one man and one woman because it did derive from the Bible."

Then fire her. The job of clerk demands that the person be able to do the job. She's saying she can't do the job.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

Then she is not doing her job.

Lang told the Texas Tribune that she was standing up for her religious liberty and that she believes "marriage is for one man and one woman because it did derive from the Bible."

Her religious liberty is not being violated unless she has misunderstood her job to be one of personally approving of all marriages. I suspect she is not closely examining heterosexual couples to determine if they are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy, and whether or not she believes that the union will be beneficial and long-lasting.

There's something called the rule of law. Public officials are bound to follow the law, not what is right in their own eyes.

 

[carpro]

Then fire her. The job of clerk demands that the person be able to do the job. She's saying she can't do the job.

Can't be fired. Religious freedom. 1st amendment. ETC

Plus she's an elected official. A recall won't work. She'd win.

The stage is set.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Can't be fired.

Sure she can. She can be removed from office for violating the civil rights of persons appearing before her.

Religious liberty cannot be a reason. SHE does not make the decision about whether or not to issue marriage licenses according to her beliefs. She makes them according to the law. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution - whether we like it or not - and it is now the law of the land unless it is overturned by the appropriate process.

A police officer cannot deny a person the right to travel down a road if they are obeying all of the laws and are traveling in a vehicle properly licensed and inspected based on his religious views. In the same way, an elected official who is there to ensure that things are being done legally cannot change the rules based on personal religious beliefs. Her religious rights end where the civil rights of the other person begin.

The stage is set.

The stage is set for a VERY hard slap down.

 

[Zaac]

Can't be fired. Religious freedom. 1st amendment. ETC

Issuing marriage licenses has nothing to do with her religious freedom. SHe is free religiously to feel however she wants. SHe just can't use that to discriminate in the Office of Clerk.

She was hired to do a job. And part of that job entails issuing marriage licenses. If she can't do it, then fire her behind.

Plus she's an elected official. A recall won't work. She'd win.

Then the Justice department needs to fine the County a million dollars a day until they comply with the law.

 

[Revmitchell]

http://www.fox4news.com/story/29437...les?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Hood County clerk won't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples


A North Texas county clerk said she has no intention of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Hood County Clerk Katie Lang released a statement Tuesday saying that she agrees with Attorney General Ken Paxton's opinion on the Supreme Court's ruling.

"We find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to free exercise of religion and speech," she said.

Lang told the Texas Tribune that she was standing up for her religious liberty and that she believes "marriage is for one man and one woman because it did derive from the Bible."

Good for her. No one needs to be issuing marriage licenses to justify sexual perversion.

 

[carpro]

Sure she can. She can be removed from office for violating the civil rights of persons appearing before her.

Just who do you think is going to do that? Not the Governor. Not the state legislature . And not the people of Hood County. The Federal government haqs no jurisdiction and cannot fire her or remove her , either.

The only people that would want her fired are those that put the laws of man ahead of the laws of God. Are you in that group?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Good for her. No one needs to be issuing marriage licenses to justify sexual perversion.

It's fascinating to see how many of you are all about the law - with no provision for mercy - when it comes to issues of immigration or other social issues, but when it comes to an issue where you don't agree with the law, you demand non-compliance.

Whether anyone likes it or not, those who experience same sex attraction and want to get married to a person of the same gender are also citizens of the United States and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities extended to all citizens.

Recognizing that fact does not constitute an endorsement of a marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Just who do you think is going to do that? Not the Governor. Not the state legislature . And not the people of Hood County. The Federal government haqs no jurisdiction and cannot fire her or remove her , either.

Actually the federal government has jurisdiction through the 14th Amendment. That is settled law. The 14th Amendment was written so that the civil rights of persons could not be abridged by the states. All persons born in the United States or are properly naturalized are citizens of the UNITED STATES, not just the states.

The only people that would want her fired are those that put the laws of man ahead of the laws of God. Are you in that group?

You're full of non sequiturs.

The laws of God and the laws of the United States are two different things. Recognizing someone's rights under the laws of the United States does not violate the law of God.

 

[Zaac]

Actually the federal government has jurisdiction through the 14th Amendment. That is settled law. The 14th Amendment was written so that the civil rights of persons could not be abridged by the states. All persons born in the United States or are properly naturalized are citizens of the UNITED STATES, not just the states.


