09-22-2015, 12:33 PM
(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obviously the lady in Kentucky feels differently .
And she is wrong. When your are a government official, your signature on a document like that has nothing to do with your personal views, only that the marriage is legal and valid according to the laws of the state. If she has a problem with stating something like that, then she should not be in the job she is in. No one is forcing her to be in that position.
(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you were right then the bakers from Oregon wouldn't have lost everything. the gov should not be forcing social beliefs on people.
Nondiscrimination laws and the legalization of SSM are two separate issues. I'm asking you about the legalization of SSM.
(09-22-2015, 10:19 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need a gov marriage. Explain to me why we need one?
It's been explained to you, a number of times, on the old board. Marriage is very much a legal contract and so will always have government involvement. But, all of that doesn't answer my question. You stated government being involved in marriage restricts what we can and cannot do. Can you expand on that?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
