Lesbian judge debate

327 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Lesbian judge debate

Lesbian Judge Refuses To Marry Straight Couples
Posted by UPTOWN on Feb 24, 2012

6

Courtesy of Loop21
A judge in Dallas, TX has found her teachable moment.
While speaking at an event earlier this week, Dallas County District Judge Tonya Parker told the audience:
?I`m sorry I don`t perform marriage ceremonies, because clearly the state does not have marriage equality and until it does I`m not going to partially apply the law to one group and not apply it to another group of people,? said Parker. ?It doesn`t seem right for me to perform ceremonies for people that can`t be performed for me.?
The video has gone viral and reaction to it is split.
More here http://uptownmagazine.com/2012/02/lesbian-judge-refuses-to-marry-straight-couples/?fb_ref=.T0gUqyUm1ow.like&fb_source=home_oneline

Support her? Legal? Great way to point out the inequality in America?

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

I'm not sure why anyone would need a judge to perform a marriage ceremony anyway. Almost any minister can perform it or if you don't want to go that route all you need is a JP and they are a dime a dozen.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 hours ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I'm not sure why anyone would need a judge to perform a marriage ceremony anyway. Almost any minister can perform it or if you don't want to go that route all you need is a JP and they are a dime a dozen.

California doesn't have justices of the peace. You can get married by a minister, and you can get married by a commissioned county clerk but only at their office. If you're not religious and/or if you want to get married somewhere other than the county building on a weekday, you get married by a judge.

Hats off to Judge Parker for standing up for her rights and everyone's right to marry the person they love. (See my siggie.)

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

This judge is in Texas, and since it is pretty easy to find a JP I doubt Judges perform very many marriage ceremonies anyway. So it is totally a publicity stunt but it doesn't make much of a statement here, especially since the Texas consitution has an amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

This judge is in Texas, and since it is pretty easy to find a JP I doubt Judges perform very many marriage ceremonies anyway. So it is totally a publicity stunt but it doesn't make much of a statement here, especially since the Texas consitution [sic] has an amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then her statement is especially poignant, given that that amendment is a breech of human rights.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I would support her decision to not do something against her beliefs. Just the same as I would support a pharmacist being against giving out RX's he was personally against.

fuchsiasky's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 959

I support her right to not do something against her beliefs, just like I support the right of officials to not have to marry gay people if they do not believe in it.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I would support her decision to not do something against her beliefs. Just the same as I would support a pharmacist being against giving out RX's he was personally against.

Judges are hired to make moral judgments, pharmacists are not.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"blather" wrote:

Judges are hired to make moral judgments, pharmacists are not.

Exactly. And I do NOT support the right of a pharmacist to not dole out prescribed medication.

And I was married by a judge. Lots of people are.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

Since it's a judge's job to interpret the law, I don't see this as out of line with her job requirements.

"Potter75" wrote:

Exactly.

And I was married by a judge. Lots of people are.

I was also married by a judge.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"blather" wrote:

Judges are hired to make moral judgments, pharmacists are not.

Judges are "hired" to make legal judgments, not moral ones based on their personal belief system. That being said, I don't think anyone (judge or otherwise) should have to marry a couple if they don't want to for whatever reason they may have.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

Judges are "hired" to make legal judgments, not moral ones based on their personal belief system. That being said, I don't think anyone (judge or otherwise) should have to marry a couple if they don't want to for whatever reason they may have.

Really? You would be okay with a judge saying "I choose not to perform inter racial marriages (Is that the right term? I feel like I'm bungling that?) ? Or "I won't marry any woman in a hajib"?

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"Potter75" wrote:

Really? You would be okay with a judge saying "I choose not to marry biracial couples"? Or "I won't marry any woman in a hajib"?

Sure. Everyone has the right to be an idiot. Not to mention their actions would pretty much guarantee they won't be re-elected.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"blather" wrote:

Judges are hired to make moral judgments, pharmacists are not.

No, judges are hired to interpret the law and then make decisions based on that.

