Thousands Rally in Support of Christian Clerks Who Refuse to Issue ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Thousands rallied on Saturday in support of three Kentucky clerks who are fighting for their religious rights not to violate their Christian convictions by issuing “marriage” licenses to homosexuals.

The Family Foundation of Kentucky organized the event, which included prayers, hymns and speeches by various state leaders and political candidates. Executive Director Kent Ostrander told the Lexington Herald Leader that the purpose of the rally was to support the First Amendment rights of clerks in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that states must legalize same-sex nuptials.

Quote from the judge ruling against the clerk:She may continue to attend church twice a weekOh, THANK YOU, judge! With such boundless generosity, how could a Christian clerk have any grievance with the state whatsoever??!!

:rotfl: LMAO.

The sad situation is that the main complainant (the woman who is the most outspoken), is a hypocrite. She is on her third or fourth marriage, yet is using the Bible to justify her decision to not issue marriage licenses. The other two people seem far more legit in their true beliefs. :rolleyes:


Yup. I wonder if this was the judge’s upper limit of permitted weekly worships.

When we were told that America would be transformed, we were not told that this meant a “transformation” of the Bill of Rights, most notably, the 1st Amendment.

Freedom of speech is now contingent upon which progressive client group claims offense.

Religious liberty is now relegated to permission to worship twice a week.


WHAT! No. She is a government official that must treat everyone equally. If she can’t do her job, she should resign.

You don’t like your job description, get another job.

Exactly. Civil marriage equality for both heterosexual and homosexual monogamous couples is the law of the land as it should be under civil law in a pluralistic society. And part of her job is to issue marriage licenses.

In this case, I think if the first person legitimately holds the belief that divorce is permissible but gay marriage is not, then that’s her belief. It’s not up to the state to determine the accuracy of her Biblical interpretations.

Personally, I would quit if I were her. It’s kind of like being a Dr and refusing to issue certain meds because of your belief, even though it technically is your job. That is why certain jobs are not good for Catholics and they should not enter the fields in the first place. Not that I don’t agree where she stands (I do) but with her job she either has to go with the flow or get out. Luckily, she can get out if she so desires, which is what I would do in her position.

That’s what the judge said. The judge said she could worship twice a week. He has no say in how often, where, or when the woman worships. Simply being a government official does not limit her right to exercise religious liberty.

Originally posted by Sy Noe
Exactly. Civil marriage equality for both heterosexual and homosexual monogamous couples is the law of the land as it should be under civil law in a pluralistic society. And part of her job is to issue marriage licenses.

Just so we understand the equal enforcement of laws: we’ve watched for years cities such as San Francisco violate the law of the US by acting as “sanctuary cities”. We’ve watched over the last few years the current president change and modify laws passed by Congress, choose to not enforce other laws, simply by use of his “pen and phone”. So, excuse me on the front end if I’m not very sympathetic with the “they have to enforce the law” complaint.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling regarding the issuing of same gender “marriage” licenses, and I believe that conservatives should not like like the progressives that flaunt the law from certain cities and the White House itself. They should enforce the law. They should further take their cause to the state legislature, insisting that the state cease recognition of marriage of any type. Marriage is historically a religious event, not a civil one.


At least not yet, but doctors are not government employees. If a doctor doesn’t believe a particular medicine is a violation of their religious beliefs, they are not obligated, technically or otherwise, to do so. They can send them to a different doctor.


So if the state gets out of the marriage business altogether, how would it be possible to establish whether a couple is married or not for purposes of inheritance or to establish certain responsibilities and rights that spouses have with respect to each other and their children, etc? If marriage is totally a religious event, should religions that permit polygamy be allowed to perform polygamous marriages? Should the state record any marriages such as they have been doing in Massachusetts, for example, for more than three centuries?

She is not necessarily a hypocrite. While divorce is certainly not good that doesn’t change the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. If one of her marriages was to a woman she would be a hypocrite.

Government doesn’t treat everyone equally. It has programs to promote certain groups. It has laws to protect certain groups.

What does inheritance have to do with marriage? What do children have to do with marriage? With the definition imposed by the courts these issues are irrelevant. Marriage from the state’s perspective is a legal love registry that exists to give people social acceptance.

Well, some doctors DO work for the government, or for secular employers who might have a problem with doctors who refuse to provide certain services. But certainly, a doctor has many more career options than a court clerk; many doctors are in “private practice”, essentially small business owners. Some doctors even work for Catholic hospitals (yes I know some are not really “Catholic” anymore but I doubt even those would force a doctor to violate his/her own religious beliefs).

Also, medicine is a very wide field. A Jehovah’s Witness might have trouble making a living as a surgeon or anesthesiologist, as many surgeries require blood transfusions. But a JW would have less trouble making it as a psychiatrist, for example.

I am torn about this. I suppose the issue is, is the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses, so essential to the job of county clerk, that someone opting out of doing so is incapable of effectively working in that position.

This is an interesting claim.

Where were you when the government in Colorado did not treat the beliefs of the Klein’s – with regard to marriage – as having equal merit with the beliefs of the gay couple?

No, the government official (I can find his name if you wish) fined the Kein’s $132, 000 (or thereabouts) merely for holding a belief about marriage which was at odds with the gay couple’s belief.


He sided with one couple over another and punished the couple he didn’t agree with for holding a different view from his. Speaking of NOT treating EVERYONE EQUAL – there you go!

He, too, should resign, then, according to YOU, yes?

That, just as this, wasn’t about equality. It was and is about two different views regarding what a marriage fundamentally is. And the government is not treating those two views and the people who hold them equally, as YOU claim it should.

Care to comment?

A government official should do the job that they are paid to do and which is part of their job description. If the job description for a county clerk includes issuing marriage licenses, then the person who holds that job must issue a license to all people who meet the requirements in the law for a marriage license. I doubt that the law or the job description gives a county clerk any discretion based on personal beliefs (religious or otherwise) to withhold a license from someone who meets the requirements for a license. It’s not just about equality, it’s about this clerk doing their job. If they can’t do their job, they should resign or be fired or be removed.

I suppose you are advocating a position that the government official ought to have no discretion in terms of conscience rights, then?

So if the existing law was to jail anyone who engages or promotes homosexual behaviour, you would be advocating that public servants ought to do their job with no right to raise objections regarding the rightness or wrongness of that law?

I agree, by the way, with the general sentiment that public servants ought to serve the public good, but when legitimate moral concerns are not properly addressed, this is when a justifiable right to be a conscientious objector kicks in.

A great deal of social change is occurring in most modern cultures, much of it “forced” and without any assurance whatsoever that the change will result in any real and lasting good for all of society. One SCOTUS judge is basically having his view imposed on the entire population of the United States, how is THAT just?

Many people across the United States disagree on the whole of idea of which view of marriage ought to prevail. The choice will have long lasting effect. At this moment, men and women of good will ought to voice their dissent long and loud so that one view does not prevail merely because it was the “forced” option.

People have certainly been conscientious objectors before, but they usually pay a price for doing so such as being sued, being fined, being arrested, losing their job, etc. If their beliefs are important enough to them and they are willing to pay that price, then no one can stop them. But they shouldn’t be surprised or expect that there will be no consequences.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit