Judge to state clerks: Obey the Constitution!

[quietfan 233]

Wow!

So public officials should obey The Constitution of the United States--THE Supreme Law of the Land--rather than the words of a book written millennia ago that is so opaque even its own believers can't agree on what it says or means!? What a novel idea!

http://www.miamihera...cle5296830.html

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle ruled New Years Day that all Florida clerks are bound by the U.S. Constitution not to enforce Florida's gay marriage ban and that any couple seeking a license on Tuesday should receive one.

“The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants,” Hinkle wrote in an order released Thursday afternoon. “But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses.”

Said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida: “This is a New Years Day present from federal Judge Robert Hinkle — he has given Florida the roadmap to an orderly transition to being a state that treats all its people equally.”

“We are thankful that Judge Hinkle agreed with us that the Constitution does not tolerate discrimination and that, beginning Tuesday Jan. 6, all clerks in Florida have an obligation to issue marriage licenses to couples requesting them.

Simon said Hinkle’s “injunction has statewide impact because he found the law unconstitutional and therefore as we have been saying, no public official should be acting in accordance with an unconstitutional provision.”

[WarTim 3,456]

Hmmm. What "book" are you speaking of?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

[japantiger 4,051]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Yep.

[quietfan 233]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Yep.

I have no problem with individuals following the voice of their conscience as is their Constitutional right, provided: 1. They don't step on the rights of others, and 2. They freely take responsibility for any laws they break or acts of civil disobedience they commit, and accept the consequences thereof.

However, I believe all arms/branches of government as well as the persons they employ must answer to the Constitution in the conduct of official business. Not that it matters what I think: Legally the Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation, not the Bible, the Koran, "Atlas Shrugged", or "The Mother Earth Catalog". And the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection before the law to all persons...not just for all citizens, all Christians, or all heterosexuals.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

You should all listen to the quietfan. He is correct. Perhaps some of you aren't as far removed from the Westboro Baptist crowd as you would like to think.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Big difference. Jim Crow laws were unjust because they failed to provide equal justice under the law and were ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional. You're stating that anyone in a position of public trust should instead follow whatever his or her personal religious belief is. Should a police officer follow the penal code or his personal religious code? Laws prohibiting gay marriage also fail to provide equal justice under the law and will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Those opposed to Jim Crow were on the right side of history. What do you think the law of land will be in 40 years in regard to gay marriage?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Big difference. Jim Crow laws were unjust because they failed to provide equal justice under the law and were ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional. You're stating that anyone in a position of public trust should instead follow whatever his or her personal religious belief is. Should a police officer follow the penal code or his personal religious code? Laws prohibiting gay marriage also fail to provide equal justice under the law and will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Those opposed to Jim Crow were on the right side of history. What do you think the law of land will be in 40 years in regard to gay marriage?

I'm saying that we have a long history in this country of people standing up for what they believe to be morally right regardless of what was legal at the time. The law of the land said it was completely just to treat black people differently. The courts for many decades reaffirmed these laws. Some people disagreed and felt that legality did not equate to right or just and purposely began ignoring the law, blatantly disobeyed the law or disobeyed other laws as a form of protest.

For instance, in your example above...should a police officer have followed the penal code in Alabama circa 1960 and enforced laws regarding segregation or stood up for what was right based on his faith? I say the latter. An unjust, morally wrong law is no law at all.

These people believe that regardless of what modern thinkers have concocted regarding what marriage is, that legality and whatever the current winds of culture say do not equate to what is right or just. And they are acting accordingly. That you disagree with them on the matter is not the issue. The issue is, you don't get to affirm standing up for what they believe is right based on one's faith when it suits you, then castigate people for standing up for what they believe is right based on their faith when it doesn't.

[WarTim 3,456]

To borrow from Andy Griffith: a no swimming sign is posted by a lake. You pass by and see a child drowning. Obey the law or do the RIGHT thing and jump in and rescue the perishing?

[TexasTiger 12,835]

To borrow from Andy Griffith: a no swimming sign is posted by a lake. You pass by and see a child drowning. Obey the law or do the RIGHT thing and jump in and rescue the perishing?

Yep, Barney, that's right on point.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Big difference. Jim Crow laws were unjust because they failed to provide equal justice under the law and were ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional. You're stating that anyone in a position of public trust should instead follow whatever his or her personal religious belief is. Should a police officer follow the penal code or his personal religious code? Laws prohibiting gay marriage also fail to provide equal justice under the law and will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Those opposed to Jim Crow were on the right side of history. What do you think the law of land will be in 40 years in regard to gay marriage?

I'm saying that we have a long history in this country of people standing up for what they believe to be morally right regardless of what was legal at the time. The law of the land said it was completely just to treat black people differently. The courts for many decades reaffirmed these laws. Some people disagreed and felt that legality did not equate to right or just and purposely began ignoring the law, blatantly disobeyed the law or disobeyed other laws as a form of protest.

For instance, in your example above...should a police officer have followed the penal code in Alabama circa 1960 and enforced laws regarding segregation or stood up for what was right based on his faith? I say the latter. An unjust, morally wrong law is no law at all.

These people believe that regardless of what modern thinkers have concocted regarding what marriage is, that legality and whatever the current winds of culture say do not equate to what is right or just. And they are acting accordingly. That you disagree with them on the matter is not the issue. The issue is, you don't get to affirm standing up for what they believe is right based on one's faith when it suits you, then castigate people for standing up for what they believe is right based on their faith when it doesn't.

Do you not see that you are using a past example of unjust laws that denied people opportunities to justify someone choosing to ignore a law that provides an opportunity and instead denying that opportunity because of their personal disapproval? You're turning the concept on its head.

[cptau 169]

A interesting concept requiring elected and appointed government officials to obey the U.S. constitution. The federal elected officials should be the first to start complying.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Big difference. Jim Crow laws were unjust because they failed to provide equal justice under the law and were ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional. You're stating that anyone in a position of public trust should instead follow whatever his or her personal religious belief is. Should a police officer follow the penal code or his personal religious code? Laws prohibiting gay marriage also fail to provide equal justice under the law and will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Those opposed to Jim Crow were on the right side of history. What do you think the law of land will be in 40 years in regard to gay marriage?

I'm saying that we have a long history in this country of people standing up for what they believe to be morally right regardless of what was legal at the time. The law of the land said it was completely just to treat black people differently. The courts for many decades reaffirmed these laws. Some people disagreed and felt that legality did not equate to right or just and purposely began ignoring the law, blatantly disobeyed the law or disobeyed other laws as a form of protest.

For instance, in your example above...should a police officer have followed the penal code in Alabama circa 1960 and enforced laws regarding segregation or stood up for what was right based on his faith? I say the latter. An unjust, morally wrong law is no law at all.

These people believe that regardless of what modern thinkers have concocted regarding what marriage is, that legality and whatever the current winds of culture say do not equate to what is right or just. And they are acting accordingly. That you disagree with them on the matter is not the issue. The issue is, you don't get to affirm standing up for what they believe is right based on one's faith when it suits you, then castigate people for standing up for what they believe is right based on their faith when it doesn't.

Do you not see that you are using a past example of unjust laws that denied people opportunities to justify someone choosing to ignore a law that provides an opportunity and instead denying that opportunity because of their personal disapproval? You're turning the concept on its head.

I see that you believe marriage is a malleable concept that should be reshaped to open up new "opportunities" for whoever wishes to bring their particular relationship into it.

By what standard do you say it is 'unjust' to deny the definition and privileges of marriage to certain kinds of relational arrangements?

[TexasTiger 12,835]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Big difference. Jim Crow laws were unjust because they failed to provide equal justice under the law and were ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional. You're stating that anyone in a position of public trust should instead follow whatever his or her personal religious belief is. Should a police officer follow the penal code or his personal religious code? Laws prohibiting gay marriage also fail to provide equal justice under the law and will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Those opposed to Jim Crow were on the right side of history. What do you think the law of land will be in 40 years in regard to gay marriage?

I'm saying that we have a long history in this country of people standing up for what they believe to be morally right regardless of what was legal at the time. The law of the land said it was completely just to treat black people differently. The courts for many decades reaffirmed these laws. Some people disagreed and felt that legality did not equate to right or just and purposely began ignoring the law, blatantly disobeyed the law or disobeyed other laws as a form of protest.

For instance, in your example above...should a police officer have followed the penal code in Alabama circa 1960 and enforced laws regarding segregation or stood up for what was right based on his faith? I say the latter. An unjust, morally wrong law is no law at all.

These people believe that regardless of what modern thinkers have concocted regarding what marriage is, that legality and whatever the current winds of culture say do not equate to what is right or just. And they are acting accordingly. That you disagree with them on the matter is not the issue. The issue is, you don't get to affirm standing up for what they believe is right based on one's faith when it suits you, then castigate people for standing up for what they believe is right based on their faith when it doesn't.

Do you not see that you are using a past example of unjust laws that denied people opportunities to justify someone choosing to ignore a law that provides an opportunity and instead denying that opportunity because of their personal disapproval? You're turning the concept on its head.

I see that you believe marriage is a malleable concept that should be reshaped to open up new "opportunities" for whoever wishes to bring their particular relationship into it.

By what standard do you say it is 'unjust' to deny the definition and privileges of marriage to certain kinds of relational arrangements?

That's not my view. Your trying to take this in a different direction. Several courts have found that the recognition by the state of the legal joining of a couple of legal adults cannot be denied based on the gender of those two adults. That's the only legal issue at question here. And you did not answer my question.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

This isn't like you, quiet. I would think that you know Christians believe that for them, when the Scriptures and the law of the land conflict, they are bound to follow a higher law than the Constitution. And such an attitude has inspired those you agree with and those you disagree with. When Jim Crow laws and other unjust laws were the law of the land, people chose to engage in civil disobedience and follow the dictates of their faith over what the laws of their state or the US said.

Big difference. Jim Crow laws were unjust because they failed to provide equal justice under the law and were ultimately deemed to be unconstitutional. You're stating that anyone in a position of public trust should instead follow whatever his or her personal religious belief is. Should a police officer follow the penal code or his personal religious code? Laws prohibiting gay marriage also fail to provide equal justice under the law and will be deemed to be unconstitutional. Those opposed to Jim Crow were on the right side of history. What do you think the law of land will be in 40 years in regard to gay marriage?

I'm saying that we have a long history in this country of people standing up for what they believe to be morally right regardless of what was legal at the time. The law of the land said it was completely just to treat black people differently. The courts for many decades reaffirmed these laws. Some people disagreed and felt that legality did not equate to right or just and purposely began ignoring the law, blatantly disobeyed the law or disobeyed other laws as a form of protest.

For instance, in your example above...should a police officer have followed the penal code in Alabama circa 1960 and enforced laws regarding segregation or stood up for what was right based on his faith? I say the latter. An unjust, morally wrong law is no law at all.

These people believe that regardless of what modern thinkers have concocted regarding what marriage is, that legality and whatever the current winds of culture say do not equate to what is right or just. And they are acting accordingly. That you disagree with them on the matter is not the issue. The issue is, you don't get to affirm standing up for what they believe is right based on one's faith when it suits you, then castigate people for standing up for what they believe is right based on their faith when it doesn't.

Do you not see that you are using a past example of unjust laws that denied people opportunities to justify someone choosing to ignore a law that provides an opportunity and instead denying that opportunity because of their personal disapproval? You're turning the concept on its head.

I see that you believe marriage is a malleable concept that should be reshaped to open up new "opportunities" for whoever wishes to bring their particular relationship into it.

By what standard do you say it is 'unjust' to deny the definition and privileges of marriage to certain kinds of relational arrangements?

That's not my view. Your trying to take this in a different direction. Several courts have found that the recognition by the state of the legal joining of a couple of legal adults cannot be denied based on the gender of those two adults. That's the only legal issue at question here. And you did not answer my question.

But we didn't disagree about what is legal. We are disagreeing about what is 'right.' And as long as there have been governments with laws, people have chosen to follow the dictates of their consciences rather than the law when the two were in conflict and they didn't feel the two could be reconciled. That you like when people did it in one instance and not in another doesn't make them dissimilar. That you think one corrected an injustice while the other ostensibly keeps an injustice does not negate it either because you have no higher moral ground to stand on to assert this is an actual right being denied than they do in saying it is no right at all.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

Did you agree with Judge Moore putting the 10 Commandments in the Court?

[WarTim 3,456]

To borrow from Andy Griffith: a no swimming sign is posted by a lake. You pass by and see a child drowning. Obey the law or do the RIGHT thing and jump in and rescue the perishing?

Yep, Barney, that's right on point. ;)/>

How would you know Goober? Bwahaha

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Did you agree with Judge Moore putting the 10 Commandments in the Court?

It wasn't a big issue one way or the other to me. I also don't see anything in Scriptures commanding us to do so in our courts of law.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

The Bill of Rights center on individual rights, not views of religious morality. Many things the bible speaks of as sin are not prohibited by law. Any church is free to choose which civil marriages it recognizes for any religious purpose.

In regard to civil disobedience, anyone who practices it should be prepared for the consequences. The strategy behind it is that the absolute rightness of your position will become clear to others and the consequences for your disobedience will diminish . Society came to see the injustice of Jim Crowe laws. I don't see that same dynamic relieving government officials of their duties in regard to granting marriage licenses to same sex couples.

[WarTim 3,456]

Marriage is defined by the ONE who created the institution. Any questions? Ask Him...

[TexasTiger 12,835]

Marriage is defined by the ONE who created the institution. Any questions? Ask Him...

WarTim comes down clearly in the theocracy camp. Noted without surprise .

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The Bill of Rights center on individual rights, not views of religious morality. Many things the bible speaks of as sin are not prohibited by law. Any church is free to choose which civil marriages it recognizes for any religious purpose.

In regard to civil disobedience, anyone who practices it should be prepared for the consequences. The strategy behind it is that the absolute rightness of your position will become clear to others and the consequences for your disobedience will diminish . Society came to see the injustice of Jim Crowe laws. I don't see that same dynamic relieving government officials of their duties in regard to granting marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Understood. And those who sat at lunch counters, refused to give up seats on public transportation and so on did accept the consequences. I imagine a lot of folks will likewise refuse to compromise their convictions on this matter. All I'm saying is, it's hypocritical to praise conscientious objection when it's regarding a matter you agree with then criticize it when it's employed with a view you do not.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

The Bill of Rights center on individual rights, not views of religious morality. Many things the bible speaks of as sin are not prohibited by law. Any church is free to choose which civil marriages it recognizes for any religious purpose.

In regard to civil disobedience, anyone who practices it should be prepared for the consequences. The strategy behind it is that the absolute rightness of your position will become clear to others and the consequences for your disobedience will diminish . Society came to see the injustice of Jim Crowe laws. I don't see that same dynamic relieving government officials of their duties in regard to granting marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Understood. And those who sat at lunch counters, refused to give up seats on public transportation and so on did accept the consequences. I imagine a lot of folks will likewise refuse to compromise their convictions on this matter. All I'm saying is, it's hypocritical to praise conscientious objection when it's regarding a matter you agree with then criticize it when it's employed with a view you do not.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are potential conscientious objections some may take that you would quickly take issue with.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

The Bill of Rights center on individual rights, not views of religious morality. Many things the bible speaks of as sin are not prohibited by law. Any church is free to choose which civil marriages it recognizes for any religious purpose.

In regard to civil disobedience, anyone who practices it should be prepared for the consequences. The strategy behind it is that the absolute rightness of your position will become clear to others and the consequences for your disobedience will diminish . Society came to see the injustice of Jim Crowe laws. I don't see that same dynamic relieving government officials of their duties in regard to granting marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Understood. And those who sat at lunch counters, refused to give up seats on public transportation and so on did accept the consequences. I imagine a lot of folks will likewise refuse to compromise their convictions on this matter. All I'm saying is, it's hypocritical to praise conscientious objection when it's regarding a matter you agree with then criticize it when it's employed with a view you do not.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are potential conscientious objections some may take that you would quickly take issue with.

Possibly. But I don't think the differences in the two we've been discussing are so great that the selective outrage is warranted.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

The Bill of Rights center on individual rights, not views of religious morality. Many things the bible speaks of as sin are not prohibited by law. Any church is free to choose which civil marriages it recognizes for any religious purpose.

In regard to civil disobedience, anyone who practices it should be prepared for the consequences. The strategy behind it is that the absolute rightness of your position will become clear to others and the consequences for your disobedience will diminish . Society came to see the injustice of Jim Crowe laws. I don't see that same dynamic relieving government officials of their duties in regard to granting marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Understood. And those who sat at lunch counters, refused to give up seats on public transportation and so on did accept the consequences. I imagine a lot of folks will likewise refuse to compromise their convictions on this matter. All I'm saying is, it's hypocritical to praise conscientious objection when it's regarding a matter you agree with then criticize it when it's employed with a view you do not.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there are potential conscientious objections some may take that you would quickly take issue with.

Possibly. But I don't think the differences in the two we've been discussing are so great that the selective outrage is warranted.

I've pointed out that I think your logic fails, I don't think I've expressed anything approaching outrage-- I know I haven't intended to.