I think she is out of line, if she wants the law changed then work with the legislative branch in your state to change it.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

"mom3girls" wrote:

No, judges are hired to interpret the law and then make decisions based on that.

I think she is out of line, if she wants the law changed then work with the legislative branch in your state to change it.

You don't think she's interpreting the law by saying she cannot apply it equally and fairly?

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Khaki" wrote:

You don't think she's interpreting the law by saying she cannot apply it equally and fairly?

No, if there was no law in Texas about who was legally allowed to marry then I it may be possible to say she couldnt apply it equally but now she is going against the laws set in place by the Texas legislature and that is wrong for a judge to do.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

The law in Texas is against the Constitution, so she is quite able to say that she will hold human rights and the Constitution against an immoral law.

That is, assuming, the US Constitution is the highest law in the land.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

I actually think she should have to marry straight people, as that is the current law, and a judge is a representative of the law.

If she were a minister, justice of the peace, someone who did civil ceremonies, or whatever else it is called, then she absolutely can marry (or not) whomever she wants.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 7 hours ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

It's not mandatory for judges to marry anyone in Tx. However, if it were I would expect repercussions for not performing a duty assigned to her. She doesn't have a moral reason for not performing them she just doesn't think it's fair that you have to have opposite genders for marriage in Tx. Since its not a Requirement for her job I think its a fantastic way of getting the inequality pointed out.

fuchsiasky's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/16/07
Posts: 959

"wlillie" wrote:

It's not mandatory for judges to marry anyone in Tx. However, if it were I would expect repercussions for not performing a duty assigned to her. She doesn't have a moral reason for not performing them she just doesn't think it's fair that you have to have opposite genders for marriage in Tx. Since its not a Requirement for her job I think its a fantastic way of getting the inequality pointed out.

IMO that is a moral reason.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 7 hours ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I'd feel differently if there was never a time when she'd perform marriages. She would, but only if she could do same-sex marriages. That rules out "moral" as a reason she won't do them. This is her trying to get publicity for her cause which is brilliant IMHO, but if she was required to perform them as part of her job, she'd have to do them unless she had a reason for not performing any marriage.

eta-It leaves it open to interpretation too much if you pick and choose when you are going to do your job. Like if a pharmacist who was anti-plan B gave it to only women over 25 because that is the arbitrary number he personally believed was the right number, but refused to give it to someone under 25. It's all or nothing; either you think it's immoral or you don't.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

. She doesn't have a moral reason for not performing them she just doesn't think it's fair that you have to have opposite genders for marriage in Tx.

IMO that is a religious person determining that people who aren't religious/don't have a book of arbitrary and apparently fluid rules which they may or may not follow somehow have no "moral" basis.

What do you mean (Lillie) that she has no moral basis? Your morals and hers are different........until you prove yours perfect or the one right way.....well,....I respect her having a moral conviction and sticking to it.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 7 hours ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Potter75" wrote:

IMO that is a religious person determining that people who aren't religious/don't have a book of arbitrary and apparently fluid rules which they may or may not follow somehow have no "moral" basis.

What do you mean (Lillie) that she has no moral basis? Your morals and hers are different........until you prove yours perfect or the one right way.....well,....I respect her having a moral conviction and sticking to it.

To the bolded: Get off it. This is getting old and makes you look silly.

to the other- I explained it. My morals' (which are independant of my religious beliefs!!! Why can't you get that? It's really not that hard of a concept) don't flip flop; either it's wrong or it's not. This judge is saying that it's wrong for her to marry straight couples but if she could marry homosexuals it wouldn't be wrong. That means it loses the value of being a "moral." She isn't "sticking to it."

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 7 hours ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

My mom (bless her heart) is a hippy. She wore a bandana the entire Gulf War (a sign of protest) because she believed the war was wrong (which was her morals). This judge is not marrying straight people (a sign of protest) because she believes (as do I so don't twist my words please) that it's wrong that she can't get married (her morals).

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Oops double post instead of edit, sorry!

