In response to Baptist Believer. You listed examples of protection. You have gave examples of harm being prevented or minimized on humans. Your Mormon example makes no sense. Did Christ ever tell us we should not allow pagan's to meet?
Actually, they were intended to demonstrate allowing and protecting the civil and citizenship rights of others. Allowing Mormons to meet unmolested is a First Amendment right.
Issuing a marriage license is a stumbling block, not love. It creates a sense of "right" out of sin.
I think the "sense of right" is present long before two same sex partners decide to become exclusive to one another. What a civil marriage does is create a state-recognized bond that has right, privileges, and responsibilities attached to it.
I do not think the government should have EVER gotten involved in defining what is legally called marriage. In my opinion, all married couples should have civil unions recognized by the state with marriages reserved for religious institutions of various types. Unfortunately, prohibitions against persons of different ethnicities joining in marriage, as well as "Protection of Marriage" legislation securely placed the definition of marriage in the government's hands.
So, if county clerk's are convicted not to issue the license, then they shouldn't. They should make a stand.
I agree. That stand should be to resign instead of violating the law.
A better example would be, if the supreme Court issued licenses for adultery, would we support that?
I would not support it. Adultery and promiscuity of all kinds destabilizes relationships and all of society. But the issue here is not whether or not one "supports" a law, but rather, will one - as an agent of the government who is hired to properly and fairly administer the law - will act properly and legally.
Moreover, adultery is the breaking of a social contract, so it does not make much sense to give a license to the breaking of a social contract. The granting of a petition of divorce would actually be a better example. I support granting divorces within certain guidelines.
If the Supreme Court issued a license for an orgy, would we support that?
I'm assuming you are referring to a sexual orgy. I would not support that either. Again, that would fall under the same principle behind the prohibition of promiscuity and adultery - the destabilization of relationships. That's why God hates divorce, among other things. Yet Moses allowed it, Jesus allowed it, and our governments allow it.
But you need to realize that if you are going to act as an agent of one of the kingdoms of this world, you are obligated to administer the laws of that kingdom. I realize that in the afterglow of this weekend's fireworks, that many Christians can't seem to distinguish between the kingdoms of this world (namely the U.S.) and the kingdom of God which is present among us.
If the Supreme Court issued a license for beastiality would we support that.
Obviously not.
