General Discussion

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)

48. I agree... Clerks are employees of the county/state.

Fri Jan 23, 2015, 10:00 AM

Jan 2015

There personal beliefs don't come in to it.

It's simple, if your personal ethics don't allow you to perform the job, you are unfit for that job.

What's next... judges who refuse to sentence wife-beaters because they believe the Bible mandates physical punishment of the wife by the husband?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK-End of civil marriage [View all] blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 OP

Here's a question. If the church becomes the agent of the state, will it have to comply... Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2015 #1

With respect to marriage, it already is. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #42

Depends on what is required to be an officiant. jeff47 Jan 2015 #65

Not sure what you're saying. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #69

And I'm saying if they added an easy-to-get non-religious officiant license jeff47 Jan 2015 #71

That already exists - Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #72

Idiot. silverweb Jan 2015 #2

He knows that - it's the county clerks that he is worried about. Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #37

I understand that. silverweb Jan 2015 #66

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. n/t Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #68

Lots of religions will perform same-sex marriages. Unitarians for one. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #3

Yep pipi_k Jan 2015 #50

The Assemblies of God was founded a century ago and was integrated and had women pastors on day 1. LeftyMom Jan 2015 #4

I wish they would just give it. marym625 Jan 2015 #5

Makes no sense. That is already a reality in my county. Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #6

That is beyond disgusting. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #7

Yup! I could even use my G-d! Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #10

LMFAO! beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #13

It is a great way to make money. Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #15

Sounds like the perfect wedding. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #19

Not boring, really. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #28

You hit the nail on the head davidpdx Jan 2015 #33

You owe me a new keyboard! Jamastiene Jan 2015 #27

Congrats on your marriage, but how is that requirement not a violation of freedom of religion, which merrily Jan 2015 #9

Trust me. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #29

It is a violation. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #45

That's a violation of the first amendment. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #44

Taking that to court, it would have to be found unconstitutional treestar Jan 2015 #59

I thought it was gays, not RW whackos, who were supposed to undermine marriage? merrily Jan 2015 #8

I am not sure, to be honest. It threw us for a loop. Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #11

I got it was meant for my reply to you. It fits both my posts anyway. merrily Jan 2015 #12

What a nice reply! Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #17

Thanks. And I never sugar coat, either. If I say something and there is no sarcasm emote, merrily Jan 2015 #18

If you want hooman kids I'm available for adoption. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #14

You cook and clean? Behind the Aegis Jan 2015 #16

No, but I'm cute and loyal. beam me up scottie Jan 2015 #20

Negative. That would place churches in charge of part of civil government. silvershadow Jan 2015 #21

Question: Does a civil marriage have the same benefits as a formal marriage? sakabatou Jan 2015 #22

A civil marriage is a formal marriage, in the USA muriel_volestrangler Jan 2015 #23

Yes all legal marriages are equally valid as long as ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #24

Got it. sakabatou Jan 2015 #67

Just more proof that the religious in America have no interest in living in a secular society ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #25

You can finally have your satanist marriage!!! DetlefK Jan 2015 #26

The correct answer quaker bill Jan 2015 #30

And so athiests, agnostics, and those who are spiritual but not aligned to a religion cannot marry? peacebird Jan 2015 #31

We got married in a courthouse Bettie Jan 2015 #36

I was married at the court house too. Adrahil Jan 2015 #46

One of our right wing relatives Bettie Jan 2015 #52

I'd have a hard time resisting too.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #53

Yep. And that's exactly why I cringe whenever anyone says government has no business in marriage. kcr Jan 2015 #38

And HOW quickly would this be declared unconstitutional? jmowreader Jan 2015 #32

Pretty much instantaneously. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #47

Unconstitutional MohRokTah Jan 2015 #34

Paging the Church of Satan... brooklynite Jan 2015 #35

Clearly we need another one of those polls to find out how oppressed religious people feel. Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #39

Here's a copy of the proposed amendment el_bryanto Jan 2015 #40

The author of the law says the reason for it is to 'protect' clerks from 'having to issue' licsences Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #41

I agree. nt el_bryanto Jan 2015 #43

I agree... Clerks are employees of the county/state. Adrahil Jan 2015 #48

actually, refusal to prosecute men who beat their wives because the Bible allows it was the common Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #61

Sadly true. n/t Adrahil Jan 2015 #62

That is actually an interesting twist. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #49

The counter loophole is what is the legal definition of a common law marriage in Oklahoma el_bryanto Jan 2015 #55

Not much, actually - Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #56

Will two men or two women be allowed legally to hold themselves out to the community el_bryanto Jan 2015 #57

I don't recall the status of Oklahoma - Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #60

...to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least... ret5hd Jan 2015 #51

You may be right - there is a section later on dealing with faiths that have no ordained clergy el_bryanto Jan 2015 #54

Gee, the poor clerks treestar Jan 2015 #58

My opinion is, if a clerk feels they are unable to perform the duties of their office, ladyVet Jan 2015 #63

If I were an LGBT person, I'd have left Oklahoma long, long ago. MineralMan Jan 2015 #64

I tried to register a common-law straight marriage in Texas and was refused. Manifestor_of_Light Jan 2015 #70