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Sorry but I have no intention of "getting off it"! As long as people continue to try to take away rights from me and others and use their book as their reason, I will continue to point out ways in which they pick and choose obedience for themselves. As usual, you can feel free to put any poster on ignore, if someone's posts bother to the point where you have to continually curse and insult them, it actually seems ridiculous to consider continuing reading them. It isn't a very good testimony.

Starryblue702's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"fuchsiasky" wrote:

I support her right to not do something against her beliefs, just like I support the right of officials to not have to marry gay people if they do not believe in it.

This. One of the many wonderful things about living in a free country.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"blather" wrote:

The law in Texas is against the Constitution, so she is quite able to say that she will hold human rights and the Constitution against an immoral law.

That is, assuming, the US Constitution is the highest law in the land.

That has yet to be determined. Until then if she wants to keep her job she needs to do the job she is paid to do

If this were turned around and a straight judge was refusing to perform homosexual marriages I think people would be calling him/her all sorts of names, I dont see this as different

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

"mom3girls" wrote:

That has yet to be determined. Until then if she wants to keep her job she needs to do the job she is paid to do

If this were turned around and a straight judge was refusing to perform homosexual marriages I think people would be calling him/her all sorts of names, I dont see this as different

But that isn't at all what is happening...she's refusing to perform any marriages, not just straight marriages. If a judge in a state with marriage equality were to excuse themselves from performing all marriages because they felt marriage between gay couples was somehow unlawful or inequitable, then more power to them and to their constituents.

ETA: I do understand what you are saying, just disagree and think this falls exactly within her job description (the interpretation and equatable application of the law)

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Sorry but I have no intention of "getting off it"! As long as people continue to try to take away rights from me and others and use their book as their reason, I will continue to point out ways in which they pick and choose obedience for themselves. As usual, you can feel free to put any poster on ignore, if someone's posts bother to the point where you have to continually curse and insult them, it actually seems ridiculous to consider continuing reading them. It isn't a very good testimony.

Then you will continue to look silly trying to point out flaws in other's obedience to God and a book you don't even understand. I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE here that follows that book has said that they are not perfect and make mistakes EVERY DAY. There is a HUGE difference between trying to do the right thing to the best of your knowledge and making a mistake and willful disobedience.

And of course, we are supposed to put you on ignore so you will be free to insult and bash other's beliefs without being challenged. Not going to happen.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 9 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Are they *required* by law to perform them? If they are, then i think its reasonable to think there should be consequences.

If she is required by law....and the law says marriage is between a man and a woman....saying that that law is wrong is not 'interpretation'. That is disregarding the law because you think its wrong.

I think there are other routes for stating something is unconstitutional and trying to fix unconstitutional laws. But suggesting that you can just ignore laws that are in place under the guise of 'interpretation'....i think thats wrong.

And like i said, if there is no requirement for them to perform marriages...then IMO there is no issue here.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

Judges are not required to perform marriages in Texas (according to this anyway: http://www.theroot.com/gay-lesbian-texas-judge-straight-marriages), so it's hard to see an issue with her abstaining and making a statement about marriage inequality. If her constituents don't care for it, they don't have to reelect her.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 9 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"Khaki" wrote:

Judges are not required to perform marriages in Texas (according to this anyway: http://www.theroot.com/gay-lesbian-texas-judge-straight-marriages), so it's hard to see an issue with her abstaining and making a statement about marriage inequality. If her constituents don't care for it, they don't have to reelect her.

Yeah i can't see what the problem is then.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Then you will continue to look silly trying to point out flaws in other's obedience to God and a book you don't even understand. I'm pretty sure that EVERYONE here that follows that book has said that they are not perfect and make mistakes EVERY DAY. There is a HUGE difference between trying to do the right thing to the best of your knowledge and making a mistake and willful disobedience.

And of course, we are supposed to put you on ignore so you will be free to insult and bash other's beliefs without being challenged. Not going to happen.