You're full of ad hominems.

The laws of God and the laws of the United States are two different things. Recognizing someone's rights under the laws of the United States does not violate the law of God.

You're gonna ruin his argument. :laugh:

 

[carpro]

The laws of God and the laws of the United States are two different things. Recognizing someone's rights under the laws of the United States does not violate the law of God.

In your view. Because it excuses you putting the laws of man ahead of the laws of God.

Own it. Be proud of it. Don't deny it.

When push comes to shove, you won't stand up and be counted for God.

 

[Revmitchell]

The laws of God and the laws of the United States are two different things. Recognizing someone's rights under the laws of the United States does not violate the law of God.

This doesn't make sense.

 

[Baptist Believer]

In your view. Because it excuses you putting the laws of man ahead of the laws of God.

Ad hominem

Own it. Be proud of it. Don't deny it.

Ad hominem

When push comes to shove, you won't stand up and be counted for God.

Ad hominem

"I AM the way, the truth, and the life." - Jesus

If we are going to be like Jesus, we must use our words to reveal the way, tell the truth and foster life. Personal attacks and false allegations are not the way of Jesus.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This doesn't make sense.

Fair enough.

Let me try to explain:
Christians are obedient to the King and live in and extend the Kingdom of God. Christians also live in the world and are subject to earthly authorities and laws.

If a Christian takes a political office, they are bound to serve as a representative of that government.

As a Christian, I do not believe that Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's (sic) Witnesses, Christian (sic) Scientists (sic), Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are upholding God's standards (except perhaps incidentally) or pointing people to God. I still uphold the rights of those groups and individual adherents to worship in the way they choose. Within that shared liberty, I have the right to expound the truth as I understand it and influence others to see things the way I see them. However, I do not have the right to use the power and influence of the government (the power of the sword) to restrict or undermine their rights as citizens.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[carpro]

If she can judge, I certainly can. She's been issuing marriage licenses up to this point and didn't make mention that her "religion" would prevent her from issuing licenses to people who can legally get married.

She has misrepresented her ability to do her job. FIRE HER!!!

.

God says thou shall not lie. She misrepresented herself . So all we can tell from this is that you think God endorses lie.



All your out in the open wickedness from the past is agreeing with your current wickedness.



You're a unrepentant, wicked, wicked dishonorable man. And always have been wicked, wicked, wicked.

:laugh:

I know what the Bible says about homosexual sins and believe His laws take precedence over mans. You are failing that test spectacularly. Not only will you not stand against sin, you actively promote it and defend it.

And I'm the wicked one?

Right.

 

[carpro]

"I AM the way, the truth, and the life." - Jesus

If we are going to be like Jesus, we must use our words to reveal the way, tell the truth and foster life..

Let us know when you start doing that.

 

[Zaac]

:laugh:

I know what the Bible says about homosexual sins and believe His laws take precedence over mans. You are failing that test spectacularly. Not only will you not stand against sin, you actively promote it and defend it.

And I'm the wicked one?

Right.

Man all you're doing is showing that this is about your true god, politics. God's word doesn't say anything about any "gay marriage" being a homosexual sin. His law takes precedence over your desire to create a new sin.

Not only will you not stand against your own wicked sin, you create new sin because you want to make other folks guilty while you wallow in your own unrepentance.

Yes, you are indeed the wicked one.

 

[Revmitchell]

Fair enough.

Let me try to explain:
Christians are obedient to the King and live in and extend the Kingdom of God. Christians also live in the world and are subject to earthly authorities and laws.

If a Christian takes a political office, they are bound to serve as a representative of that government.

As a Christian, I do not believe that Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's (sic) Witnesses, Christian (sic) Scientists (sic), Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are upholding God's standards (except perhaps incidentally) or pointing people to God. I still uphold the rights of those groups and individual adherents to worship in the way they choose. Within that shared liberty, I have the right to expound the truth as I understand it and influence others to see things the way I see them. However, I do not have the right to use the power and influence of the government (the power of the sword) to restrict or undermine their rights as citizens.

Does that make sense to you?

We, as Christians, are not bound to laws that are contrary to God's specific commands. Even when we have a job.

 

[carpro]

God's word doesn't say anything about any "gay marriage" being a homosexual sin. His law takes precedence over your desire to create a new sin.

Priceless!

I wouldn't change a word if I were you.

You should make it your signature.