Meh, based on some of your choices I could easily argue you don't understand it either Smile If you would like to point out examples of where I have bashed or insulted your beliefs, please do so, otherwise don't make wildly ridiculous statements. Thanks. I appreciate your kindhearted worry about me looking silly. I'm not worried about it. I would prefer to look silly than to look like a hypocrite or a bigot or someone who seeks to take rights away from other Americans.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

I agree with Kim, if the judge is not required to perform marriages, then she is free to make a statement of her morals/beliefs as she sees fit.

On a side note (since a prior poster brought it up), I certainly don't think a pharmacist should have the right to withhold the dispensing of drugs that he/she does not agree with. I think a pharmacist is required to dispense the drugs that the patient is prescribed.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 hours ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"mom3girls" wrote:

That has yet to be determined. Until then if she wants to keep her job she needs to do the job she is paid to do

If this were turned around and a straight judge was refusing to perform homosexual marriages I think people would be calling him/her all sorts of names, I dont see this as different

Actually, she is paid to be a judge and it seems that she's doing that job just fine. Her job description as a judge doesn't require her to marry anyone. As a judge, she is *allowed* to marry people, and those people pay her for that service.

When gay marriage becomes the law, a judge will NOT be able to refuse to marry gay people because that would be discrimination, just as they are not currently allowed to practice discrimination by refusing to marry interracial couples. A judge in that case could choose to not marry anyone at all, or to marry everyone who is legally able to be married, but you can't pick & choose because that's discrimination.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 hours ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Potter75" wrote:

Meh, based on some of your choices I could easily argue you don't understand it either Smile If you would like to point out examples of where I have bashed or insulted your beliefs, please do so, otherwise don't make wildly ridiculous statements. Thanks. I appreciate your kindhearted worry about me looking silly. I'm not worried about it. I would prefer to look silly than to look like a hypocrite or a bigot or someone who seeks to take rights away from other Americans.

:clappy:

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

Meh, based on some of your choices I could easily argue you don't understand it either Smile If you would like to point out examples of where I have bashed or insulted your beliefs, please do so, otherwise don't make wildly ridiculous statements. Thanks. I appreciate your kindhearted worry about me looking silly. I'm not worried about it. I would prefer to look silly than to look like a hypocrite or a bigot or someone who seeks to take rights away from other Americans.

You really expect me to quote all the posts where you have insulted people? I will let everyone judge that for themselves. Its funny how I am the bigot and hypocrite but it is not me who is always calling people names. Not sure how that helps any debate. You don't know me so I really don't know how you could have any idea what choices I have made.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I'm sure you can find places where I have insulted people. Your beliefs? Your faith? No. Your hypocracy? Yes.

I think that it is wonderful that you acknowledge how imperfect your enacting of your faith is. One would think that it would give you a lot more compassion for other people doing their best within their own religious or moral boundaries.

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Gloria-- I think, for me, the confusion comes from which "laws" or "standards" in the Bible people choose to follow and those that they disregard.

I will freely admit that I struggle with my own faith, but some of these paradoxes are the reason for my struggle.

Any quick survey of the Bible reveals all sorts of odd proclamations and instructions that don't sit well with my moral code.
Here are some quick examples:
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm
http://www.asylum.com/2008/02/20/the-weirdest-laws-in-the-bible-go-ahead-have-a-locust/

So when people try to make the law of the land based upon *anything* in the Bible-- I pause. Simply bc if we use the Bible as the basis for any law (instead of our Constitution), then what other things are we, as a nation, going to restrict? For that reason, I feel like it should be no part of any legal conversation.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"boilermaker" wrote:

Gloria-- I think, for me, the confusion comes from which "laws" or "standards" in the Bible people choose to follow and those that they disregard.

I will freely admit that I struggle with my own faith, but some of these paradoxes are the reason for my struggle.

Any quick survey of the Bible reveals all sorts of odd proclamations and instructions that don't sit well with my moral code.
Here are some quick examples:
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/laws.htm
http://www.asylum.com/2008/02/20/the-weirdest-laws-in-the-bible-go-ahead-have-a-locust/

So when people try to make the law of the land based upon *anything* in the Bible-- I pause. Simply bc if we use the Bible as the basis for any law (instead of our Constitution), then what other things are we, as a nation, going to restrict? For that reason, I feel like it should be no part of any legal conversation.

All those strange laws were from the old testament, which Jesus did away with when he died on the cross. Most of them are strange to us but may have made perfect sense at the time they were in effect. Thier customs and food sanitation and other practices were much different then. Jesus made it clear that those kinds of laws were no longer in effect when he purposely did things like heal on the sabbath and save a woman from stoning that had committed adultery. After all we are not still sacrificing animals are we?

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

Audra, I appreciate how kindly you put that, instead of tearing people down, which I don't think gets anyone anywhere. I could not access your first link because I'm at work and it came up as censored due to "Tasteless content" ha ha. However, I did take a look at the second link. I have of course seen this point brought up by many others. In that second link, every single verse that is quoted is from the Old Testament. The Old Testament Law, also known as the Mosaic Law, was fulfilled, and we (believers) are no longer bound to it. That's not to say that we ignore it all-together or that that part of the Bible is useless to us...of course it is a historical basis for much of what we believe. But we are not bound to any of those ceremonial laws anymore, such as "you can't wear wool with cotton" or "adulterers must be stoned" etc. Anyone who says we are I believe has a mistaken understanding of Old Testament and New Testament Law. I'm not going to comment on whether or not the Bible has any place in the making of laws, because I mostly just see arguing on this board, I don't see much of anyone paying much attention to what anyone else is saying so I'm not even going to get into anything further on this point. I just wanted to point out that the "paradoxes" you see, and that many are so quick to point out, are often pieces of the Old Testament Law that we are no longer bound to. I have tatoos and there is a verse in Leviticus about not tatooing your body. I have not chosen to ignore that verse....it simply does not apply anymore.

This is a good article on the subject:

http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament

Grace becomes an absolutely inseparable part of the believer’s life in Christ. In the coming of Christ and His death on the cross, the Mosaic Law as a rule of life was terminated. The believer is now to live in the liberty and power of God’s grace by the Spirit, not the rule of law. This new liberty must never be used as an occasion to indulge the flesh or sinful appetites (Gal. 5:13) nor does it mean the Christian has no moral law or imperatives on his life, but simply that he or she is to live righteously by a new source of life as asserted in Romans 8.

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Gloria-- some people are sacrificing animals still and using the Bible as their rationale. I'd be the first to say that they are extremists, but they exist. And it is another reason why I feel that the Bible has no place in our legal system or law. How I might interpret it vs how you interpret will surely be different.

And I know that some of that old testament stuff was about food production and safety-- but the parts about stoning people? Killing people? Really? Hard to defend the act of burning people to death for adultery, no? Even if that was the "old" law.....

And who is to say that the Bible trumps any other book of religion out there? Why not rely on Taoist teachings or the Koran? Or Buddha?

Just leave religion out of it, IMO.

Carrie- thanks for the other links. I've read them, but still find paradoxes. For example there are passages in the new testament that require that a woman wear a head covering to pray or be in a church ( 1 Corinthians)-- but we "disregard" that in most churches.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 9 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Also i've seen people refer to old testament vs. to support their arguments. So i think the "We dont' follow old testament" isn't really adequate. People do use the Old Testament and DO say "We don't need to follow this but we should follow that"

I'll make note of it next time it happens.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"KimPossible" wrote:

Also i've seen people refer to old testament vs. to support their arguments. So i think the "We dont' follow old testament" isn't really adequate. People do use the Old Testament and DO say "We don't need to follow this but we should follow that"

I'll make note of it next time it happens.

I agree Kim and will do the same. Especially given as how the 10 commandments are from the old testament, (the very, very old testament) and I see them referred to frequently both on here and by "Christian" politicians alike.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 9 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

the other thing i find hypocritical about following the bible is that those who follow it literally don't seek to make *EVERYTHING* bible related enforced by law. How come some things, its adeqaute to just follow yourself, instead of legally forcing others to follow the bible too. Yet others its not okay and you have to make everyone comply? Christian or not. Bible literalist or not.

SID081108's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: 06/03/09
Posts: 1348

"KimPossible" wrote:

the other thing i find hypocritical about following the bible is that those who follow it literally don't seek to make *EVERYTHING* bible related enforced by law. How come some things, its adeqaute to just follow yourself, instead of legally forcing others to follow the bible too. Yet others its not okay and you have to make everyone comply? Christian or not. Bible literalist or not.

I'm not sure that I entirely understand your question here, but for me it comes down simply to protecting the rights of those who cannot protect their own rights. While I believe that God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman, I do not feel as strongly about this issue because I don't feel that allowing same-sex marriage is necessarily detrimental to anyone. I will fight for the rights of the unborn, or as you might interpret it "forcing others to follow the bible" since it seems the concensus here is that caring about the lives of the unborn cannot be separated from ones religious beliefs. That does not make me hypocritical in the slightest. What it is is choosing my battles. And the battle I choose is the one that involves hundreds of thousands of babies that are needlessly dying each year.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Potter75" wrote:

I agree Kim and will do the same. Especially given as how the 10 commandments are from the old testament, (the very, very old testament) and I see them referred to frequently both on here and by "Christian" politicians alike.

The reason the 10 commandments are referred to is that those laws where things that both the Christians and Jews used as a base, since Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah and only believe in the old testament. The majority of people in the country when it was founded were either Jews or Christians, and this continues to be the case today. The commands that Jesus gave are actually more harsh, but he also gives us a way out with his grace.

Matthew
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 9 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

I actually can see an argument for *trying* to make abortion related laws because at the very least you can argue...relgious reasons or not that if you believe it is a life...you are trying to protect a person from harm. And we do create laws to protect people from harm.

I am more so thinking about same sex marriage rights. While you don't nec. believe it is law worthy, its obvious that plenty of people do...and do so in the name of religion.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The reason the 10 commandments are referred to is that those laws where things that both the Christians and Jews used as a base, since Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah and only believe in the old testament. The majority of people in the country when it was founded were either Jews or Christians, and this continues to be the case today. The commands that Jesus gave are actually more harsh, but he also gives us a way out with his grace.

Yes, I was replying thinking of this statement

"The Old Testament Law, also known as the Mosaic Law, was fulfilled, and we (believers) are no longer bound to it."

Since Carrie stated that she was a "bible believing christian" I'm guessing that she isn't Jewish. I also didn't realize that there was a large contingent of Jewish settlers in the founding of America. I would have thought that a majority (or at least more than Jewish people) would have been Native Americans at that time. I will have to read more about that, I guess.

ITA about the "way out" with grace. It is why I can't relate to or understand believers who believe that they themselves are saved through grace who then have such a hard time extending grace to others (say, Americans who love one another and want to marry, which in no way makes the believer sin or stumble or have to gouge out their eye or anything).

ETA: CArrie, Gloria, Lillie and other Christians, do you cover your head when you pray? I'm curious.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"KimPossible" wrote:

the other thing i find hypocritical about following the bible is that those who follow it literally don't seek to make *EVERYTHING* bible related enforced by law. How come some things, its adeqaute to just follow yourself, instead of legally forcing others to follow the bible too. Yet others its not okay and you have to make everyone comply? Christian or not. Bible literalist or not.

Actually I think it is the other way around. There were laws on the books enforcing many more things that were bible related, but these things have been slowly whittled away as people have grown further away from their religious values. Do you really think that is the choice of those who are religious?

It is actually a pretty recent development even for divorce to be easily obtainable. It started out in California and spread out across the country. Sounds familiar.

Yet it wasn't until the 1970s that the U.S. instituted no-fault divorces that were easily obtainable. The U.S. took the cue from the U.K., which spearheaded divorce reform legislature. Judges in the U.K. could simply issue a divorce decree when a couple's marriage was clearly irreparably damaged. California soon recognized the success of this approach and enacted its own law soon after. Laws like the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act soon spread across the country.

http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-History-Of-Divorce-In-The-US/971637

Pages